top of page

Alleged Sources for the Incarnation, part 10.

Updated: Aug 30, 2022

The dichotomous contrast between the mainstream interpretation of John’s Prologue and his Jewish upbringing in an Abrahamic Monotheist’s faith, is reconciled by considering the dynamic fundamental “anchor points” which highlighted John’s own writings. The question really is, whether or not John the Apostle was a trinitarian, modalist, or Abrahamic Monotheist (like his fathers). In my own view, John’s definition of Word or Memra (in the Aramaic) is key to interpreting the Prologue. And…if the SEMITIC definition is considered true and accurate to John, in dominant and consistent meaning (The Word is: what God speaks forth), then there is no…INCARNATION here spoken of, at all. The logic of the modalist and trinitarian: The Word was…another one God (Jesus) who ever was, since his “begottenness” was of…an “eternal” variety. THIS One God took on flesh. What they really want to say then, is that THIS OTHER ONE GOD, always…was. Was NOT ever non-existent, since his “beginning” was…eternal. Thus Jesus COULD BE God. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word (Jesus, before He became flesh) was with God, and the Word WAS God. Another motif and option, since trinitarians especially are not cohesive here: The Word is…a paradigm of Reason, or…some mechanism and condition of…Reasonality, or Rationality, as per a philosophical or Greek-thinking definition of Word. Somehow Reason itself manifests as…God in flesh, i.e. Jesus. There is a transition from “Wisdom” being an attribute of YHWH here, and being always…God personified, so then…FROM an attribute of YHWH TO a personification OF YHWH. Neither view is JUDAIC in the least. This never STOPPED the New Greek Thinker, not at Nicaea, and not during the build-up PRECEDING Nicaea, 325 A.D. Was the Shema ever…brought up even one time…at Nicaea? I never came across the Great Command of the Jews EVER, studying the history of this Council. In any case, the conclusion of that Council FORMULATED the “homoousios claim,” that Jesus shares the same substance or essence, as his own Father and God. Theologians consider also “the beginning” to be either/OR the beginning of Creation, or…the Beginning of the New Testament Age, in the Prologue. What the Prologue then signifies to mainstream Christianity is…the transition of YHWH HIMself, to include not only incorporating MAN in God, but ANOTHER One who has…a SEPARATE soul, mind and will. This is the most HEINOUS aspect of Incarnation altogether. How can God have…another CHARACTER or REFERENCE of REFERENT? But, leave it to the mucker-uppers. MURPHY’S LAW will happen, if it can. What IS Murphy’s Law? Thou shalt not stay with the truth, natch. OR er…Do what you will, to PERVERT the Troof, Sons of MURPH. (I think I read this…SOMEWHERE’s in the OT). The sixth post regarding the dynamic fundamental “anchor points,” of John’s JUDAIC faith, taken from the site, and picking-out the Johannine verses from Samuel Barrett’s list of 100 most unitarian verses:

28. Because he says “I seek not mine own glory; but I honor my Father,” John 8:49, 50.

29. Because he declares, “If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me,” John 8:54.

Both words come from the same “doxa” root. But…the Koine word differs somewhat in semantic meaning from the Hebrew correlate, kavod. And, Christianity itself may probably have something to do with the evolution of doxazo (verb, Koine) and the noun doxa. The OT event which sticks in my mind mostly is…the Ex 33 event of…God’s presence with Moses, whereby Moses asks “to see His glory.” The parallel term was mentioned there as… 18 And he (Moses) said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

19 And he (YHWH) said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

Goodness: טוּב ṭûwb, toob; from H2895; good (as a noun), in the widest sense, especially goodness (superlative concretely, the best), beauty, gladness, welfare:—fair, gladness, good(-ness, thing, -s), joy, go well with.

Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon [?](Jump to Scripture Index)

STRONGS H2898:Abbreviations

† טוּב noun masculineJob 20:21 good things, goods, goodness; — ט׳ Genesis 24:10 17 times; suffix טוּבִי Exodus 33:19; Jeremiah 31:14; טוּבְךָ Psalm 25:7 4 times; טוּבוֺ Hosea 3:5 2 times; טוּבָהּ Nehemiah 9:36; Jeremiah 2:7; טוּבָם Job 21:15; — not in H P, Chronicles, Ezekiel or post-exilic prophets —

1. good things, collective, produce of the land to be eaten Genesis 45:18,20,23 (E), Isaiah 1:19; Jeremiah 2:7; Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 9:35,36, to be enjoyed; good things of י׳ as given by him Hosea 3:5; Jeremiah 31:12,14; Psalm 27:13; of house of י׳ Psalm 65:5, figurative of spiritual blessings.

3. abstract:

a. fairness, beauty, of neck of heifer Hosea 10:11; of people of י׳ Zechariah 9:17; of י׳ himself Exodus 33:19 (JE).

b. טוּב לב(בׅ joy of heart Deuteronomy 28:47; Isaiah 65:14 (see I. טוֺב 2, II. ט׳ 7).

c. prosperity Job 20:21; Job 21:16; of Jerusalem Psalm 128:5; בְּטוּב צַדִּיקִים Proverbs 11:10 in the prosperity of the righteous the city rejoiceth.

d. goodness of taste, discernment Psalm 119:66.

4. abstract, goodness of God:

a. in bestowing good things Nehemiah 9:25.

b. in the salvation of his people Isaiah 63:7; Psalm 25:7; Psalm 145:7.

c. stored up for his saints Psalm Psalm 31:20. Kavod, the Hebrew correlate to the Koine “doxa:” כָּבוֹד kâbôwd, kaw-bode'; rarely כָּבֹד kâbôd; from H3513; properly, weight, but only figuratively in a good sense, splendor or copiousness:—glorious(-ly), glory, honour(-able). (The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon is way too extensive to list here. An itemized list in outline only): 1. abundance, riches 2. honour, splendour, glory, of external condition and circumstances

3. honour, dignity of position 4. honour, reputation, of character, of man 5. my honour, poetic of the seat of honour in the inner man, the noblest part of man 6. honour, reverence, glory, as due to one or ascribed to one 7. glory as the object of honour, reverence and glorifying What would be the main difference then, between the Greek term and the Hebrew one? MATERIAL “abundance and riches” is directly linked to God Himself, in Judaism transferred to men. That which the Jew considered…necessary for life, and life lived in a fulfilled sense. And, as Judaism evolves, the eternal aspect of “life” takes on extended meaning. Thus the “concrete” to the “eternal.” The concrete things of faith, to the eternal life, lived. So now all things coalesce in the Exodus event. Moses is asking not only for God to “SHOW His glory” to him, but to transfer the necessary things of life itself, to His people who he, Moses represented: 16 For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.

17 And the Lord said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.

18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. All of this…to give a Hebraic perspective to Jesus’ own words in John. And here I will skip to Samuel Barrett’s number 36: 36. Because he expressly denies that he is possessed of the Divine attribute of independent existence. “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father,” &c., John 6:57 37. Because he expressly disclaims the possession of the Divine attribute of underived existence. “As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself,” John 5:30. So then…as Moses considered the necessary things to live abundantly…part and parcel of this term, “kavod,” so too is Jesus saying, he LIVED BY YHWH. What do trinitarians and modalists say instead? Jesus IS YHWH. How awry and daft, 99% of us are. Does this explain then, modern-day PROSPERITY DOCTRINE? As opposed to…what Jesus ASKS FOR, in Jn 17? 43. Because Jesus besought his Father to glorify him. “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thyself with the glory which I had with thee before the world was,” John 17:5. The being who prayed to God to glorify him, cannot be God. The key to interpreting this passage, is to know that JESUS KNEW that his greatest test was still coming, in the future. Also…Jesus is not COMMANDING the Father here, but as Garrett says, “beseeching” or…affirming then his knowledge that the time is come, for what was promised him, in conjunction with his own great suffering to come. So can we see then the differing views of this passage? 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

The context is, that the Cross was up ahead of him, and Jesus knew it. His Great Test, which all faithful Christians actually know will be similar for themselves, in all possibility or probability. What AGAIN is the mainstream condition of the condition they are in? Jesus, who is God HIMself DID IT FOR YOU, so then YOU have to do…nada at all. “Finished Cross” Theology. So what then exactly...was Jesus asking for, preceding the Cross Test? That...goodness, or...SHEKINAH presence of YHWH which defines the new birth. But also that which GIRDS UP men, for their own great tests. This is another subject, and imo only known by pentecostals, in its true supernatural dimension. If you have no idea what I am talking about here, please explore the ancient correlation between "shekinah" and "kavod."

7 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


Couldn’t Load Comments
It looks like there was a technical problem. Try reconnecting or refreshing the page.
bottom of page