Three stages of the incarnation of Jesus

[rgprice]

It seems to me that the account of the incarnation of Jesus developed in three stages.

The first stage of the story was that Jesus was a spirit than descended from heaven and took on the disguise of a human being. The purpose of Jesus' mission was to defeat either Satan or the Jewish God (not sure which one).

The second stage of the story developed along theological lines to claim that when Jesus descended he actually became flesh. This is because these theologians viewed the purpose of Jesus' missions to be the performance of a sacrifice in order to save the souls of all mankind, so Jesus had to be real flesh to perform the sacrifice. Yet these theologians only made minor revisions to the original story, and did not challenge the descent of Jesus from heaven. Their view was mostly just interpretive, but did not require significant narrative changes.

The third stage of the story was that Jesus was actually born on earth to a human mother. This idea was developed in order to show that Jesus was the son of the Jewish God and that Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecies. Supporting this view required more significant narrative changes.

Along the way the idea of adoptionism was introduced, but it was incidental as a way of trying to split the difference and reconcile these three main concepts.

It would seem that the original version of Luke and/or Ev* was produced in the first stage, by someone who viewed Jesus as having appeared on earth and that he was spirit.

The Gospel of John was originally written by a proponent of the second view, that Jesus had "appeared" on earth unborn, but that he had become flesh.

I would contend that the original version of Mark, i.e. proto-Mark, was written in the first stage, and depicted Jesus as a spirt that had descended from heaven. The canonical revision of Mark introduced adoptionism as a way to reconcile the narrative.

Matthew, of course, and canonical Luke, were produced in the third stage.

Now to me, this progression seems quite logical. The orthodox claim is that the account of Jesus began with what I call the third stage and then "degenerated" to what I call the second and first stages. But it seems to me that moving in this direction makes far less theological sense. Taking an account of a real person and then developing him into a spirit is quite strange, while humanizing a spirit seems reasonable.

[davidmartin]

what you make of the odes regarding this?

"The dove fluttered over the head of our Lord Messiah, because He was her head.
And she sang over Him, and her voice was heard.
Then the inhabitants were afraid, and the wayfarers were disturbed."

Implication.
"The spirit descended from heaven and entered a prophet"
Later the spirit was equated with the prophet (and vice versa)

Then it follows on, could the odes be an even earlier stage
I read this as the spirit doesn't 'incarnate' but speaks through a human

[Michael BG]

The opposite view can be stated that Jesus was actually born on earth to a human mother and father.

That after was he was crucified his followers saw him in heaven and changed his view of himself in relation to the Son of Man, so he was seen as the Son of Man. This developed into seeing him in heaven as the Messiah – the son of God – therefore he was appointed the Messiah by his resurrection.

The adoption of Jesus as Messiah moved back in stages, from resurrection, via his transfiguration and his baptism, until he was no longer either appointed or adopted but had always been the Son of God and he therefore had to descend from heaven to earth.

This progression seems logical. It makes sense that Jesus moves from being flesh to spirit (as those who will be resurrected will be according to Paul 1 Cor 15:40a, 44a, and 52,). It makes sense later to move this back into his life as the resurrection of everyone is delayed and the message changes into the teachings of Jesus rather than him being the first person of a soon to arrive general resurrection. The idea of having an existence in heaven after we die is powerful and it is logical that to exist in heaven a person needs to be changed into a spiritual being like the angels who exist in heaven.

[dbz]

"The spirit descended from heaven and entered a prophet"
Later the spirit was equated with the prophet (and vice versa)

• Winner winner chicken dove dinner!

Given that demons can descend and enter/parasitize humans.

Then angels can descend and enter/symbioze humans.

[dbz]

The first stage of the story was that Jesus was a spirit than descended from heaven and took on the disguise of a human being. The purpose of Jesus' mission was to defeat either Satan or the Jewish God (not sure which one).

Or
The first stage of the story was that the supernatural Jesus entity donned a human flesh suit disguise in order to descend, die, and sneak into the underworld as a dead human and release the redeemable dead there as prologue to the coming end of the material world i.e. Earth.

[rgprice]

The first stage of the story was that Jesus was a spirit than descended from heaven and took on the disguise of a human being. The purpose of Jesus' mission was to defeat either Satan or the Jewish God (not sure which one).

Or
The first stage of the story was that the supernatural Jesus entity donned a human flesh suit disguise in order to descend, die, and sneak into the underworld as a dead human and release the redeemable dead there as prologue to the coming end of the material world i.e. Earth.

Yes, that too. It seems that defeating the "lord of death" (be that Satan or the Jewish God) was part of this plan.

[Michael BG]

...

Now to me, this progression seems quite logical. The orthodox claim is that the account of Jesus began with what I call the third stage and then "degenerated" to what I call the second and first stages. But it seems to me that moving in this direction makes far less theological sense. Taking an account of a real person and then developing him into a spirit is quite strange, while humanizing a spirit seems reasonable.

My point in my previous post was that logic is not enough. You would need to demonstrate that proto-Luke (and how you argue there was one) was the first gospel and presented Jesus as a spirit.

That John is a development from Luke and proto-Mark (and how you argued there was one) is a development from John, which I would think is the hardest one to demonstrate as there are only about 23 parallels between John and Mark and many more between Mark and Luke.

You would also need to respond to the ideas in 1 Cor 15 that I refer to.

[RandyHelzerman]

Does the initial spirit Jesus die?

Actually, what *does* happen to Jesus's spirt when he dies, in any view of Christianity? The harrowing of hell sounds like it doesn't die?

Can you even die if you don't have a body?

[dbz]

Actually, what *does* happen to Jesus's spirt when he dies, in any view of Christianity? The harrowing of hell sounds like it doesn't die?

The words descensus ad inferos means: a descent to the underworld without dying, the most famous exemplar being Odysseus.

During Jesus's descent to sneak into the underworld while disguised as a corpse. He had and used a travel passport/token that he presented to the entrance/exit ether/firmament guardians who did not recognize Jesus wearing a human flesh suit (as attested in Asc. of Is.). Obviously no normal dead human would use a travel passport/token to gain entrance to the underworld which is why Jesus had to pass as a corpse and not use his passport/token.

[dbz]

The opposite view can be stated that Jesus was actually born on earth to a human mother and father.

That after was he was crucified his followers saw him in heaven...

...

Now to me, this progression seems quite logical. The orthodox claim is that the account of Jesus began with what I call the third stage and then "degenerated" to what I call the second and first stages. But it seems to me that moving in this direction makes far less theological sense. Taking an account of a real person and then developing him into a spirit is quite strange, while humanizing a spirit seems reasonable.

My point in my previous post was that logic is not enough. You would need to demonstrate that proto-Luke (and how you argue there was one) was the first gospel and presented Jesus as a spirit.

That John is a development from Luke and proto-Mark (and how you argued there was one) is a development from John, which I would think is the hardest one to demonstrate as there are only about 23 parallels between John and Mark and many more between Mark and Luke.

You would also need to respond to the ideas in 1 Cor 15 that I refer to.

What ideas in 1 Cor 15 are you referring to if all agree that Paul understood Jesus rising/emerging from a human corpse?