Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[Paladin]

Quote (Ed J @ July 18 2011,13:14)

Quote (Paladin @ July 18 2011,12:15) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2011,11:57) Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5, IN AND OF ITSELF, prohibit Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past?  YES or NO? Already asked and answered. Hi Paladin, I haven't been following this thread much, but could you re-post your answer for all to see? Your brother in Christ, Jesus. Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

From [197-9]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2011,13:55)

Paladin, Is this what we're discussing? What I said was that even WITHIN the imperfect tense, it is PAST TENSE WORDS that describe the “continuous action”. The word “KEPT” is the PAST TENSE of the word KEEP, right?

NO Mike, it is not. While It may be true, it is an English “past” it is a Greek “imperfect.” And after all, it is my knowledge of the “Greek” you are all puffed up about, and denying I know anything, right, Mike?

“Kept” is Greek “imperfect,” Mike, not “past.” I have been trying to tell you this for a long time now, but you have been contesting my use of Greek, with English grammar and rules.

And I have repeatedly told you “you are getting your “Greek” out of commentaries and, and getting it wrong.” Now we finally find out why. You are arguing Greek issues from the English vocabulary and grammar.

Quote

I will not rest until you answer this question. And I am about to bring this to the attention of the owner of the site. I will NOT allow you to just spout untrue things using Greek terms and rules of grammar that might be out of many of our member's area of expertise. What you did was try to change the meaning of scripture and possibly the minds of pre-existent believers with a LIE that you thought was “over our heads”. Guess again, sonny. I WILL keep you honest. So remember that the next time you try it, okay?

I already asked t8 to monitor this site beginning with page 196, when I posted 196-1, “to keep me honest,” not to threaten anyone else, which is why I did not mention it before, so feel free. If he feels I have mistreated you, he can take appropriate action. If he feels you have mistreated me, I cannot be responsible. If I am banned, I will simply move on to where I am welcome. So save your threats for someone who fears your anger.

Quote

Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5, IN AND OF ITSELF, prohibit Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past? YES or NO?

Mike, once more, and for the last time, it is not a “yes” or “no” answer, so quit asking it in a “yes” or “no” format.

When you were told on page 163 post #8 –

Quote (Paladin @ June 02 2011 @ 01:16)

[EIXON] [NOTE: Imperfect Indicative [eixon] describes a continuing action occuring in the past. If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous. Had John used the “perfect” tense, it would have been an action that was brought to completion, with present continuous results. But John did not use the “perfect” tense of echo [esxeeka; 2 Cor 2:13][esxeekamen, Ro 5:2; II Co 1:9][esxeeken, II Co 7:5][esxeekota, Mark 5:15]. If John intended to convey a prehistoric glory Jesus once had, but no longer has, as in “discontinued,” it would be aorist, simple completed action form of echo;[esxomen, I Thes 1:9]; or [esxon; Mat 22:28;Mark 12:23;Luke 20:33; Philemon 1:7;Jude 1:3]. But John used the imperfect form of echo, which constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past.

Then over in 165-1 you raised an English language question based upon a Greek grammar issue:

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:06)

Paladin,June wrote: [NOTE: Imperfect Indicative [eixon] describes a continuing action occuring in the past. If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous.

Here's your English language question:

Quote

The action WAS contiuous? Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time?

A careful reading of the post will show the answer was already given – i.e., the “imperfect” references action that was continuous.

If the action was continuous, how is it in any way involoved with “forbidding” anything at all in the english translation? It is not involved with permitting or forbidding. That is strictly your own speculative excercise.

So why the question Mike? It was not based on the Greek, because the Greek was already published for all to see. You were trying to change the meaning from Greek imperfect, which references continuous action, to english past tense where you then could apply the consequence of your question i.e., “Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time?” Mike, and have been on a campaign to discredit my Greek use ever since.

Then you referenced NetNotes to justify your Greek to English swap –

Quote

From NETNotes: 5775 Tense – Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.

Do you see it Mike? In the Greek, the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.”

But you switched to the English “past” of kept, to make your point feasible. Notice, Mike, I am not saying this was your motive, only you can supply that; I am saying it was the result of your manipulation of the Greek to English translation.

Here is where you begin manipulating (perhaps not intentionally, but the result is the same) the Greek to agree with the english:

Quote

So what I'm asking you, Paladin, is why the PAST TENSE word “kept” is in NETNote's illustration? In your first sample scripture, Matt 14:5, the people held John as a prophet. HELD, or REGARDED, or BELIEVED or THOUGHT, or CONSIDERED him as a prophet. These are all past tense words, right?

And of course, the answer is “No!” they are not all “past tense words” in the Greek. Your argument is about the english past tense, but the Greek imperfect.

And, though I have repeated this over and over Mike, I have not been able to make it clear because (in my estimation) you wanted me to understand your point worse than you wanted to understand my point.

And here is where you draw a false English conclusion to a Greek issue.

Quote

But did John ever discontinue being a prophet? Of course, because he died. So your “discontinue” point is null and void, because Matthew was not saying that the people ARE STILL CONTINUING TO THINK JOHN IS A PROPHET TO THIS VERY DAY, as if this action hasn't since discontinued.

There is no way you are going to resolve your problem with this mike, because you have switched from trying to force an English meaning from a Greek phrase, to the problem of forcing Paladin to be “honest” (as you put it) according to your values, based upon faulty Greek, and Faulty English.

I am telling you once more, You have accused me of
“intentionally” misleading, of “deliberately” posting false information, and a host of other falsely applied labels, just because of your own ignorance of Greek and English, as they interact in translation and application.

I have not assigned motive to you, only pointed out errors which you have employed in your responses to my posts. And the fact that it took me a little while to research and figure out where it went wrong, you became more practiced in accusing me of perfidious activity. I have not asked you for apology, because I am not sure you even know what has been said, but I do ask that you stop with your tirade of accusatons against me.

And stop calling me “sonny.”

So far, I have demonstrated every claim to be true, while all of yours have fallen by the wayside. Don't you suppose the time has come to move on? Or do you prefer to have t8 to settle anything between us? I will stand on the record as posted.

“Come, let us reason together, (saith the Lord).”

[Paladin]

Quote (Ed J @ July 18 2011,13:14)

Quote (Paladin @ July 18 2011,12:15) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2011,11:57) Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5, IN AND OF ITSELF, prohibit Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past?  YES or NO? Already asked and answered. Hi Paladin, I haven't been following this thread much, but could you re-post your answer for all to see? Your brother in Christ, Jesus. Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[from 197-9]From [197-9]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2011,13:55)

Paladin, Is this what we're discussing? What I said was that even WITHIN the imperfect tense, it is PAST TENSE WORDS that describe the “continuous action”. The word “KEPT” is the PAST TENSE of the word KEEP, right?

NO Mike, it is not. While It may be true, it is an English “past” it is a Greek “imperfect.” And after all, it is my knowledge of the “Greek” you are all puffed up about, and denying I know anything, right, Mike?

“Kept” is Greek “imperfect,” Mike, not “past.” I have been trying to tell you this for a long time now, but you have been contesting my use of Greek, with English grammar and rules.

And I have repeatedly told you “you are getting your “Greek” out of commentaries and, and getting it wrong.” Now we finally find out why. You are arguing Greek issues from the English vocabulary and grammar.

Quote

I will not rest until you answer this question. And I am about to bring this to the attention of the owner of the site. I will NOT allow you to just spout untrue things using Greek terms and rules of grammar that might be out of many of our member's area of expertise. What you did was try to change the meaning of scripture and possibly the minds of pre-existent believers with a LIE that you thought was “over our heads”. Guess again, sonny. I WILL keep you honest. So remember that the next time you try it, okay?

I already asked t8 to monitor this site beginning with page 196, when I posted 196-1, “to keep me honest,” not to threaten anyone else, which is why I did not mention it before, so feel free. If he feels I have mistreated you, he can take appropriate action. If he feels you have mistreated me, I cannot be responsible. If I am banned, I will simply move on to where I am welcome. So save your threats for someone who fears your anger.

Quote

Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5, IN AND OF ITSELF, prohibit Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past? YES or NO?

Mike, once more, and for the last time, it is not a “yes” or “no” answer, so quit asking it in a “yes” or “no” format.

When you were told on page 163 post #8 –

Quote (Paladin @ June 02 2011 @ 01:16)

[EIXON] [NOTE: Imperfect Indicative [eixon] describes a continuing action occuring in the past. If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous. Had John used the “perfect” tense, it would have been an action that was brought to completion, with present continuous results. But John did not use the “perfect” tense of echo [esxeeka; 2 Cor 2:13][esxeekamen, Ro 5:2; II Co 1:9][esxeeken, II Co 7:5][esxeekota, Mark 5:15]. If John intended to convey a prehistoric glory Jesus once had, but no longer has, as in “discontinued,” it would be aorist, simple completed action form of echo;[esxomen, I Thes 1:9]; or [esxon; Mat 22:28;Mark 12:23;Luke 20:33; Philemon 1:7;Jude 1:3]. But John used the imperfect form of echo, which constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past.

Then over in 165-1 you raised an English language question based upon a Greek grammar issue:

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:06)

Paladin,June wrote: [NOTE: Imperfect Indicative [eixon] describes a continuing action occuring in the past. If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous.

Here's your English language question:

Quote

The action WAS contiuous? Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time?

A careful reading of the post will show the answer was already given – i.e., the “imperfect” references action that was continuous.

If the action was continuous, how is it in any way involoved with “forbidding” anything at all in the english translation? It is not involved with permitting or forbidding. That is strictly your own speculative excercise.

So why the question Mike? It was not based on the Greek, because the Greek was already published for all to see. You were trying to change the meaning from Greek imperfect, which references continuous action, to english past tense where you then could apply the consequence of your question i.e., “Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time?” Mike, and have been on a campaign to discredit my Greek use ever since.

Then you referenced NetNotes to justify your Greek to English swap –

Quote

From NETNotes: 5775 Tense – Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the impe rfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.

Do you see it Mike? In the Greek, the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.”

But you switched to the English “past” of kept, to make your point feasible. Notice, Mike, I am not saying this was your motive, only you can supply that; I am saying it was the result of your manipulation of the Greek to English translation.

Here is where you begin manipulating (perhaps not intentionally, but the result is the same) the Greek to agree with the english:

Quote

So what I'm asking you, Paladin, is why the PAST TENSE word “kept” is in NETNote's illustration? In your first sample scripture, Matt 14:5, the people held John as a prophet. HELD, or REGARDED, or BELIEVED or THOUGHT, or CONSIDERED him as a prophet. These are all past tense words, right?

And of course, the answer is “No!” they are not all “past tense words” in the Greek. Your argument is about the english past tense, but the Greek imperfect.

And, though I have repeated this over and over Mike, I have not been able to make it clear because (in my estimation) you wanted me to understand your point worse than you wanted to understand my point.

And here is where you draw a false English conclusion to a Greek issue.

Quote

But did John ever discontinue being a prophet? Of course, because he died. So your “discontinue” point is null and void, because Matthew was not saying that the people ARE STILL CONTINUING TO THINK JOHN IS A PROPHET TO THIS VERY DAY, as if this action hasn't since discontinued.

There is no way you are going to resolve your problem with this mike, because you have switched from trying to force an English meaning from a Greek phrase, to the problem of forcing Paladin to be “honest” (as you put it) according to your values, based upon faulty Greek, and Faulty English.

I am telling you once more, You have accused me of
“intentionally” misleading, of “deliberately” posting false information, and a host of other falsely applied labels, just because of your own ignorance of Greek and English, as they interact in translation and application.

I have not assigned motive to you, only pointed out errors which you have employed in your responses to my posts. And the fact that it took me a little while to research and figure out where it went wrong, you became more practiced in accusing me of perfidious activity. I have not asked you for apology, because I am not sure you even know what has been said, but I do ask that you stop with your tirade of accusatons against me.

And stop calling me “sonny.”

So far, I have demonstrated every claim to be true, while all of yours have fallen by the wayside. Don't you suppose the time has come to move on? Or do you prefer to have t8 to settle anything between us? I will stand on the record as posted.

“Come, let us reason together, (saith the Lord).”

[Ed J]

Hi Paladin,

Thanks for the in-depth explanation.
I'm learning more about the Greek, but
I still know more about Hebrew vernacular.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2011,12:31)

I want nothing further to do with you…………except to read the correction/apology for posting a false accusation about me a couple of days ago.

O.K. Mike, here's where you “changed and twisted” what I said, time after time, and did not let up…

[From 137-8]

Quote (Tim Kraft @ May 13 2011,04:58)

Mike has great learning and I believe that in his zeal for God, to reveal the truth he believes, he places a few words that seem to condescend or degrade what he considers the error of another.

Hi Tim,
Let me demonstrate what Paladin, the “man of peace”, is really saying to ME.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

Sometimes it requires that we “unlearn” what we know, in order to learn what God is saying to us.

Translation:  YOU need to unlearn what YOU know because it is YOUR understanding of scripture that is wrong.

THAT'S ONE

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

I would hazzard a guess that very much of what you have posted to me can be considered “scriptural” in that most of it is found within the pages of scripture. But, “being found in scripture” is not all it takes to qualify to be understood to be God's truth.

Translation:  The fact that YOU post scriptures should not be mistaken for a realization that YOU actually understand God's truth.

THAT'S TWO

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

But your understanding of truth lacks the finnesse necessary to establish the definitive application that would demonstrate for all time, that it is in fact that “truth” it claims to be.

Translation:  What YOU think is scriptural truth is not the truth you claim it to be because YOUR understanding is lacking.

THAT'S THREE

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

I have repeatedly tried to demonstrate for your understanding, that studying God's word out of chronological order is devastating to proper understanding of truth.

Translation:  In MY ultimate wisdom, I have desparately tried to make you see that Jesus is NOT the Word in John 1:1 – but you have to read the Bible backwards in order to be swayed by my alternate theology and my claims that “logos” has some hidden mystical meaning that “rhema” does not have.  So YOU could not possibly understand God's truth in the scriptures unless you read the Bible the way I tell you to.

THAT'S FOUR

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

You have attacked my explanations of the application of Greek principles and definitions to the point you have even told the readers I am misrepresenting the Greek. You have yet to demonstrate where this has happened.

Translation:  Even though I've also made this claim about Psalm 138:2, and then you DID repost your demonstration of how I was wrong for all to see (which is why I didn't respond to that post), I will claim it again about the word “para”, which you've clearly showed doesn't ever mean “by way of promise”.  I recognize that you HAVE shown my claim about both of these to be wrong, but if I keep claiming that you didn't, maybe someone out there will believe me.

THAT'S FIVE

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

Can we please do away with the caustic remarks, the heated rhetoric, the clever rejoinders and the “put downs” we see from time to time?

Translation:  I used the word “WE”, but it is YOU who does these things, not me.

THAT'S SIX

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

Now, Mike, can we please come together in fellowship on this board, and stop with all the sniping?

Translation:  Mike, can YOU please get with the program and start being nice like I am?

THAT'S SEVEN

Am I wrong here Tim?  Am I reading insults to my understanding, intelligence, behavior, and truth that are masked in the guise of peace………..or is it just me?  Maybe Paladin has good intentions here, but I would have taken his post much better had he mentioned that HE is also guilty of every single thing he accused me of doing.[/QUOTE]

THAT'S EIGHT

you didn't leave it as I posted it Mike, but “changed and twisted “we” to “you” and now add to the injury and insult by pointing out to Tim ” I would have taken his post much better had he mentioned that HE is also guilty of every single thing he accused me of doing;”

Quote

Had he made the post from his own point of view, claiming the things that HE has done wrong and promising to amend HIS ways, I would have been moved to tears by his humility and would have responded in a much different way than I'm doing right now.

Quote

But the way he did this makes me think that he is taking the high road at my expense.  He is saying, “Mike, look at me and how humble and peaceable I am.  Won't you please put away your petty ways and come join me in the high place I've always been?”

THAT'S NINE

Do you remember my response Mike? I did not return rant for rant, nor rave for rave.
======
======================================================================================
[from 138-8]

Quote (Paladin @ May 15 2011,23:05)

The time is January 6, 1885. The event is the publication of the 38 volume set of the Early Church Fathers; the first ten of which are designated “Ante-Nicene Fathers” which references the fact they cover the historical period prior to the Nicene Council of 325 a.d. In the very first volume, in the introductory note to the “Epistle Concerning The Martyrdom Of Polycarp” page 37 of Vol. I, is found this statement by A. Cleveland coxe, D.D, who revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes: Quote   As an encyclical of one of “the seven churches”  to another of the same seven, and as bearing witness to their aggregation with others into the unity of “The Holy and Catholic church,” it is a very interesting witness, not only to an article of the creed, but to the original meaning and acceptation of the same. More than this, it is evidence of the strength of Christ perfected in human weakness; and thus it affords us an assurance of grace equal to our day in every time of need. When I see in it, however, an example of what a noble army of martyrs, women and children included, suffered in those days “for the testimony of Jesus,” and in order to hand down the knowledge of the gospel to these boastful ages of our own, I confess myself edified by what I read, chiefly because I am humbled and abashed in comparing what a Christian used to be, with what a Christian is, in our times, even at his best estate.” This is quite an indictment upon a people alledgedly devoted to this same Jesus, separated by two centuries of study and scholarship, and consequently, supposedly a better administration of what is meant by what is written in the scripture. Why are there so many denominations, all pledging allegiance to the one and same Christ? Did not this Christ deny that he is divided? What is that to me? To me it is a reminder that the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ is today, entrusted to vessels of clay. When brethren meet on boards in dispute, we all think to present the truth of the gospel, and are disappointed when our adversaries do not see things our way. Frustrations abound, and feelings are disturbed on all sides. I have caused my brother anguish, and for that Mike, I ask forgiveness. It was not my intent, but we all know about “good intentions” when the result is not perceived to be that at all. I cannot agree to admit error when I do not perceive the error, though the whole board may accuse. I can only try to make my case, and move on. I am still faulted clay, and will continue ever so to be. I will be ever cognizant of the feelings of other posters on this board, and will continue to request your patience, and your indulgence with my posting, as I ever strive to make clear what seems to be a contentious assortment of issues between us. I disagree with you Mike. That does not change the fact you are my brother, and two thousand years of scholarship comes between us, but remember, that two thousand years of scholarship has produced a thousand yearsw of dark ages and many thousands of denominations all in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. If you did not react with zeal and emotion, I would be disappointed. I would rather have you as a brother in disagreement, than as an enemy in agreement. I have testified before, and will continue so to do, that I appreciate your knowledge in scripture, even though I disagree with some of your conclusions. It is not necessary that you say it the way I say it in order for me to be comfortable. I ask only that you be tollerant with my views as we differ, even as we both try to proclaim for the understanding of all, the gospel of Jesus christ. It matters not whether I use “I” or “WE” since you seem to “translate” both to mean “YOU” – and I will honor your disappointment in me, as [you] a brother admonishing [me] a wayward brother. I will readily admit this was not the original response I had prepared, but our mutual spirit-gift admonished me to rather find a way to see the image of God in you and emulate that, so I have done, and so I will strive to continue to do. And no, Mike, I do not perceive myself as “Holier Than Thou;” I see myself as almost a mirror image of you, as we both strive to present the image of God to the readers on the board. We both suffer from frustraton, and from the constant flow of a feeling of inadequacy to make our position known sufficiently to cause agreement in the other. Perhaps we are sent by God to offer different perspectives in the eyes of the readers, I will not pretend to know the answer to that one. I will only continue to try to present my understanding to the best of my faulted ability, and apologize before hand, for any hurt I cause in presenting my case. It is not my intent.

============================================================================================

[from 196-1]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2011,14:08)

Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2011,17:20) I will try to have the data collected in the next day or two and maybe we can come to some better understanding. I have an idea for a better use of your time, Paladin.  Instead of spending hours trying once again to show me as deceitful, (which didn't work out so well for you the first time), how about you just answer the simple YES or NO question that Marty finally answered? I told you I would post data so we could come to a better understanding, you “changed and twisted” it to “to show me as deceitful.” (YOUR words, not mine MIKE. THAT'S TEN [from 165-1] Quote ( mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:06) ———————————————————— Paladin,June wrote: describes a continuing action occuring in the past. If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous. (Mike) Quote The action WAS contiuous? Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time? HERE'S WHERE YOU QUOTED NETNOTES AND MIXED, THEN “CHANGED and TWISTED” THE TENSES IN YOUR QUESTIONS: Quote From NETNotes: 5775 Tense – Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. HERE'S WHERE YOU “CHANGED AND TWISTED” the Greek “imperfect” to an English “past tense.” So what I'm asking you, Paladin, is why the PAST TENSE word “kept” is in NETNote's illustration? ~snip~ These are all past tense words, right? THAT'S ELEVEN The “Past tense” is in NetNotes because they included in the remark, the verb “to be” which when I pointed it out to you, you denied referencing it, and abused me yet again. (Mike) Quote Jesus is recounting a PAST occurance – a time when he DID (past tense) continue to have glory alongside his God. THAT'S TWELVE [FROM 165-10] Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2011,06:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:06) Paladin,June wrote: [NOTE: Imperfect Indicative [eixon] describes a continuing action occuring in the past. If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous. Here's where you again try to “change/twist” the Greek imperfect continuing action “kept” for a past tense English “kept.” Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:06) The action WAS contiuous?  Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time? From NETNotes: 5775 Tense – Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. So what I'm asking you, Paladin, is why the PAST TENSE word “kept” is in NETNote's illustration? ~snip~ These are all past tense words, right? THAT'S THIRTEEN Here's where you try to “change/twist” the Greek imperfect continuous action to ““your discontinue point” But did John ever discontinue being a prophet?  Of course, because he died.  So your “discontinue” point is null and void, because Matthew was not saying that the people ARE STILL CONTINUING TO THINK JOHN IS A PROPHET TO THIS VERY DAY, as if this action hasn't since discontinued. That was YOUR argument, Mike, not mine, so… THAT'S FOURTEEN [FROM 166-5] Hi Paladin, Let me show you some of the diversions you use to avoid my point: CASE IN POINT #1 Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2011,00:50) Mike, the “imperfect” you are calling in question, is not the verb “to be;” it is the verb eixon “I had.”  I have not “tried to imply” anything, Mike, I pointed out an obvious error in your response to me. In a plainly posted attempt to show that the imperfect of the verb eixon was improper, You plainly said “in the case of the verb “to be” and continued to tear down my presentation as though you were on the right track. (MIKE) Did I ever imply that “I had” was the verb “to be”?

Yes, Mike, you did exactly that. Read your post again. You plainly said –

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:06)

The action WAS contiuous?  Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time? From NETNotes: 5775 Tense – Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. So what I'm asking you, Paladin, is why the PAST TENSE word “kept” is in NETNote's illustration?  In your first sample scripture, Matt 14:5, the people held John as a prophet.  HELD, or REGARDED, or BELIEVED or THOUGHT, or CONSIDERED him as a prophet.  These are all past tense words, right?

And when I called your attention to it, you denied it, saying

(MIKE; Cont'd)

Quote

Why would you divert from the issue with this crap?  I quoted a source about the imperfect Greek text in which they mentioned the verb “to be”.  I quoted the source in full, but I did not ever mention the “to be” part, because it does not fit this circumstance.

You highlighted the verb to be” in green letters, Mike, so please, quit saying you did not reference the verb “to be.”

Quote

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:06) The action WAS contiuous?  Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time? From NETNotes: 5775 Tense – Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. So what I'm asking you, Paladin, is why the PAST TENSE word “kept” is in NETNote's illustration?  In your first sample scripture, Matt 14:5, the people held John as a prophet.  HELD, or REGARDED, or BELIEVED or THOUGHT, or CONSIDERED him as a prophet.  These are all past tense words, right? So, MIKE, you highlighted the phrase from NetNotes, referenced the use of “past tense wrods” and expect me to sort out what you mean? THAT'S FIFTEEN Here's where you “twist and change” my words, to mean “continues on to this very day,” which are your words, MIKE, n ot mine. (MIKE:Cont'd) mikeboll64,June wrote: Instead, I mentioned the “kept on having”, indicating that the imperfect tense refers to, in your OWN WORDS, “an action occuring without discontinuity in the past.  It does NOT refer to an activity that CONTINUES ON TO THIS VERY DAY, but to an activity that was IN THE PAST and has since ceased.

THAT'S SIXTEEN

Here's where you mistake the Greek imperfect “continuous” for the English past tense “on and on and on.”

Quote

THIS is your claim: Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2011,00:50) But John used the imperfect form of echo, which constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past. And what you've concluded is that Jesus couldn't have HAD glory in the past, then NOT had it, and then ask for that something he no longer has again, all because of the tense of the Greek word.  You claim that the imperfect tense would refer to a glory that GOES ON AND ON AND ON……

THAT'S SEVENTEEN

Here's where you introduce the word “prohibit” to the Greek imperfect, where it does not apply – Then accuse me, using “purposely” in your verbage.

Quote

The imperfect tense of the word does NOT prohibit this glory from having ended, and therefore does not prohibit Jesus from asking for something back that he USED TO HAVE. PLEASE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, instead of making diversions out of something I never claimed in the first place.  Do you see what you did Paladin?  Of course you do, because you did it purposely.

THAT'S NINETEEN

And here's where you change from talking about the Imperfect tense to this “HONEST MISTAKE” you admit to for yourself.

Quote

Seems that you are out of diversions for the time being, and will HAVE TO address your misunderstanding of the Greek perfect tense, huh? THAT'S TWENTY Here's where you show your ignorance of the Greek preposition “PARA.” I try to teach you the significance of the real meaning, and you try to “change and twist” the argument with what you call “CASE IN POINT #6” This is called “Avoiding the meat of the issue by focusing on a lessor side issue”. [from 166-6] mikeboll64,June wrote: Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2011,08:10) [Quote] (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:16) [Quote] (Paladin @ June 01 2011,08:39) Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour [para = dative] *with God.[God = dat] Whatever you say about “para” in John 17:5 must also apply to Luke 1:30, or a reasonable explanation as to why not, First that's a strange assertion, that one use must mean the same thing as all the others. For example: “There came a man sent BY God” versus “This man is staying as a guest with a man named Simon, a tanner, whose house is BY the sea.” Does “para” have to mean the same thing in both of these scriptures?

I responded to your ignorance with this

(Paladin)

Quote

Mike, do you really not understand the difference betweem the possessive case, and the accusative? The accusative case references the direct object of the verb; the genitive case references the case of possession. John 1:6 There was a man sent [para] from God, whose name was John. [para = genitive] Acts 10:6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is [para] by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.[para = accusative]

(Paladin)

Quote

This difference forbids making the same use argument. But that was not the case with John 17:5 and Luke 1:30 – In all three cases, “para” is dative, which expresses the case that poinhts to the direct object. We are comparing like things “favor with God” [Lk 1:30 “glory with thee” [John 17:5] “glorify with thyself [John 17:5] Direct object “God;” “Thee;” “Thyself.”

Then you continued
(MIKE)

Quote

CASE IN POINT #6 This is called “Avoiding the meat of the issue by focusing on a lessor side issue”. Paladin, the following is the MEAT of my point, please address THIS part of my post: But okay, tell me what the first use of “para” in 17:5 signifies. And now, Father, glorify me WITH YOU……….. Does the first use coincide with Luke 1:30?  If so, how?  I don't consider Mary to have been physically WITH God in Luke 1:30.  But I do consider Jesus to be asking to be glorified in the physical presence of God in 17:5.

THAT'S TWENTY-ONE

HOW MANY DO YOU REQUIRE MIKE?

I would not have taken this step except for the fact you have now threatened me with a tile, and like I told you, I do not respond well to threats.

[Paladin]

Quote (Ed J @ July 18 2011,20:46)

Hi Paladin, Thanks for the in-depth explanation. I'm learning more about the Greek, but I still know more about Hebrew vernacular. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

With my library of Scholarship, I can find my way around in the hebrew, but I find too many mistakes in the scholarship so I go to the Greek.

Example, Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius (1786–1842), great German scholar and Hebrew Grammarian, fell into the “higher criticism” trap set by the “scholars” who tried to prove Isaiah was written by at least three authors; labeled
“first Isaiah; second Isaiah; third Isiah.”

I proved Isaiah wrote the entire book, and it is now used on a Hebrew website by permission.

That's why scholarship doesn't mean much to me. Only truth.

[Pastry]

Paladin! This is what my Husband is saying

To all

Did Jesus call scholars and teachers?

Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were “”unlearned”” and “”ignorant”” men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

And here is what Paul had to say about “”wise”” men;

1Cr 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many “”wise”” men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:

You don't do your intelligence justice nor honor, as you argue about petty things, while ignoring how foolish you appear.
Whose example do you follow?

Understanding of Gods Word comes “ONLY” from God.

1Cr 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit (mind) of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the “””Spirit of God”””.

You don't appear to me as having the “Spirit of God”.

Peace Irene

[terraricca]

Paladin

Quote

If I understand this “Incarnation” trinity theory, you are telling me that Jesus preexisted with the Father in eternity, then “incarnated” by the Holy spirit in the womb of Mary. Scripture tells a far different story. At least three times in three different accounts, we are told that Jesus is the seed of Adam or the woman (Eve), in Messianic prophecies. We are told of the seed promise beginning with Gen 3:15, where the woman is told “Thy seed” so the incarnation begins with this woman of prophecy. Then her progeny carry that seed, and passed it on through several generations till Abraham is specifically mentioned by name, as one in a long line of the “seed carriers.” He is promised that “through thy seed” all nations will be blessed. It is similar to the promise first made to “the woman” of Gen 3:15

this is your main purpose to prove to all that Christ did not preexisted prior to his birth on earth,
and so use grammar to try to prove scriptures truth ,but what is that scriptures tells us ?

1Co 2:4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power,
1Co 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

Eph 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.

2Ti 2:14 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

Ro 4:21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.
Ro 4:22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Ro 4:23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone,
Ro 4:24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
Ro 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

I do not see anything else than what happen between you and Mike is the friction on the preexistence of Christ ,that you deny and what Mike supports and in so debating grammar becomes the judge of the truth ?can this be ? NO

the truth of God is not based on grammar even if the written word as been written in a language any one ,the word of God does not rely on men's understanding but to men receiving the understanding of God,

no one will be saved on the bases of understanding Greek or Hebrew ,this would similar to be circumcised or following the law with animal offerings,

so if you are wise and have knowledge of godly understanding show it within scriptures,not grammar,but true knowledge and wisdom from above,

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Paladin,

Not one of your twenty-one examples of me “twisting your words so they say the reverse” is legit.

What you've posted was my opinion of what your words said BETWEEN THE LINES.  

Calling that a “twisting of your words so they say the reverse” is like me saying the same thing about you when I say I'm right and you post that I'm wrong.  “HEY, PALADIN'S TWISTING MY WORDS TO MAKE THEM SAY THE REVERSE OF WHAT I SAID!  I CLEARLY SAID I'M RIGHT, BUT HE TWISTED MY WORDS TO SAY I'M WRONG!”  

Paladin, I've shown what I set out to show.  When you came on this site, certain people were in awe of you because, not only were you telling them what their itching ears were aching to hear, but you seemed to be showing clear grammatical proof to support what you said.

99% of your grammatical “support” has been bunk and loopholes.  You remind me of the Trinni's who don't want the begetting of Jesus to be a literal begetting, as in “God brought him forth into existence”, but a metaphorical begetting because Jesus “has no beginning”.  So they take a couple of “loophole” scriptures, such as when Paul begot Onesimus, to “prove” that Jesus' begetting was also metaphorical.

And I've shown them that any time in scripture the word is used metaphorically, it is made known from the context.  And there is no such context regarding the begetting of Jesus.  But they don't care about truth such as that; they just say, “We got our loophole, so there!”

This is exactly what you do with each pre-existence scripture that is brought to your attention.  You immediately start searching for loopholes.  And like the Trinni's, you don't really care about the context……………OR how ludicrous the scripture sounds when you're done with it.

Like when some people say, “The thought of Jesus in God's head is what had glory”.  Must we twist the scriptures into craziness to support our doctrines?  Can we not just read, “I came DOWN from heaven” and believe it?

Your take on 17:5 seems to be that Jesus was asking to be glorified before the existing world with a glory he never ceased to have in the first place.    Why would he ask for God to GIVE him something he never ceased to have?  

Anyway, I don't want anything to do with a man who makes many claims but refuses to defend them.  But I will be here to shut the door on any more FALSE claims you decide to make.  You were wrong about the imperfect tense.  YOU know it.  Marty now knows it.  And even though Gene would never admit it, I suspect HE knows it too.

So, mission accomplished.  Because now the infallible Paladin has been shown to be human after all, and prone to making mistakes just like the rest of us.  

Hopefully, Gene, Wispring and Marty will remember this.

Later,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (terraricca @ July 18 2011,17:23)

no one will be saved on the bases of understanding Greek or Hebrew ,this would similar to be circumcised or following the law with animal offerings,

Hi Pierre, Georg and Irene!  

Let's not go overboard on this thing.  If someone at sometime didn't take an interest in learning Greek or Hebrew, we might now have English Bibles where the first commandment is “Have as many Gods as you want to!”  

I have solved many scriptural questions, (some of which seemed to me like contradictions in the scriptures), by studying the original language that scripture was written in.

For example, did you know that Hebrews 1:10 has just as much of a chance of saying, “God is your throne forever” as it does saying, “Your throne, O God, is forever”?

And when the KJV renders Acts 4:30 as “thy holy child Jesus”, how are we supposed to know that the Greek clearly refers to God's “Holy SERVANT Jesus”?

I know this from research.  So yes, spirit is the most important thing, but if we don't know how to read, how would we test that spirit against the words of scripture?  I believe knowledge comes in a close second behind spirit.

My two cents on the matter,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ July 18 2011,03:46)

Hi Paladin, Thanks for the in-depth explanation. I'm learning more about the Greek, but I still know more about Hebrew vernacular. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Hey Ed,

Were you able to find Paladin's answer in all that? I was wondering if he was claiming that the imperfect tense of the Greek word “echo” in John 17:5 prohibited Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past.

What was his answer? IS that what he was claiming or not?

peace,
mike

[terraricca]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 19 2011,17:55)

Quote (terraricca @ July 18 2011,17:23) no one will be saved on the bases of understanding Greek or Hebrew ,this would similar to be circumcised or following the law with animal offerings, Hi Pierre, Georg and Irene!   Let's not go overboard on this thing.  If someone at sometime didn't take an interest in learning Greek or Hebrew, we might now have English Bibles where the first commandment is “Have as many Gods as you want to!”   I have solved many scriptural questions, (some of which seemed to me like contradictions in the scriptures), by studying the original language that scripture was written in. For example, did you know that Hebrews 1:10 has just as much of a chance of saying, “God is your throne forever” as it does saying, “Your throne, O God, is forever”? And when the KJV renders Acts 4:30 as “thy holy child Jesus”, how are we supposed to know that the Greek clearly refers to God's “Holy SERVANT Jesus”? I know this from research.  So yes, spirit is the most important thing, but if we don't know how to read, how would we test that spirit against the words of scripture?  I believe knowledge comes in a close second behind spirit. My two cents on the matter, mike

Mike

you have some truth in what you say ;but I never learn neither Greek or Hebrew ,but I have read many commentary s about scriptures ,and also read it in different languages,and compere the scriptures within them selves for godly understanding in this way it is what God says that will come to you rather than what is said from men,

there is one thing I have learn and that Is God will give you understanding as you go along with his truth, this means you increase you knowledge in his word he will increase your understanding ,you stay still and no longer progress in his word you will lose what you have learned in time,

the word of God is a living word not a dead one .

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Pierre,

When you say “compare the scriptures within themselves”, know that unless you are reading the scriptures from an original Greek or Hebrew manuscript, you are reading a MAN'S interpretation of those scriptures every time.
 
So what's wrong with wanting to know what the actual Greek and Hebrew words said, instead some man's interpretation of what they said?  Men are biased, you know.

Look at John 1:1 in the NIV, and then compare that to the NWT.  Which one is right?  How do YOU know?  I know because I researched it.

Everyone on this site claims to have God's Spirit guiding them.  If we all do, then how is it that Keith thinks Jesus is God Almighty, we think he is the Son OF God Almighty who God created before the ages, and Gene thinks he was never anything more than “exactly like us”?

Test all spirits by their fruit, Pierre.  If your spirit is telling you something that scripture DOESN'T support, then that spirit is NOT of God.  But you'll only know whether or not the scriptures support what your spirit is telling you IF you delve into what the scriptures actually say.  And you can't do that by reading interpretations and translations.  You can only do that by reading the words in the language they were written in, IMO.  Only then do you begin to see how much bias has been added to those scriptures throughout the years.

peace to you brother,
mike

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 19 2011,10:59)

Quote (Ed J @ July 18 2011,03:46) Hi Paladin, Thanks for the in-depth explanation. I'm learning more about the Greek, but I still know more about Hebrew vernacular. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Hey Ed, Were you able to find Paladin's answer in all that?  I was wondering if he was claiming that the imperfect tense of the Greek word “echo” in John 17:5 prohibited Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past. What was his answer?  IS that what he was claiming or not?   peace, mike

Hi Mike,

I'm glad you asked me to help translate Paladins comments to your understanding of them.
Here is the part of the post that seems to be the point that concerns you most…

Quote (Paladin @ July 18 2011,19:30)

Here's your English language question: Quote (by Mike I'm assuming) The action WAS contiuous?  Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time? A careful reading of the post will show the answer was already given – i.e., the “imperfect” references action that was continuous. If the action was continuous, how is it in any way involoved with “forbidding” anything at all in the english translation? It is not involved with permitting or forbidding. That is strictly your own speculative excercise. So why the question Mike? It was not based on the Greek, because the Greek was already published for all to see. You were trying to change the meaning from Greek imperfect, which references continuous action, to English past tense where you then could apply the consequence of your question i.e., “Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time?”

So Mike, based on this quote, I would say…

1) Paladins answer is based on him not believing in any preexistence, for Christ or anyone else.
2) He believes the Greek is referencing a present point that continues, as in ongoing into the future.
3) This does not exclude any past, because that is not what is being cited in this passage (according to Paladin).
4) the issue of ongoing does not have any connection to the concept of eternal (as a non-ending ongoing concept).

I hope you consider my remediary skills to be beneficial in your dealings with Paladin.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Pastry]

Mike! Before Paladin, we only concerned ourselves with the English translation of the Bible. Now since Paladin it is not good enough any longer? And what makes Paladin an expert in the Greek? He seems to know it better then the Translators do. I find it rather uncalled for. I too check my German Bible at times, and it lines up with the King James. Pretty words don't impress me. Not many wise men now are called. And Paladin things He is wiser then many translators.
And all this for one Scripture. What about other Scriptures that prove the preexisting of Jesus? Are they all wrong?
I am going to depend on Gods Holy Spirit, God has shown us many truths……
Peace and Love Irene

[mikeboll64]

Not at all, Ed.  

What I want to know from Paladin is if he was claiming that the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 prohibited Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past.

What is his answer?  WAS he claiming this?  Or was he NOT claiming this?  Can you tell from his words?  He won't say, so what's your best guess?

I'm not asking for a breakdown of what you understand Paladin to have been saying in general, or your best guess as to the reasons he was saying those things, or even your understanding of his beliefs about the pre-existence of Jesus.

I just want to know if he WAS or WASN'T claiming that the Greek imperfect tense of “echo” prohibited Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past.

He said (in effect), “If John wanted to convey a past glory that Jesus once had, but no longer had at that time, he would have used the aorist tense.”
(Disclaimer:  THIS WAS A PARAPHRASE OF PALADIN'S WORDS, AND NOT AN ACTUAL QUOTE OF HIS WORDS)

See, I take that to mean that the ONLY way John could have been conveying a glory Jesus had in the past was if he used the aorist tense of “echo”.  Do YOU take it the same way?

And if that is the case, then he's really saying that because John used the imperfect tense instead of the aorist tense, there is NO WAY John could have been conveying that Jesus was asking for the return of a past glory.

And since this is not true in the least, I was trying to get Paladin to ACKNOWLEDGE whether or not that IS what he was saying.  Because if it IS, I could then say, “YOU ARE WRONG, SIR”, and proceed to show him scriptures that prove it.  And if it ISN'T, then there's no further need to discuss it, as he would be agreeing that Jesus could have been asking for the return of a past glory he had.

And then that meaning of John 17:5 is not as “impossible” as he originally made it seem to be.  

So Ed……………WAS he saying the imperfect tense of echo prohibited Jesus from asking for the return of a past glory………..OR NOT?  

Thanks for your help, seeing how the man who could have simply answered this question weeks ago doesn't want to.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Pastry @ July 18 2011,20:50)

Mike!  Before Paladin, we only concerned ourselves with the English translation of the Bible.  Now since Paladin it is not good enough any longer?

Hi Irene,

Kangaroo Jack got me looking into the original languages and lexicons over two years ago………….almost two full years before I ever heard the name Paladin.  

Kathi uses these sources.  So does Shimmer.  And Keith.  And t8.  And Kerwin, Marty, Gene, Ed, etc.

Tell me Irene, why does the King James Version have the word “Godhead” in three verses, yet that word is not found in the NIV?

See?  THIS is the kind of stuff I want to KNOW – not just take some translator's word for.

When scripture said that all things were created BY Jesus, that didn't make sense to me.  So I researched into it and found out that the Greek word “dia” could be translated as either “by” OR “through”.  So it is then up to the English translator to teach us that all things are either BY Jesus, (as if he is the Creator Himself), or THROUGH Jesus.

Now since YOU are armed with this KNOWLEDGE, and can therefore translate 1 Cor 8:6 for yourself, will you translate it to say that all things are BY Jesus?  Or will you translate it to say that all things are THROUGH Jesus?  Which of those two words fits better with scripture as a whole?  The one that might be misconstrued to mean that JESUS is our Creator?  Or the one that makes it clear that GOD created THROUGH Jesus?

See Irene?  Now it's YOUR choice.  You no longer have to just take the trinity slanted translator's word for it.

Irene, this is only one of the HUNDREDS of scriptures I've researched into for similar reasons.  By the way, there is no known Greek word for “Godhead” in the scriptures.  This was simply the concoction of the biased Trinitarian scholars who translated the KJV. Which is why no reputable translation today has the word “Godhead” in Acts 17:29, for example. Not even the New King James Version.

If YOU and Pierre are happy with the way things are, then more power to you.  But it's unfair and unecessary to scold Paladin and me for trying to gain a better understanding instead of being locked into whatever a biased scholar tells us the scripture says.

peace and love,
mike

[Ed J]

Hi Mike,

Quote

So Ed……………WAS he saying the imperfect tense of echo prohibited Jesus from asking for the return of a past glory………..OR NOT?

       I thought I answered that with point #3…

Quote

3) This does not exclude any past, because that is not what is being cited in this passage (according to Paladin).

Perhaps I was not clear enough? First, i assume, the word Paladin is referring to is the same word you cite.

Next, he has basically has said that it neither prohibits nor allows any past associations.

Mike, I hope his answer is finally becoming clearer to you now.

       I'm not sure what you mean by this?   …could you elaborate?

Quote

See, I take that to mean that the ONLY way John could have been conveying a glory Jesus had in the past was if he used the aorist tense of “echo”.  Do YOU take it the same way?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Hi Ed,

So then the answer is “NO”? I'm no more sure from YOUR words than I was from his.

Are you trying to say, “NO Mike, he was NOT saying echo prohibited Jesus from asking for the return of a past glory” ?

[terraricca]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 19 2011,18:52)

Pierre, When you say “compare the scriptures within themselves”, know that unless you are reading the scriptures from an original Greek or Hebrew manuscript, you are reading a MAN'S interpretation of those scriptures every time.   So what's wrong with wanting to know what the actual Greek and Hebrew words said, instead some man's interpretation of what they said?  Men are biased, you know. Look at John 1:1 in the NIV, and then compare that to the NWT.  Which one is right?  How do YOU know?  I know because I researched it. Everyone on this site claims to have God's Spirit guiding them.  If we all do, then how is it that Keith thinks Jesus is God Almighty, we think he is the Son OF God Almighty who God created before the ages, and Gene thinks he was never anything more than “exactly like us”? Test all spirits by their fruit, Pierre.  If your spirit is telling you something that scripture DOESN'T support, then that spirit is NOT of God.  But you'll only know whether or not the scriptures support what your spirit is telling you IF you delve into what the scriptures actually say.  And you can't do that by reading interpretations and translations.  You can only do that by reading the words in the language they were written in, IMO.  Only then do you begin to see how much bias has been added to those scriptures throughout the years. peace to you brother, mike

Mike

Quote

When you say “compare the scriptures within themselves”, know that unless you are reading the scriptures from an original Greek or Hebrew manuscript, you are reading a MAN'S interpretation of those scriptures every time.

to my understanding scriptures is like this ;if it was not for God intervention there would not be a scripture to read,

so all the scriptures that were saved trough the centuries and translated by people that God has used good or bad God uses you for the work we do and pay them well

every bible had his scholars so i have 12 copies of bibles in different language and all different version,this is multiplied by so many scholars that worked on them to translate it,

even the best copies of them are the works of men ,this is why you do not rely on words but on the spirit of the wording ,
based on all the bible (not the apoc)search for the Gory of God ,so you can understand the glory of Christ ,and so you can understand your own glory,

Ro 15:17 Therefore I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God.

2Co 1:20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God.

Quote

So what's wrong with wanting to know what the actual Greek and Hebrew words said, instead some man's interpretation of what they said? Men are biased, you know.

there nothing wrong by wanting to know more in the history of the word of God ,but it should be done for the glory of God alone,
we as true believers have to make prudent decisions ,what we may think what as to straitened could be in fact be tolerate by God for the purpose of separating the good from the bad,look what happen to Uzzah

2Sa 6:7 The LORD'S anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.

God as all the powers to fix what should be fixed,but that is not for us to decide,what is important is to pray and ask God for help so that we can receive his true understanding of his word because that is the understanding that saves,

but first we have to write his word on the tablets of our hearts then in our mind then do what it says and so produce the deeds of our faith and love for God,

Quote

Look at John 1:1 in the NIV, and then compare that to the NWT. Which one is right? How do YOU know? I know because I researched it.

I did not research it and I have understood it from the first time in the same way you did after you research it.
wen scriptures are fully in your heart the spirit of truth guides you ,if God does not open your eyes you will stay blind ,

so what you have learned is it from you and your efforts
that you have come to the true understanding?
if you say yes then it is for your own glory that you have worked,did not paladin did so ?it is possible I do not know.

then some will applaud for your success this will be your price for your now shared work ,

Quote

Everyone on this site claims to have God's Spirit guiding them. If we all do, then how is it that Keith thinks Jesus is God Almighty, we think he is the Son OF God Almighty who God created before the ages, and Gene thinks he was never anything more than “exactly like us”?

the true believer can and always will be able to show truth ,before God ,before men is a different story,but we will not be justified by men but by God and Christ,see what men did to the son of God,

but a true believer always will recognize truth and so know witch is the liar.

Quote

Test all spirits by their fruit, Pierre. If your spirit is telling you something that scripture DOESN'T support, then that spirit is NOT of God. But you'll only know whether or not the scriptures support what your spirit is telling you IF you delve into what the scriptures actually say. And you can't do that by reading interpretations and translations. You can only do that by reading the words in the language they were written in, IMO. Only then do you begin to see how much bias has been added to those scriptures throughout the years

like i have said before ,unless you learn and know the scriptures like the back of your hand ,and it is in your heart to please God ,when you hear something what is not truth something inside of you tells you this is not right and so you check it,
when you have placed the word of God in your heart and live by it ,and you love God with all your heart and soul,are you not become one with his will ,is this not what God want from all of us ? yes he does but few love God enough to do this,

Mike be careful not to become a man that knows what a car is made of but can not drive it,

by the understanding of the total of scriptures you will know what the will of God is and that it can not be changed,

Jn 17:25 “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me.
Jn 17:26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

Jn 17:17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth

Jn 17:13 “I am coming to y
ou now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them.
Jn 17:14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.

Jn 17:10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.

Jn 17:1 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you

Jn 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

so it is how much do we love God that shows what truth we are speaking ,and are deeds will reflect this ,

so my good brother it is a lonely place to be a true Christian in this world so we are always glad wen we meet a new brother in the true faith ,

I hope i did not over do my comment

Pierre

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 19 2011,14:52)

Hi Ed, So then the answer is “NO”?  I'm no more sure from YOUR words than I was from his.   Are you trying to say, “NO Mike, he was NOT saying echo prohibited Jesus from asking for the return of a past glory” ?

Hi Mike,

Ha ha ha ha..

No, that's what you're saying; but I can agree with that synopsis.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Author]

Posts