Cesc

I would say that Jesus is the flesh in which the Word became incarnated.
Obviously there is a difference in gJohn between the "son" and the "father," even though they "are one." So, it's complicated. You could say that Jesus is one aspect of God, or one manifestation if you will.

In the beginning was the λογος, not Jesus. Is the πνευμα (the spirit) the carrier of the λογος? It is in stoicism I've been told, so it would make sense here as well. At a particular point in history according to gJohn the πνευμα came down upon Jesus and "remained" there, or "stayed" there (ἔμεινεν John 1:32.) So does it leave him again? Does he pass it on to the disciples? It would seem so.
Furthermore, it can be argued that the best translation of John 1:1 is "... and the λογος was divine."

Yes, Jesus is the God's son, but they're also one? It's complicated.

I'm sorry!

MrMacSon

With the interpolations I have added, one can understand how the myth-stories developed.


But 'literalisms' such as this - imply truth to the narratives.

"that Jesus is the flesh in which the Word became incarnated" is an illogical statement: it contains a category error or errors - flesh is not 'word', and "incarnated" is an unrealistic proposition. "incarnated" is a hypostatisation fallacy.


The religion gives nonsensical propositions such as this -

Cesc

Are you saying I should be more careful and remember to add "according to gJohn", or have you misunderstood and think I'm arguing from a Christian point of view?

MrMacSon

You had put in the "according to gJohn". I faded it to diminish the authority you seemed to give gJohn.

Yes, you seemed to be arguing from a Christian point of view.

tanya

Thank you David.

Yes, the author(s) of Mark could have written many things differently.

We call that version, Matthew, or Luke.

ἐγώ εἰμι means, simply, I am. Nothing else. To emphasize that Mark does NOT intend that the reader infer some sort of divine stature, he goes on to write, in Mark 14:62
υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου

Isn't that interesting?

Not, θεὸς, but ἀνθρώπου

WHY???? Because, Jesus was NOT God, as in the gospel of John. He was the son of man, in Mark. Not logos. Not YHWH. Not present from the very beginning of time. Arius lives!!!!

Long live Arius!!

Duvduv

The fact is that after the introductory passage in GJohn, the idea of the Logos becoming flesh is never pursued further in the context of the story. For Jesus to simply say "My father and I are one" means nothing, since it never expresses anything described in the introductory passage. Which is why I am thinking about it being a later interpolation.

The idea of being one with "his" father does NOT imply the doctrine of the incarnation of the logos, and could signify other things.

There is a statement in the Talmud that God, the Torah and Jews are "One." And this has nothing to do with the idea of the Logos.

aa5874

It is gJohn that matters. What you say is NOT found in gJohn.

In gJohn, Jesus was BEFORE anything was created. You cannot say whatever you like.

In gJohn, the author says Jesus, the Logos, was God and later the Logos was made Flesh.

In the NT, Jesus Created Adam. Jesus was from the beginning.

In the NT, Jesus was God Incarnate NOT man deified.

No, No, No!!! What you say is NOT in gJohn.

The author did NOT say how Jesus the Logos was made Flesh.

Again, the Logos in gJohn is Jesus.

It is NOT complicated at all.

gJohn is simply Mythology.

Jesus the Logos is philosophical NOT historical.

MrMacSon

So, the contrast from the 3 synoptics to gJohn reflects adding 'flesh' to the story?

DCHindley

tanya,

I wasn't saying Jesus was claiming to be God, but only meant to show why some think Jesus had freely spoke the divine name, a name that almost all Jews refused to utter on superstitious grounds. The only exception was uttered by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. Hence the significance of the High Priest in Jesus' trial.

Matthew doesn't appear to have picked up on this, and Luke uses it in a discussion Jesus has with a crowd of Pharisees, scribes and chief priests, although it is phrased as if he was speaking to the High Priest. "You say that 'I AM' (too)"

In the Epistle of Barnabas Jesus is described as the scapegoat in the ritual performed by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (Chapter 7).

The Tolodoth Jeschu has Jesus doing miracles using the power of the divine name (Shem). See G R S Mead's Did Jesus Live 100 BC? (which is online and can be downloaded from Internet Archive.

The Shem story in the Toledoth traditions concludes with Jesus being hung on a giant vegetable stalk because he had used the Shem to cast a spell so that he could not be hung from a tree, and then buried in a vegetable garden, is alluded to by Tertullian (De Spect, xxx.).

This He whom His disciples have stolen away secretly, that it may be said He has risen, or the gardener abstracted that his lettuces might not be damaged by the crowds of visitors.

DCH

aa5874

Actually there are FOUR Canonised Synoptic type Gospels--the short gMark, the Long gMark, gMatthew and gLuke.

It apears that the author of the Long gMark used virtually all of the Short gMark and added 12 verses.

In effect, the Short gMark Jesus is the Long gMark Jesus except that Jesus visited the disciples After the resurrection.

No history is added in the Long gMark--No Flesh is added---it is the complete reverse--Mark 9-20 added a Resurrection.

The same applies to gMatthew. This author again appears to use virtually all of the short gMark but added No Flesh to Jesus--No history.

The author of gMatthew claimed Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost.

gMatthew's Jesus was NOT of the seed of Flesh---but the seed of a Spirit.

The author of gMatthew ADDED more Myth--Not history.

In gLuke, it is the same thing--Jesus was the product of an overshadowing Ghost.

The author of gLuke added even more mythology to the short gMark Jesus story.

Now, finally, the author of gJohn stated Jesus was the Logos.

gMark's Jesus was NOT actually made Flesh in all the Canonised Gospels.

gMark's Jesus was multiple Attested to be of the Spirit by gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn--Jesus was not historical-- but completely philosophical--completely theological--a Myth.

The Johanine Jesus, the Logos and God the Creator, was NOT from the Jews.

The Johanine Jesus would be Utter Blasphemy in the ancient Jewish community.