TedM

Jeffrey, it was tongue in cheek. I was simply trying to come up with what I think Doherty might have come up with..He probably would have done a better job of it than I. In any case, as my first post on the subject indicated, the fact that gospel writers didn't stress the "return" aspect is enough for me to not expect Paul to have done so. Your points have merit, and I dont' feel like taking them on--it was hard enough to think of those ideas in the first place!

ted

Toto

Doherty deliberately separates the epistles and the gospels, with the idea that the gospels were written later, and embody a different concept of Jesus.

But Jeffrey seemed to be trying to examine the larger question of Koine usage without relating it to the main question.

spin

The uses of erchomai, as found in (the 1996) L&S and Lampe, do not suggest any notion of "return". The verb suggests a single journey without inclusion of a notion of direction (hence can be translated as "come" or "go" or partial aspects of the one journey, "start out" or "arrive"). As already pointed out, the use of palin with erchomai in Jn 14:3 should suggest the notion of "return".

As Jeffrey Gibson has pointed out that a form has been noted in Koine which indicates "return", he might like to suggest why he thinks that erchomai in Jn 14:3 means "return" rather than "come" as it is most frequently translated there -- especially when the gospel writers do have words they use to mean return compounds with strefw (to turn), upostrefw and anastrefw which the Vulgate has no trouble translating to mean "return" mainly regredior. But in Jn 14:3 the Vulgate translates the Greek palin erchomai literally, iterum venio -- no notion of "return", but as the English translations usually give, "come again".

(One should add that a compound using erchomai, (epanerchomai) does carry the notion "come again", though is rarely found in the christian scriptures.)

I think Jeffrey Gibson is correct that there were words in Greek that bore the meaning "return" used in the christian scriptures, though erchomai doesn't seem to be one of them.


spin

Clivedurdle

Probably highest in the 130's by which point the new Pharoahs were explicitly getting the slaves to get straw as well by putting Jupiter in the ruined Temple!

And who says these ideas originate in Judea? They look so strongly as the work of Disaporic Jews worrying about the promised land and the folks back home! Paul's letters and the gospels as spiritual Red Cross food parcels? New Manna?

(and as the first Exodus is fiction......)

aa5874

The evidence against the historical Jesus is significant. The information from the NT and the Church fathers portray a Jesus that is likely to be fiction. I have already shown that events surrounding the birth of this Jesus appear to be fictious or contradictory.

1. The sign of his birth was the sighting of a fictitious star that could stand over a single house.
2. The date of his birth and, in effect, the sighting of the fictitious star is uncertain, it may be around 4BCE, 2BCE, 6CE or 6CE AND 2BCE simultaneously.
3. Two contradictory genealogies were given for Joseph who could not be the father of Jesus, based on the reports of the authors, yet the proper geneaology of the other man was never given.

Now, according to the NT and Church fathers, Jesus was preaching in the synagogues, trying to heal the sick, attempting to raise the dead, did not discourage his disciples from plucking corn on the Sabbath day, preached to and was followed by thousands of people, he referred to the chief priests, Pharisees and Saducees as vipers and devils publicly, and unilateraly drove people out of the Temple with a whip.

Now, it is extremely unrealistic that Jesus could have referred to the chief priest, the Pharisees, and Saducees as devils and vipers, publicly, and still be allowed to preach in the synagogues. But it is even more bizarre, that Jesus could have violated the Sabbath, by allowing his disciples to pluck corn on the Sabbath day, openly, and was not punished in any way.

The Pharisees accused Jesus of sorcery because of the way he appeared to have healed people, they claimed he was dealing with the Devil, Beelzebub, yet no-one brought Jesus before the sanhedrin.

Jesus, according to the NT, was preaching to large crowds by the thousands, but however, the Pharisees, chief priests and Saducees did not approve of his teachings, he was, in effect, leading people astray, a crime punishable by death and he was never stoned to death for that crime.

Again, another unrealistic scene, Jesus entered the Temple and with a whip, chased the money changers and sellers out of the Temple and not a single person touched Jesus. He must have been the most feared person in Jerusalem.

So, the authors of the NT want their readers to think that Jesus could have done all these things contrary to the Laws and tradition of the Jews and was able to escape punishment for well over a year. Jesus was never beaten, he was never imprisonned, or stoned, at any time before the events of his crucifixion.

But, amazingly, the NT itself shows the likely punishments that Jesus should have suffered if he was a real person and doing what he was accused of.

"Paul" appeared to have been beaten to a pulp, imprisonned many times and even stoned for preaching just like Jesus.

2 Corinthians 11.24, "Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

"Paul" got one hundred and ninety-five lashes, before his alleged execution, Jesus got none before his claimed crucifixion.
Incredible!
2 Cor. 11.25, "Thrice was I beaten with rods....."

"Paul" got his butt beaten again, Jesus was kicking butts at the Temple. Unbelievable! "Paul" and Jesus were supposed to be preaching the same message.

2 Cor.11.25, "......once was I stoned...."

"Paul" gets stoned for preaching the good news, Jesus is untouchable, he must be a god, not human.

2Cor.11.23, "Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more, in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft."

"Paul", it would appear suffered tremendously for the good news, Jesus, it seemed, had a timetable, he could determine when he was to be punished and the magnitude of this punishment.

The life of Jesus of Nazareth appears fictitious, it is highly unlikely that he could have been accused of blasphemy, sorcery, violating the Sabbath, leading people astray, chasing people out of the Temple and be in direct conflict with the chief priests calling them vipers and devils, and was never beaten, stoned or arrested before his alleged crucifixion.

Jesus the son of Ananus was beaten severely for just saying, "Woe unto Jerusalem". (See Wars of the Jews 6.5.4)
The brother of some Jesus was sentenced to be stoned to death after being accused by the chief priest. See AJ 20.9.1
In Acts 7.59, Stephen was stoned to death for blasphemy, the same crime that Jesus was accused of, yet Jesus was never stoned.

The life of Jesus appears to be unrealistic, this is evidence against the historical Jesus.

Toto

The subthread on why didn't the Romans argue that Jesus didn't exist has been split off here

aa5874

The evidence against the historical Jesus is enornmous. The events surrounding his birth and life appear to be fiction.
I have covered the following apparent fictitious or contradictory accounts of this Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews:

1. The sign of his birth was the sighting of a fictitious star that could stand over a single house. Incredibly, three wise men saw the fiction.

2. The date of his birth and the sighting of the fictious star are uncertain, these may have occurred around 4BCE, 2BCE, 6CE or 6CE and 2BCE at the same time.

3. Two useless and contradictory genealogies were given for Joseph who could not be the father of Jesus, erroneously trying to make this Jesus a descendant of David.

4. Jesus was never beaten, imprisonned, or stoned before his alleged execution, and was allowed to preach in the synagogues even though he was accused of blasphemy, sorcery, violating the Sabbath, leading people astray and referred to the Pharisees and chief priest as devils and vipers.

The fore-mentioned scenario is unrealistic, according to Eusebius in Church History, the alleged brother of this very Jesus was stoned and clubbed to death. Stephen was stoned to death, as a blasphemer, under the watch of "Saul/Paul". And "Paul" himself was beaten by the Jews with 195 lashes and was also stoned for preaching the Gospel.


Now, I will finally examine the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

According to the Synoptics, the day Jesus was crucified and died, there was darkness over Judea for three hours, from the sixth hour until the ninth hour[/b]. (See Matt 27.45, Mk 15.33 and Luke 23.44).

If this darkness occurred, it would have been witnessed by hundreds of thousands, more like millions of people. If the Synoptics was written and read within a few years of this fictitious 3-hour darkness, then it would have known to be a bogus claim and the authors of the Synoptics would have been immediately discredited and discarded as liars.

If these authors could write what appears to be a monstrous lie, a 3-hr darkness, that millions of people could verify as catergorically false, then anything these authors write about cannot trusted and is most likely fabricated fiction, and they wrote about Jesus, the Messiah, the Saviour, son of Mary, and the King of Jesus.

Jesus died during an event that never occurred, the 3-hr darkness.
Jesus was born during an event that never occurred, the star over a specific house.

The evidence against an historical Jesus is overwhelming. The name Jesus the Christ is only associated with forgeries. See AJ 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.