Alleged Sources for the Incarnation, part 2.

Alleged Sources for the Incarnation, part 2. My contention in my initial post was that BIBLICALLY there are only two possible places in Text which might could support a notion of Incarnation, the Prologue of John, and Paul’s 1 Tim 3:16 variant text, “GOD manifest in flesh.” Both are…Jews to the maximus. Jews through-and-through. What is IMBEDDED in a true Jew was always their absolute monotheism, that view that ONLY YHWH is God. So then…Paul Silas says the words of a JEW, that there is no controversy in the consideration, that ANOTHER ONE can be…God OTHER THAN the Father, whom Jesus said was…God? Heck yeah, I would not make a controversy aboudit. But and yet, I’ma GENTILE, brothers and sisters. These are the words of 1 Tim 3: 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. From then, a JEW’S pov, what could be the CONTROVERSY? Boy oh man, I cannot IMAGINE: 1) WHO receives Jesus “up into glory?” ANOTHER ONE who is God? Are there not two Gods now in view? 2) As much as we think of…THEOPHANIES in the Text mentioned, I doubt very much the ancient Jews ALSO thought YHWH came down to earth LITERALLY as a man or angel. Consider the Wrestling Event of Jacob. As much as HE claimed to have “seen God face-to-face, Hosea said he wrestled an angel, not God, 12:4. But…even if this was true, that Jacob actually WRESTLED GOD, note that it would not follow that this WRESTLER had another mind, will and soul APART from YHWH. It WOULD have been “God with the apparent visage of…a man.” If the “angel” would not say his name, how or in what way COULD Jacob know, he fought YHWH HIMself? I would like to know this, and “bells and whistles like fireworks” do not count. This same condition is true for the 3 “Men” to Abraham. ONE was God, and TWO were angels? How about…all THREE were angels, and Abraham referred to them CORPORATELY as…”Lord?” How could HE have discerned that one was God and the other two not God? Right away…as in…a sifu extraordinaire? We assume things easily. In real life, the right questions have to be asked. Even again if it were the case that ONE was God and TWO were angels, this would be God APPEARING to be a man, exactly what was NOT SAID in NT. “Jesus APPEARING to be a man” was exactly the prohibition in 1 John 4, since John was saying he WAS a man. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Trinitarians and OnePents consider then, the “hundred percent man, and one hundred percent God” to get around the 1 Jn 4 prohibition, that God TOOK ON FLESH as in…HIS OWN CREATION in order to propitiate us. Wow, there are so many things WRONG with this, the most prominent being…this is a form of PANTHEISM. NOT JUDAISM. God taking ON His own Creation? Neither the 3 Witnesses to Abraham, OR the Wrestling Event of Jacob explicitly contain this idea at all. This means that the OT so-called “theophanies” were NOT THE SAME THING as…the Son Incarnated. 3) But…it ALSO means that God…changed His inner SELF, to be now, a COMBINATION of…what He was before, and what He created before. How many verses, say that God does NOT change, intrinsically? For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6)

And so, the same problem I see in the VARIANT TEXTS, that of 1 Tim 3:16 and that of Jn 1:18: 1 Tim 3:16 (Authorized Text version): 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Jn 1:18 (NASB version):

18 No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the [u]arms of the Father, He has [v]explained Him.

….is also the same problem with a mainstream interpretation of the Prologue. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Is this…another ONE who is God, CALLED “the Word?” If so, it is not only entirely ANTI-Jewish, but anathema in their thought and theology altogether.

Without getting into the actual TECHNICAL and scholarly inputs here, I can easily say that…there WOULD HAVE BEEN controversy EXPONENTIAL, had these concepts which pre-pointed to any so-called Incarnation were ever presented. As much as, say…Jesus PRESENTING himself as God Almighty to ANYONE then in that time and place he historically was on earth (among other Jews). What amazes me then is how blithely and lightly we (in the mainstream) are enamored with this idea of “incarnation” which is not a word in Text at all. This would naturally mitigate any presupposition that Paul was speaking to Timothy AS A JEW and saying ANOTHER ONE called “Jesus Christ” came to earth as…God TAKING ON flesh, and ADDING that this idea and concept and notion…is non-controversial.