Toto

It's your failure to understand the argument.

Even if these later Christians are truly historicists, when they used Paul's term for an "appearance" as a reference to a "second coming," it could well have been because they picked up the word from Paul and shifted the meaning towards their own assumptions - that Jesus had already appeared for a first time.

This is how language evolves.

JonA

Do you ever have anything concrete to say?

Toto

My explanation is more probable than your rigged attempt to force a word that means "appearance" to mean "second appearance."

Are you ever going to meet my arguments with a rational response instead of just throwing a tantrum?

JonA

Fortunately I've never attempted to do such a thing.

Unfortunately you still don't understand my argument.

Oh well. I'm not sure there is more I can say to help. I'll simply have to take the matter up with other posters.

Jon

aa5874

The Canon does NOT contain the claim that Jesus did NOT exist as a Divine character and was NOT on earth.

Why are you trying to defend the illogical claim that Christians did NOT believe Jesus, the son of Mary and the Holy Ghost, existed on earth when it is blatantly in error.

We have Apologetic sources, we have the Canon, we have the Codices.

Please, let us not invent any more stories about supposed the Son of God and Creator.

Apologetic source of antiquity that used the Pauline writings claimed the resurrected Jesus was CRUCIFIED on earth and BLAMED the Jews.

LegionOnomaMoi

And this would help how?

First of all, the "language" of the LXX is as similar to Mark as is the Greek of Philo (and even Plutarch, with a few exceptions). Secondly, are you familiar with linguistic typology (Croft would be useful here, but if you are familiar with Comrie, Bauer, Greenberg, Kurzová, Lehnmann, or any other central figures on either typology within IE studies or Hebraic studies, or on typological methods, that would do)? Finally, the LXX doesn't string together a bunch of sayings/events in an incredibly poor manner the way Mark does. The author is literate, which means compared to the general populous the author is well educated. And the capacity to tell stories is hardly requires an education or much in the way of intellect. I've heard stories from teenagers in classes I've taught which integrate different pieces of a story far, far, better than mark's constant "and X" "and suddenly X" "and then X" etc. We don't find this awkward juxtaposition in other gospels or in the LXX.

EarlDoherty

Oh...my...God!

This is outlandish, even for you, aa.

I bring a recording of Mahler's Second Symphony to my friend's place to play it for him. He has never heard a recording of Mahler's First Symphony. Knowing this, I tell him that my recording of the Second Symphony is "Mahler's First Symphony"? After all, he knows no First Symphony, so I'm going to tell him that my recording is of "Mahler's First Symphony"???

I think I have never encountered anyone on any discussion board who ever wastes as much time and bandwidth--for all of us--as you do.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Your response is just a big laugh. This is an extremely serious matter.

Let us deal specifically with 1 Peter 1.

1 Peter 1 1 Peter 1 is addressed to the strangers throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia but Jesus of the NT appeared in Judea so it cannot be claimed that 1 Peter is evidence that Jesus of the NT was NOT on earth.

This is so basic.

It is extremely important that you understand the Jesus story and NOT invent events.

The Gospels stories are extremely clear that Jesus of the NT, the Son of God, the Word that was God, born of a Holy Ghost was crucified AFTER a trial with the Snhedrin and Pilate and the body of this Jesus, the Son of God, was buried by Joseph.

The author of the Pauline writings claimed Jesus, the son of God, made of a woman, died for our sins, was buried, and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

There is NO statement in the Canon anywhere that Contradicts the geographical area of crucifixion of Jesus.

Jesus was in Judea and Jerusalem NOT in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.

All claims that Jesus of the NT, the Son of God and the Creator, was NOT crucified on earth is utterly baseless and is NOT supported by the NT and Apologetic sources.

EarlDoherty

Details are only “meaningless” when you have to ignore them to preserve your position. What you have ignored is my point that the passages involving the “come” verb are a minority of what I was offering to demonstrate that Christians speaking or writing them had no conception of an earlier presence of Jesus on earth. If a few passages (the “come” ones) are indeed “ambiguous” as to whether they should imply first coming or return, we turn to other passages which are not so ambiguous, if at all. That is what I did, and that is what you have ignored, let alone answered.

Also, when we enter the world of the Gospels, no one uses the type of verbs and phrases (outside the “come” ones) to signify the Second Coming as they do in the epistles when they talk about Jesus’ arrival at the Parousia (such as the “when JC is revealed” in 1 Peter 1:7). That is because such verbs and phrases are entirely unsuitable to speak of a Second Coming. Of course, they are also entirely unsuitable to speak of a first coming in the sense of an incarnation as a human being to earth.

Yes, linguistically the use of “erchomai” can be seen as ambiguous in its usages across the board in the NT. But this does not change the fact that the verb does not by itself convey a sense of “return.” To that extent, the epistles, when they use it, do NOT convey this sense of return. We know in the Gospels that the idea of ‘return’ is entailed, but that’s because of the Gospel content, which allows us to infer this. The epistle content does not do so, there is no context or inference of a return.

So my statement in TJP still stands: (in the epistles) we keep waiting for any sense that this will be a return to earth, rather than a first appearance. And when other passages talking about the expected Parousia which do not involve the verb “come” convey the same thing even more strongly, that this is not a return but the first time people will see the Christ, then we are entitled to take the epistles’ meaning of “come”, in those passages that use it, as NOT entailing a return. We are not entitled to read the Gospel context and implication into the epistles. When you understand the evolution of the Christian movement (which is something I am sure you will never do), you cannot argue as though the epistles and the Gospels are all of a piece, and that something which applies to one has to apply to the other.

And yes, language does evolve, as Toto has said. “Erchomai” was originally used to refer to God the Father’s coming, the Day of the Lord. It later referred to his Son coming, the Day of Christ Jesus, before the concept developed that he had been incarnated to earth. In other words, “erchomai” was a word associated with an apocalyptic coming of a divine figure in a cataclysmic upheaval that would transform the world and establish God’s kingdom. Once the Gospels gave rise to the idea that this Son had already lived on earth, the verb “erchomai” would still continue to be used as we see in the Gospels, because it still referred to that apocalyptic coming. But there was no need to change it or insert a word specifying ‘return’ or ‘again’ because that was now simply understood.

But that understanding would still not allow the speaker to make a statement which was specifically false or was not compatible with his new understanding, which is what Hebrew 10:37 would do if you read ‘return’ into the sense of it; the writer would not have said what he did if he possessed the concept of a previous coming in his mind. I pointed that out, but you made no attempt to counter that demonstration. I gave an analogy about the wars with Germany, but that went completely over your head.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

The Pauline Epistles are part of the Canon and contain statements about a character called Jesus Christ who was God's Son, made of a woman, was crucified, died for OUR sins,buried, and was raised from the dead on the third day which is compatible with the Gospels.

It is illogical to isolate the Pauline writings from the Gospels when the very writer is claiming to be a CONTEMPORARY of the Apostles of the Resurrected Jesus and that he MET the Apostles in Jerusalem.

It is a massive error to analyse the Pauline writings in a Vacuum as if Paul and his Jesus operated in OUTER space.

The Pauline writer claimed after all to have been a PERSECUTOR of the faith.

The Pauline writer simply claimed to be a WITNESS of the Resurrected Jesus, God's Own Son, after over 500 PEOPLE did so and that he received his gospel from him.