SeaJay

Did Jesus Fail to Return?

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, ficino said:

Both subjunctives are aorist in Mark 13:30. Aorist subjunctive does not denote a continuous action, not a process.

 

A Greek speaker reads this verse as saying "all these things must occur before this generation shall be past/pass away." 

 

No one who knows Greek is going to pick up this text and think it means all Jesus' hearers will be dead and "these things" will continue to be in process of occurring.

Hi Ficino, I was hoping you'd comment because you seem to have knowledge of the Greek language. 

 

I'm not quite sure about this part of your post: "Aorist subjunctive does not denote a continuous action, not a process." Did you mean to say "nor a process" or something else?

 

Also, one poster said they had read this book Greek-English Lexicon and they maintain the grammar does conform to that Continuous Aspect and it being undefined as such. Specifically he said this:

 

"I have checked the "granddaddy" of biblical Greek lexicons, and found that the Greek word γένηται does support the meaning of "come into being as an event or phenomenon from a point of origin, arise, come about, develop." The analysis of the Greek is correct."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PLEASE EXCUSE THE ANNOYING COMMERCIAL BREAKS IN THE CONVERSATION:

As with everything these days, the cost of keeping the Ex-C forum up and running has been rising. Inflation? In part, but the primary reason is this: As participation in the forums grows, costs increase. The Ex-C forums will remain free of charge to everyone, but if you believe this little corner of the Internet provides value to you or others, and you feel inclined to help keep us online, please consider making a one-time donation or becoming a regular contributor. Contribution options appear under the "Upgrade" link above, and can be accessed by clicking here.

Oh, and as an incentive (no, you won't be given any bogus promises of eternal bliss), if you do become a regular contributor by signing up for any monthly or yearly patron package, this annoying ADVO will disappear.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled conversation...



SeaJay, think again about the following excerpts from a post of yours:

 

8 hours ago, SeaJay said:

I agree with this, why use a form of language where you have to be a scholar to understand it. That doesn't make sense.

 

8 hours ago, SeaJay said:

But a prophecy happening over 2000 years in light of various verses implying people thought things were going to happen soon (soon, at hand, quickly, the last hour, we will not die etc) makes me doubt the apologetic.

 

If the apologists really had divine perfect truth on their side, would there still be these lingering problems?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SeaJay, yes, I have a Ph.D. in Greek and Latin and also speak Modern Greek. I write about stuff in those languages.

 

The ancient Greek tense forms signal two features about an action, and some tenses express both features more explicitly than other tenses do. The two features are Time - when did the action occur in relation to the speaker's speech - and Aspect. Aspect is the degree of completion. A tense form can signal that the aspect of an action is continuous/process, that it's completed/finished, or not specify aspect and only signal that the action takes place.

 

Time frame is really only signalled consistently in the indicative mood, the mood for stating fact. Dependent moods like the subjunctive don't really signal time, since they are used usually for potentiality or wish or virtual command or the like. 

 

Aorist forms basically indicate that the action takes place. They don't make a point of specifying that that aspect is finished/complete, but usually it is, if the speaker is saying that the action takes place. On the other hand, aorists do NOT indicate an ongoing action. They are not to represent an action in process. So if you say, "until the child is born", and you use aorist subjunctive, the speaker is not concerned with the fact that real-life births are not instantaneous but take up some duration of time. We know there'a process of the baby coming out of the womb, but the language in my example is not concerned to show that process. All it does is represent the action of birth as though it happens.

So if someone says, "no one shall leave the room until the child is born," that statement does not give people license to wander in and out during the birth. No. Any Greek speaker will take this to mean, kid must come out of womb before anyone walks out of room. Being Greeks, the other people may all disagree with the speaker (heh heh), but there is not disagreement over the question, does the speaker mean an ongoing process of birth. The answer is no, the speaker does not mean a process if s/he uses the aorist subjunctive.

 

ETA: in the birth example, if it had present subjunctive, THEN it would mean something like "no one shall leave the room until the child is being born," i.e. until the kid STARTs  to come out of the womb. This latter scenario sounds like what the poster on the other website wants Mark 13:30 to mean. But Mark 13:30 does not mean this.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

SeaJay, think again about the following excerpts from a post of yours:

 

 

 

If the apologists really had divine perfect truth on their side, would there still be these lingering problems?

 

See, I've heard it said that the Bible is inspired writing but written by fallible men. Me? If the Bible was something God wanted to happen and wanted us to have, well I can't help think we wouldn't have so much hassles interpreting this or that verse. It's no evidence 'either' way of the Bible's claims, but it is a huge issue for those claiming the Bible is infallible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ficino said:

Hi SeaJay, yes, I have a Ph.D. in Greek and Latin and also speak Modern Greek. I write about stuff in those languages.

 

The ancient Greek tense forms signal two features about an action, and some tenses express both features more explicitly than other tenses do. The two features are Time - when did the action occur in relation to the speaker's speech - and Aspect. Aspect is the degree of completion. A tense form can signal that the aspect of an action is continuous/process, that it's completed/finished, or not specify aspect and only signal that the action takes place.

 

Time frame is really only signalled consistently in the indicative mood, the mood for stating fact. Dependent moods like the subjunctive don't really signal time, since they are used usually for potentiality or wish or virtual command or the like. 

 

Aorist forms basically indicate that the action takes place. They don't make a point of specifying that that aspect is finished/complete, but usually it is, if the speaker is saying that the action takes place. On the other hand, aorists do NOT indicate an ongoing action. They are not to represent an action in process. So if you say, "until the child is born", and you use aorist subjunctive, the speaker is not concerned with the fact that real-life births are not instantaneous but take up some duration of time. We know there'a process of the baby coming out of the womb, but the language in my example is not concerned to show that process. All it does is represent the action of birth as though it happens.

So if someone says, "no one shall leave the room until the child is born," that statement does not give people license to wander in and out during the birth. No. Any Greek speaker will take this to mean, kid must come out of womb before anyone walks out of room. Being Greeks, the other people may all disagree with the speaker (heh heh), but there is not disagreement over the question, does the speaker mean an ongoing process of birth. The answer is no, the speaker does not mean a process if s/he uses the aorist subjunctive.

 

Woah! Ok, fair enough :D Ph.D in Greek is good enough for me. 

 

That said, when you said this ""Aorist subjunctive does not denote a continuous action, not a process."  Are you saying it's not a continuous action and, not a process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was typing quickly. More accurately: "Aorist subjunctive does not present an action as continuous or as a process."  

 

You are familiar with the distinction between meaning and reference? Two expressions may have different senses but point to the same thing. The classic example: "the morning star" and "the evening star" have different meanings or senses, since morning is not evening. But they have the same reference, i.e. they both point to the planet Venus.

 

When I wrote "denote" a while back, I wasn't being precise about my verb. That's why I rewrote as "present." Aorist subjunctive may denote/refer/point to an act that in fact took a while to complete, as in the birth example. But it does not present/mean an ongoing action. It just means to show the act is taking place, not make a point about duration or process.

 

So the listener is NOT authorized to infer that "no X until Y" with aorist subjunctive gives license for X to start occurring when Y only first starts to occur. NO, no. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ficino said:

I was typing quickly. More accurately: "Aorist subjunctive does not present an action as continuous or as a process."  

 

You are familiar with the distinction between meaning and reference? Two expressions may have different senses but point to the same thing. The classic example: "the morning star" and "the evening star" have different meanings or senses, since morning is not evening. But they have the same reference, i.e. they both point to the planet Venus.

 

When I wrote "denote" a while back, I wasn't being precise about my verb. That's why I rewrote as "present." Aorist subjunctive may denote/refer/point to an act that in fact took a while to complete, as in the birth example. But it does not present/mean an ongoing action. It just means to show the act is taking place, not make a point about duration or process.

 

So the listener is NOT authorized to infer that "no X until Y" with aorist subjunctive gives license for X to start occurring when Y only first starts to occur. NO, no. 

 

Thank you very much Ficino! I must say we are lucky to have you on these forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2017 at 5:30 PM, SeaJay said:

Thank you DB, I plan on reading 'Misquoting Jesus' again very soon

 

I am not talking about misquoting Jesus. Try reading his book "Forged"  and then if you liked that he goes into more detail on the Pauline Epistles in his book "Forgeries and counter forgeries".

 

My point behind this is that he makes a very good case for his conclusions, and Half of the new testament was forged. Therefore it wasn't "inspired by God". A forged document is a deception. And scripture states that God cannot lie or deceive in many instances correct? 

       If the book then is a forgery then any scriptures in that book are rendered null and void as to its authority as it was presented as authentic through deception. If you can exclude half of the scriptures of the new testament then we can analyze the scriptures that aren't forgeries and determine whether the Bible has been fulfilling itself or not.

 

DB

 

PS. After you read the book "forged" get back with me and we can discuss this point further. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 5:58 AM, SeaJay said:

 

I have never heard of a 'Markan sandwich'. Has anyone here? The above quotes are great examples of why I cannot break free totally, it's because there are so many apologetic answers to questions and they don't even have to be ironclad. It literally drives me nuts. 

 

SeaJay, have you examined other parts of the New Testament outside of the gospels that may indicate or imply that Jesus would return soon?  What are some of the apologetic answers?  I remember examining apologetic responses a few years ago related to these but do not recall many that made viable sense, but I am always interested in reviewing these or seeing various ways the text is translated.  I tend to prefer the NRSV for a few reasons (can explain separately if needed).
 
In Paul's generally undisputed letters, he seems to believe that he himself would be alive when Jesus returns. 
 
In 1 Thessalonians 4, Paul is encouraging those who are concerned that their family/friends have died and Jesus has not returned.  At 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul includes himself ("we") when describing those who will be alive and meet Jesus in the air at his return:
15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died.[j] 16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. (NRSV)
 
In 1 Corinthians 7, concerning marriage, Paul recommends that everyone remain as they are - either remain married or do not seek to be married, although those who choose to marry can do so.  However, as part of this advice, Paul also emphasizes in 1 Corinthians 7:29-31, just how short the remaining time is: 
29 I mean, brothers and sisters,[g] the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, 30 and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, 31 and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. (NRSV)
 
How is someone reading this text today to interpret Paul's guidance here?  The time remaining was so short that "those who have wives should be as though they had none".  Should people who are currently married today be living as though they are not married?  Or should they have even married in the first place, if the time is so short?
 
In Romans 13:11, Paul states:  11 Besides this, you know what time it is, how it is now the moment for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers. (NRSV)
 
Paul would have written Romans ~60 AD.  If salvation was nearer to Paul and his followers now (~60 AD) than when they became believers (no earlier than right after Jesus' resurrection, ~33 AD), that is a period of about 27 years - let's round up to 30.  This seems to suggest that salvation (return of Jesus) should have occurred no later than 30 years after the time Paul wrote Romans, ~90 AD.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi readyforchange

 

Yes, that does sound clear that Paul was expecting something very soon.

 

Just one point, I've heard that when Paul says 'we', he was addressing everyone in all times and places in general, and that he did not literally mean the time he himself was alive.  Almost like he was writing for the people alive when the second coming was imminent - whenever that was. I understand what they are trying to say, but not sure I fully accept or believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2017 at 2:43 AM, SeaJay said:

Hi readyforchange

 

Yes, that does sound clear that Paul was expecting something very soon.

 

Just one point, I've heard that when Paul says 'we', he was addressing everyone in all times and places in general, and that he did not literally mean the time he himself was alive.  Almost like he was writing for the people alive when the second coming was imminent - whenever that was. I understand what they are trying to say, but not sure I fully accept or believe it.

 

Yes, accepting or believing such a blatantly dishonest attempt at after the fact apologetic's wouldn't be a very wise choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One one of these boards, I read a side by side comparison of the gospels and how they can't even agree the basic facts of the story. Sometimes women are there, sometimes angels, sometimes Gardener-Jesus, sometimes not.

 

if your friends told you a story about what they did over the weekend together when you could not join them, and their stories varied this wildly you would say even if one story is true, the rest do not tally at all. Why would a god use such a nonsense mishmash to give to future generations? Without the resurrection part of the story, at least, being true the rest fails. Without indoctrination we would never have bought it.

 

No no need to spend another minute thinking about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now