He is a Gift 26

The Leap Over

Greek τὸ σταυρωθῆναι THE being staked.

Every NT Greek manuscript has the same text. And every single translation of it that we have seen, even the literal ones, leaves out the definite article the.

In Koine Greek, an articular infinitive (τὸ γίγνεσθαι, τὸ παραδίδοσθαι, τὸ σταυροῦσθαι) suspends sequence. It treats the verb not as something that occurs but as a condition, domain, or mode of existence.

Aonically, the statement is describing a structural configuration, not a future episode.

Thus:

• “the Leap-Over is becoming” = the transition-state is active as an ongoing condition of the system.

• “the being-handed-over” = a mode in which the human-agent is in a state of exposure or transfer across boundaries.

• “the being-staked” = a condition of fixation, anchoring, or being pinned into a particular structural relation.

None of these require temporal unfolding.

In an aionic frame, “two days” is not a chronological duration but a threshold of phases—a metaphor for the outward/visible cycle of the organismic or conscious system.

“Beyond two days” = beyond the domain of cyclic alternation, beyond oscillation, outside the rhythm of “evening–morning” phenomenology.

“Son of the Human” is more about the structural element than a literal person.  Aonically, huios tou anthrōpou (Hebrew בן־אדם) designates the representative human locus, the emergent self-node produced by embodiment within chronos.

Thus, the phrase describes:

• the human locus (anthrōpos), and

• its emergent interior identity (huios, “derivative,” “offspring,” “projection”).

υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου "son of the human " is a chronos-bound expression Syntactically, the expression is genitive of source/origin. It denotes what issues from, arises out of, or is generated by anthrōpos, i.e., the temporal, mortal, chronologically-bounded human condition. This of course is opposed to what would be generated by theos (son of God). In purely linguistic terms:

• υἱός = that which proceeds from a source, the generated product

• τοῦ ἀνθρώπου = the human sphere, with its temporality, decay, and limitation

Taken without theological loading, the phrase can be read simply as:

“that which comes into existence through human temporal generation.”

It is tied to succession, lineage, emergence within time. It is inescapably chronos-based.

“Being handed over into the being-staked” describes a transition of modes. Not betrayal, suffering, or time-based sequence. It describes a shift in the state of the human locus:

• Handed over = transferred across domains, exposed, de-centered, released from its prior configuration.

• Into the being-staked (palisaded) = entering a mode of fixation or anchoring—where the self becomes rigidly localized or structurally constrained (staked all the way around like a fence)

In systems-theory terms, we can interpret it like this:

• a phase transition from oscillatory mode → constrained/fixed mode,

• applied to the consciousness-locus (“Son of the Human”),

• occurring within a larger transition (“Leap-Over”) situated beyond alternating cycles (“two days”).

“Being-staked” (σταυροῦσθαι understood via its older sense of palisading, fencing-in, restricting movement, limiting a field) represents the extremity of chronos-pressure—the constriction, the shutting in of a being within its temporal finitude, thus the expression υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου names precisely the being that is most exposed to that chronos-finitude. A being generated via temporal succession is the one that can be most profoundly “palisaded.” Palisading marks the point where the system’s boundaries become static, its states cannot reorganize, and negentropic potential goes to zero. Nothing flows through; nothing cycles. This is why the “being-staked” is not a transformation but a terminal fixation event.

To put all this into laymen terms: Picture it without any timeline at all. The saying is describing how the human self shifts states, not how events unfold. “The Leap-Over” is the moment when a person’s awareness moves beyond its usual back-and-forth cycle—beyond the ordinary alternation of moods, impulses, and sensory rhythm (the outer rings “two days”). In that boundary-zone, the inner human identity—the part that normally feels located, reactive, and tied to circumstance—is “handed over,” meaning it loses its usual grip and transfers into a different mode. “Being staked” is a metaphor for the self becoming fixed or held in place. So the line is describing a psychological or existential transition: when consciousness crosses out of its normal oscillating pattern, the self becomes exposed, transferred, and finally anchored into "the moment." It’s not predicting an event; it’s mapping a structural shift in human experience.

The “being-staked” in the aionic frame it isn’t a reward; it’s the catastrophic point where the chronos-self can’t keep functioning. It's no triumph but rather a structural failure. When the outward, impulsive identity hits a limit it can’t cross, it collapses. Something in a person gets fixed, not elevated—pinned into immobility. Systems that get staked like that don’t evolve; they break.

The image is one of irreversible decoherence rather than a transformation. Instead of the two layers (the aionic field and the chronos self) coming into alignment, the outer layer loses flexibility (the two days). Once it’s staked, all the adaptive, negentropic possibilities shrink. Biological systems in that state don’t regenerate; they head toward shut-down.

So if someone hits this kind of “state-collapse,” they are toast: nothing about it points toward an aionic life-mode. It’s the opposite of emergence or synchronization. It’s the point where the temporal structure can’t bear its own load anymore—where the loop stops cycling and just… drops.

That’s why the saying carries weight. It’s naming the moment where a human being, if they stay in a purely chronos orientation, eventually reaches a terminal constraint. Not transcendence—just the end of the line.

Strongs NT #2533 Καϊάφα. Caiaphas. The Depresser

"supposed by many to be the same as כֵּפָא, a stone, a rock; others more correctly equivalent to כָּיְפָא, depression, Targ. on Proverbs 16:26 (according to Delitzsch (Brief and. Röm. ins Hebrew etc., p. 28) קַיָפָא)"

Thayers Greek Lexicon

In the Targum, specifically on Proverbs 16:26, the word appears to be associated with the latter meaning, signifying a "depression."

Proverbs 16:26 says "for he has pressed/drove down upon himself the mouth." The Hebrew for "pressing/driving" is אכף (akaph). The verb אכף is found only in this verse. In Arabic it came to mean "saddle". Cf. Strongs Hebrew #404. 

The Targumim are ancient Aramaic translations and interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, originating during the Second Temple period to provide explanations and translations for Aramaic-speaking Jewish communities. These oral traditions were eventually codified into written texts, with Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan among the most well-known, believed to have been standardized around the early centuries CE but reflecting much earlier origins.

ἀγανακτέω to ferment (of wine), was used metaphorically for irritation, indignation. (cf. Logeion ἀγανακτέω)

When used with money, or silver, ἔστησαν doesn't mean merely to count out, but to set in a balance and weigh out. What is in the other side of the balance? The same. (cf. LSJ ἵστημι A.IV)

The Passover

I am making the Passover = the Learners of Myself are making the Passover = I am making along with the Learners of Myself the Passover

In these sayings, temporal language is attempting to describe a non-temporal transition. The agents (Learners) are aligning with a still-point (“Unleavened”), where nothing expands, gets stretched out, empties out, or decays. What looks like a scheduled festival becomes a state-change, the “Pass Over Feast of Knowledge,” a transition from one mode of being to another.

Backtracking from the traditional interpretation of a "betrayal" we find that the word παραδίδωμι primarily means give, grant, hand over to another, transmit. In classical and Hellenistic Greek, παραδίδωμι does not carry the modern, moralized sense of “betray” that English imposes. The notion of treachery or disloyalty is entirely contextual, appearing only when what is “handed over” is something one is expected to protect (a city, a person, a secret).

In most usages—teaching a child, delivering letters, transmitting knowledge, granting permission—the verb is neutral or even positive. The modern English “betray” is thus a misleading simplification; it conflates delivery or surrender with moral fault, which is not intrinsic to the Greek (see LSJ, Bailly, Pape, Slater Pindar, Abbott-Smith NT)

Handing yourself over...to yourself.

The teacher (which is the eternal self) is signaling that a phase-window of alignment (“opportune time”) is approaching—not a moment on a clock, but a convergence in relational structure. One learner’s configuration will redirect the outward state inward (“hand over”), causing the human-derived configuration (“son of the human”) to "invert" out of the temporal lattice (an outer darkness in separation). It is in this "outer darkness" of temporality that he is stretched out thinner and thinner by the moment as the "measuring rod" of chronos time only damns him and beats him silly until there is nothing left. This is because he is being measured against a timeless inner man, the Anointed One, never to measure up even for a moment. He goes through endless cycles of moral boom and bust like a broken record. The endless friction heats him up and scorches him (and those around him). The vain attempts at moral "christ-like living" pound him thin until he is utterly flat. Where the "timeless eternal aonic man" suffered at the hand of his "temporal chronos outer man" due to separation (afflicting the Christ by trying to be christ-like), they are now made whole into a complete man, the outer self aligned with the inner "little man of the eye." 

The narrative, read in this mode, is not a sequence of events but a description of how a chronos-bound system interacts with a non-sequential one when a transition of states is about to occur.

1. פָּסַח (pasach) — the verb

Root meaning: to step lightly, to limp, to skip, to hop, to move in a non-linear gait.
Cognates in Semitic show the same semantic pole: irregular motion, skipping across, stepping past.

In other words, פָּסַח denotes discontinuous locomotion.
Not a steady walk → but a broken, hopping motion that jumps over intervals.
This fits well with the idea of non-sequential transition.

2. פֶּסַח (pesach) — the noun

The noun does not mean “a hopping.” It is a nominalization that underwent semantic specialization:

• pretermission
• passing over
• omission of striking
• skipping a target

In philological terms, פֶּסַח denotes a chosen non-action, an intentional omission, a withheld blow, or a selective bypass.

Thus the semantic field is:

to hop → to skip → to bypass → to pretermit.

3. Aonic relevance: “pretermission” = non-linear crossing of a boundary

When taken outside chronological sequencing:

• פָּסַח = the manner of transition → non-linear, hopping, skipping over intervals.

• פֶּסַח = the effect of that transition → a boundary is crossed without engaging the sequence between the two sides.

In aonic terms:

פֶּסַח denotes a transition that occurs without traversal of the intermediate states of chronos.

It is a pretermission of temporal sequence.

In other words:

The hop (פָּסַח) explains the mechanism.
The pretermission (פֶּסַח) explains the outcome.

The system “skips over” the temporal wall rather than climbing it step by step.

The Greek phrase Μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι is idiomatic and depends on context.

Μήτι – a particle used in questions expecting a “no” answer. It generally signals that the speaker expects denial or surprise.

ἐγώ εἰμι – “I myself am.” 

So Μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι literally is: “It is not I?” or “Am I not the one?” There is a subtle nuance between whether it is used in the sense of "surely it is not me" where the speaker is afraid that it is them, and the sense of "Is it not me" where the speaker is surprised that it is not them. 

The nuance hinges on the speaker’s expectation and emotional stance toward the proposition:

1. “Surely it is not I” – the speaker fears or dreads that it might be them. The question carries a sense of apprehension or avoidance. The expectation is negative: the speaker assumes it probably is not them, but the possibility that it is them is alarming.

2. “Is it not I” – the speaker is surprised or seeking confirmation. Here, the question expresses mild incredulity or clarification: the speaker might expect that it is them, or is puzzled that it seems otherwise.

In Greek, μήτι often signals this contrast: the particle sets up an expectation of denial, but the tone—fearful vs. surprised—depends on context and emotional coloring.

Greek τὸ ἐγερθῆναί με the Awakening Myself.

Again, every translation we have seen, leaves out/disregards the definite article the. The Infinitive verb "to awaken" and "me/myself" here are in the accusative. Hence "me/myself" is the object of the infinitive verb.

Strongs #G5368. φιλέω love, show affection

In this verse, φιλήσω is the future tense form of the Greek verb φιλέω, which means "to love" or "to regard with affection." It indicates that someone will express affection or love in the future. For example, in Odyssey 4.171, it would be used to convey a future action of loving or showing affection.

Where did "kiss" come from?

The verb can be used to express outward signs of love, particularly through actions like kissing. For example, it can describe kissing on the mouth or the cheek. It can also refer to approving or liking things, such as objects or events. Additionally, φιλήσω can denote showing affection or approval in various contexts, like enjoying a feast or favoring certain things.

"If anyone is not loving [φιλέω] the Master, let him be Anathema! Our Lord You Are ("Maran-atha")!

1 Corinthians 16:22 RBT

cf. Logeion φιλέω