aa5874

I have not seen so much ERRONEOUS information from a single poster.

How long are you going to be posting error after error?

ApostateAbe, you are suppyling erroneous information about the Jews of antiquity

You don't really know what you are talking about. The Pharisees, believed humans had an immortal soul which could resurrect again.

"Antiquities of the Jews" 18.1.3
It is clear that Jews, the Pharisees, believed that there were resurrections.

Virtually all your claims about Jesus are erroneous.

1. Jesus was called Christ. Wrong.

2. Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. Wrong.

3. Jesus was an ordinary man with a human father . Wrong.

4. The Jews did not believe in the resurrection. Wrong.

5. Jesus started a religion under the name of Christ. Wrong.

6. James the apostle in Galatians 1.19 had a human brother called Jesus Christ. Wrong

This must be some kind of record. You appear to be 100% Wrong.

beallen041

Well, let's see if anyone knows anything about this. Is there any record in the NT outside of the gospel of John that discusses Jesus returning or coming again? I'm not aware of one but am also not an NT scholar. Does your reading highlight any Abe?

It strikes me this is a key test for the MJ/HJ dichotomy. On the MJ theory, we would not expect such a thing to be a routine part of the early Christian record, where as on the HJ, it's absence would be surprising.

ApostateAbe

Yeah, there are a number of quirks about the parousia in the canon, and I would strongly suspect that the doctrines were diverse and quickly evolving. For example, one weird thing is that, in the synoptics, Jesus consistently refers to the "Son of Man" as being the agent of the apocalypse. The synoptics including Mark identify the "Son of Man" as Jesus himself, but it is a little weird that Jesus would talk about himself in third person, even in a later narrative, and we have to take the identity of "Son of Man" as ambiguous with respect to the historical Jesus. If Jesus really did refer to himself, then the gospel of Matthew (and Luke), as a whole, would direct a reader to believe that Jesus predicted his return. Jesus predicted his own coming in the clouds with power and glory (Mt 24:30), Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection (Mt 16:21), and thus Matthew as a whole has Jesus predict his own return, at least if we can forgive the missing link in the chain that Jesus did not predict his ascension to heaven. It can be plausibly posited, though, that Jesus originally was not referring to his own self when he spoke about the "Son of Man," since it would have seemed absurd for someone in his lowly position to be the conquering messiah.

aa5874

Well, once you use the Synoptics as evidence to support an historical Jesus then you must admit in the Synoptics that it was the Child of the Holy Ghost that called himself "Son of Man".

You cannot just IGNORE parts of the Synoptic Jesus story ONCE you introduce it as evidence.

Written evidence from antiquity or from a witness even today cannot be ALTERED or ignored.

The Synoptic Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost.

You must have gotten the METAPHOR.

The Allegory must have crossed your mind.

You must have heard Subliminal message.

Let me expose the Methaphor, the Allegory, the Subliminal message in the Synoptics.


Jesus Christ was the Son of Nobody.

Nobody is a Holy Ghost.

You must have gotten the message.

Well, if you keep on repeating contradictions then I must expose them.

You have been claiming that Jesus was called Christ which is NOT a lowly position at all. The Jews fought with the Romans expecting Christ, the Messiah.

"Paul" called Jesus the Christ over 300 times.

But, you have made many contradictory and illogical claims simultaneously.

1. Jesus was both Significant and Insignifcant at the very same time.

2. Jesus was called a Messiah but was just a preacher.

3. James had a human brother called Jesus Christ when the very Church which presented the Galatians 1.19 claimed James had no human brother called Jesus Christ.

thief of fire

<out of lurk mode>

No, I think not. The closest thing is Hebrews 9:28.
so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

<back to lurk mode>

ApostateAbe

I'll be darned. I would not say that it is merely close, but it fully qualifies. Those was your own second coming in this forum. I look forward to a third.

aa5874

The very so-called Failed Prophecies of Jesus in the Synoptics are about the second coming.

In gMark, Jesus discusses his second coming with some of his disciples on the day he was crucified.

Matt 24:30 - .
Mark 14:62 - The TEST for an HJ is not that he was mentioned in the NT but that there are credible historical sources for HJ.

If it was the mere mention of a name that assured historicity then King Arthur and Robin Hood would have been easily historicised.

It must not be forgotten that unlike many characters in the NT Jesus was NOT even described as human.

beallen041

Hebrews 9:28 is an interesting text. It doesn't quite say return, or come again. It says "appear a second time."

Would being born, growing up, preaching and dying be considered an "appearance" in the original Greek? The word in the text is ὀφθήσεται (ophthesetai).

Doherty deals with this text in JNGM p. 244 thusly:

So I guess the question is what understanding of the first appearance would the author of Hebrews had to have?

ApostateAbe

I am curious about that, too. EarlDoherty is a member of the forum, and he posts here regularly. Maybe send him a private message.

aa5874

Hebrews is assumed to have been after gMark and in that very gospel Jesus discusses that people would see him in "this generation" coming in the clouds.

In the Pauline story and Acts, "Paul" is AFTER Jesus was raised from the dead and "Paul" was aware of Scriptures with the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus on the THIRD day.

Regardless of when "Paul" wrote it is clear that Paul claimed that the Jesus story was KNOWN before he began to preach the Christ Faith.

For example, it has already been announced universally that Bin Laden is dead so who FIRST will write a book that Bin Laden was dead is irrelevant.

As soon as the Pauline writer fundamentally corroborated "Acts of the Apostles" by claiming he escaped in a basket by a wall in Damascus then Paul cannot be considered Ignorant of the Jesus story.

Ac 9:25 - 2Co 11:33 - Once Jesus did exist and did claim that people would see him coming in the clouds then the time "Paul" wrote is irrelevant.