Jeffrey Gibson

Again, see Jn. 14:3

Jeffrey

TedM

Yes, but see Jn 21:22, or Mt 16:27,28, 24:30,44, 25:31 and the similar verses in Mark and Luke for the point I am making..

ted

GakuseiDon

Yes, I also note that this is not the first time that Doherty appears unaware of counter-examples. I found the same situation in my debate with him on Second Century apologists. IMO it amounts to a one-sided presentation of the evidence.

I'd be interested in Doherty's reason on why the GJohn author didn't use a qualifier to indicate "return", and more importantly why the same reason can't be applied to Paul's writings.

Jeffrey Gibson

I have no idea what this point is. And are you taking into account imperfect, future, aorist and other forms of ἔρχομαι, let alone that, as BDAG notes, absolute ἔρχομαι bore the meaning "return" in Koine?

Jeffrey

Toto

A digression. The topic here is evidence against a historical Jesus. If you have some abstract question regarding Koine Greek that does not relate to indications of a historical Jesus, you are in the wrong place, or are hijacking the thread.

I do not see that word listed, although I see a fair number of words that contain that element - anerchomai, etc.

TedM

Don...the answer is obvious. You can't apply the same standard: The expecation for Paul to have mentioned a return had Jesus really been historical would have been higher since the expectation for a return would have been greater when he wrote than later on when the gospels were written...

As for the gospels, the expection should also be lower since in order to be more realistic they avoided having Jesus--who was already on earth--say he would return--ie, such a word use would have been redundant!

...Of course the gospels are too late to be evidence for his being historical in the first place though, and Paul's audience understood that the first time he was sent was not to earth..

ted

p.s. EDIT: Sorry for all the edits--it's not always easy trying to think like someone else

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm .. can you remind me please as to who it was who not only posted Earl's comments on ἔρχομαι but in doing so seemed to feel that the points about Koine made within them were germane to the topic at hand?

Jeffrey

GakuseiDon

But isn't it on topic? You yourself brought up Doherty's comments in relation to this point. If Doherty says that the early authors' use of "erchomai" supports his view, but we find the same usage in one or more Gospels that are counter-examples -- examples that Doherty appears unaware of, I might add -- doesn't this weaken his point? At the least, it indicates data that Doherty has apparently not evaluated.

GakuseiDon

Yep. I suspect it would be something along those lines.

Jeffrey Gibson

You are begging the question not only in your assertion that Paul did not mention a return, but also in your claim about expectations about Jesus' return being "higher" earlier on than they would have been "later".

Tell me please, was the Jewish expectation for the anticipated new exodus higher in the 50s that it was in the middle sixties when the situation with Rome was reaching (and did reach) its breaking point?

What is your evidence -- and a surmise, let alone a surmise built on questionable premises is not evidence -- for your claim.

As for the gospels, the expection should also be lower since in order to be more realistic they avoided having Jesus--who was already on earth--say he would return--ie, such a word use would have been redundant!

How do you know that being "realistic" was a concern of the gospel writers? And why do you assume, as you seem to do, that their sense of "realistic" involves the perspective you think it does?

Jeffrey