stephan huller

Tjitze Baarda is a personal friend and he told me about an article he contributed to a Festschrift published by Brill ( ‘Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology’, Suppl. Novum Testamentum vol. 149, Leiden/Boston, 2013) presented to his successor Martin de Boer. The article is on an important textual variation with respect to John 3:13 - but the variant is ignored by many commentary. Let me give the back story to the article.

Shortly after the publication of the Revised Version of the New Testament in 1881, the Dean of Chichester, John William Burgon, took the so-called Revisers to task. He could not overlook their decision with respect to John 3:13:

After a survey of the textual evidence, Burgon concludes with that indignant tone so peculiar for this great scholar:

As Baarda notes the deletion of the pertinent clause “which is in heaven” was for the first time introduced in any official edition of the New Testament by Westcott and Hort. Burgon, at least, refers to the editions of Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf, in order to demonstrate that good textual critics had maintained the pertinent reading in their texts. “In short, [it] is quite above suspicion: why are we not told that?,” he sighed, neglecting the fact that Tischendorf had omitted the clause in his well-known Synopsis of 1864. After 1881 the longer text was still reproduced in the editions of Souter, Lagrange, and Vogels, and—of course—also in the more recent editions of the so-called Majority Text. However, one may fairly say that the short text has now been generally accepted as the original wording of John 3:13.

Baarda however concludes that the longer text - one which emphasizes the heavenly nature of Jesus is probably the more original. Here is his conclusion, one which rightly brings us back to the circumstances of Jacob at Bethel - i.e. Gerizim:

stephan huller

Here is an example of the passage which Baarda overlooked. It is from the Dialogue of Adamantius with Marinus, a follower of Bardesanes

The words in brackets are only found in Rufinus's Latin text. Nevertheless it shows how the passage was used. One could also argue that Marinus seems to imply that the apostle had a gospel even though he is not strictly speaking a Marcionite. The two groups seemed to have shared the same understanding.

Chili

You should tell them that Christ was born and not Jesus. That is like saying the omega already was in heaven and he came down for nothing.

Note that for the omega to be one with the alpha, it is not Jesus who came down from heaven but John, who is the alpha-boy here.

And the Son of Man is not the serpent who in the Gospels are known as Mary and Mary Magdalena as those active in Gen.3:15, striking from the TOL to the TOK to Adam as outsider to it.

. . . and it is only that Magdalene is close like 'married' to us that we do not know her and will swear high and low that we do have free will, wile in fact we are driven by her and the woman above her.

Chili

OK, then let me explain, wherein down from heaven means to have existence in heaven from where it was God-send, and I use captials here to show pertaining to the animos as man, with the anima pertaining to the soul of man that is the wherewithal of God and Jesus is not part of that in the same way as the first Adam was not part of it, and was banned from Eden on account of that.

Here is how that went. Adam was created by conjecture [only] to exist in the conscious mind of man after his eyes were opened so he could see for himself and know what is good and bad, consciously, and would built his persona on the blank slate that he was as outsider to the animos inside the TOK wherein he is outsider to the TOL where the woman was the anima of the animal called man.

He took Eve to be his wife and parted company with the animos, now as rational animal to whom also pleasure and pain is, but also shame which is made know with the fig-leave episode that was not prior to this co-existence in the TOK. Cf 2:25 here where they were naked to wit and felt no shame.

So established here is that Adam was not the man, but the caricature that we call human now as earthly man beside the animal as man, who really does not know his own genus until the son is reborn in him, and that was Christ who so is the Son of Man and not the human identity that Adam was. This so confirms Adam an outsider to whom pleasure and pain is known, and that includes desire to get more of the same in an increasingly greater variant that so is known as estrangement from the animal man he really is.

This estrangement is made known in the enmity in and by the offspring between the serpent and the woman, wherein the greater serpent (the woman here) strikes at the head of the lesser serpent who 'this' so called Adam took to be his wife when they parted company, and they left Eden for his own good so he could make a name for himself and someday soon write his own CV and be admired for his PhD, or two or three.

The second Adam now is also created by conjecture in the same way as the first (or he would not be called the second), with the only difference that Eve is no longer part of the scene, or plot, wherefore the night was dark as if the sun had stopped that so removed the shine of life as perceived by the outsider to his own self.

Now since the woman (greater serpent here) always was the primary cause of his desire and subsequent achievements as earthling down below, it is also her retrieve that took the shine of life away from him (Lk.1:25), in accordance to a promise she had made when she saw that the TOK was good for 'gaining' wisdom the be retained by her in the TOL, and so really it was her aim to get the most of him until she gets the best of him and then makes an appearance herself to eliminate the in-between that Eve was known to be as temple-tramp, who so was his light by day so he could see, consciously, and know the difference between what was good and bad for Her, here now capital as insider who [still] presides over the TOL of the animos, who only needs the outsider in the TOK to do the [dirty] work for Him.*

So here now, it is by the appearance of her own self in the TOK that She annihilated Eve (the greater serpent consumes the lesser serpent), that so enticed metanoia to begin wherein a return to Eden is the reason for the re-creation of the second Adam here now to be the insurrectionist and 'it' is he who is called Jesus in the Gosples, who She, Mary [here now by name] is directing with 'telic vision' towards that end, of which the crucial component is that Eve is no longer is part of the direction (desire), and hence Jesus is either sinless or he is not, that so makes Mary virgin without human interference in the mind of the now so called Jesus.

In the profane we can call Mary 'piper' now to give him telic vision, still in charge of his direction (called Bethany in the Gospels), instead of blowing him as passage reader who never will get to the end as pied piper himself, which then will be where Jesus is crucified when everything is said and done.

* He is Man here as the animos in charge who's hand-maiden She is.

Chili

Bottom line?

Just as there is an Adam in each of us, so is there a Jesus in each of us and for him to be called, a stream [of consciouness] entrance is needed.

In Buddhism they would call him a Sotapanna, I think, and the Arahant would be their Christ, and do you really think they have an arahant 'up there' someplace?

Iow, Jesus is just the first stage of enlightenment and he becomes the Arahant and then no longer is the sotapanna who got this bright idea bestowed on him.