Why not canonical Matthew and canonical Luke? Is it the 'pre-existing' bit? We're to suppose that the authors of canonical Matthew and Luke had, or could have, a belief in the creation of Christ ex nihilo (from no previous Christ or Son of God) in the womb of Mary? Is that the suggestion, or is it something else?GakuseiDon wrote:'something pre-existing taking on flesh'? If so, this doesn't seem to include Mark, Matthew and Luke.
While that may be (or ... may it?), it's not too especially relevant to my point (or doesn't seem to be) about the strangeness of Paul, then Mark, then Matthew/Luke/John, such as it is (as it was presented in the last post).
Looks like 'incarnation' should also be on the ban list. Nobody seems to know what everyone else means by it.
Also, I think all of us seem to be importing a lot of assumptions into the Gospels (myself included). Worthy of a fresh thread.