Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ June 01 2011,08:16)

[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.

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?

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.

This is how the NWT Kingdom Interlinear puts it:
….to the   glory   which   I was having   before………

It seems that you want to claim a present tense scenario, as if Jesus was saying “the glory I AM STILL HAVING TO THIS VERY DAY” – as if that glory was never discontinued.  But this is obviously not the case, as shown by the fact that John the Baptist died, and AFTER THAT, Matthew recorded a PAST event that had since been discontinued, using the imperfect tense of echo.  It is the same in John 17:5.  Jesus wants to be reunited with the glory he KEPT ON HAVING, or CONTINUED TO HAVE alongside his God before the creation of the world.  And remember that KEPT and CONTINUED are PAST TENSE words.

Jesus is recounting a PAST occurance – a time when he DID (past tense) continue to have glory alongside his God.

mike

[mikeboll64]

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?  

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.

If you don't, then tell me what exactly YOU think Jesus is asking for.

[kerwin]

Quote (kerwin @ June 01 2011,11:22)

To all, I agree that the man in John 9:30-33 stated that Jesus was of God becausehe believed Jesus was a man of God, attested through his righteous miracles. I do not state that that all miracles are testimony of that the one they are performed through is from God because God tells us that miracles are performed through the teachers of false gods in order to test our heart, Deuteronomy 13:1-3. I am convinced that all good things; includeing but not limited to Jesus, the Prophets, the Patriarchs, and righteous miracles; come frorm God. Wispring brings up a good point.

To all,

Combining the understandings I have heard with the following scriptures I come up with two alternative conclusions.  Which is in accordance with the truth of God?

Quote

John 16(King James Version (KJV)) Quote 28I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Quote

John 17(King James Version (KJV)) Quote 14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Quote 18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

So if Jesus came forth from God even as John came forth from God then it follows that in the same way Jesus sent his apostles into the world even as he states in verse18, chapter 17 of John.  He also states in verse 14 that the apostles are not of the world.

But if Jesus is preexistent spirit being who were sent in to the world to become a human being then it follows that the apostles are also preexistent spirit beings that he sent into the world to become the Twelve.

[Paladin]

Quote (942767 @ June 02 2011,11:35)

Hi Brother Paladin: I am still praying, but this is a comment made by someone about these scriptures, and this is what I believe is meant: It was through this same Spirit that the proclamation was made to those who lived in the days of Noah. Does this mean that Christ went to make this proclamation after His resurrection? No. It simply means that the same Spirit that accounted for the resurrection also accounted for the preaching to these people in the days of Noah. Source: http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/1pt3-18.html Love in Christ, Marty

I apologize brother.

I should have responded much better, and offer no excuse.

Rather, yolu deserve my best, while I have obnly given you sound bytes.

Here is the real story behind Peter's reference about preaching to the spirits in prison.

When God created heaven and earth, he made both to be inhabited, but by very different types of creatures. One creature, the first he created, were called “Elohim,”[Psa 8:5] and were spirits, clothed in a garment called “oikeeteerion.”[Jude 6]

If you picture heaven as an auditorium, in which angelic spectators watch, and earth as a stage upon which players act out life's pageants, referenced by Paul “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth…,”[Eph 3:10-11,15]

And by Peter who referenced the works of the prophets concerning the affairs ofmen, “…which things the angels desire to look into.”

Flesh is moist, consisting of a high percentage of water, and after demons once experience the feelings that come with flesh, they become addicted to the ability to move and feel the movement in muscle tissue, and in glands and organs; all that goes into making flesh alive. And they experience temptations of the flesh, and get the same “high” humans get, and the same fear animals get when hunted, or the power they feel when hunting.

These creatures had no sense-feeling, because they were not creatures familiar with flesh and all that pertains thereunto. Some later became fallen angels known as “demons” or “devils” or “evil spirits” who wandered the earth seeking flesh to inhabit. Mathew tells us “And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding. 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.” [Mat 8:28-32]

“When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.” [Mat 12:43]

As a result of observation and pondering, some of these angelic spirit creatures actually left God's presence to experience this thing called “flesh” for themselves. The most serious consequence of this action, that was of concern to them at the time, was that they were clothed in “oikeeteerion” which preserved their life, so that they could not experience all the experiences to which men were accustomed, including the ageing proccess, sickness, and death. So, according to Jude, they abandoned their clothing of oikeeteerion, and became subject to separation from the flesh which they now took upon themselves to experience.

Jude says that angels not only failed to maintain or keep rule over themselves (did not maintain self-control), they actively abandoned their oikeeteerion.

Jude 6 “And the angels which kept not (failed to maintain) their first estate, but left their own oikeeteerion [habitation], he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”

So, these angels abandoned the safety of their proper clothing, and put on mortality, married women, begat children, and began a life of debauchery unhjlike anything man had seen before. I think this is the source of the old Gods of ancient civilizations; angels comingling with women, begetting a race of giants.  – “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” [Gen 6:1-2]

It reminds me of the old myths and legends of Gods coming down from mountain tops and marrying women with whom they begot children of great strengh and renown. “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” [Gen 6:4-5]

Since God had already designed his plan of salvation, Messiah, the son of God son of man, Satan's family of rebellious angels were counterfeiting God's plan for Messiah, son of God among men. God could not let it continue, a travesty of enormous consequence.

But, since the angelic spirits could not be killed, and the humans involved could not survive, he did the only thing he could do to separate the two different types of creation, and caused a great flood upon the earth, separating the men by death, and the spirits by the great flood of waters. Remember, the flesh of men were hosts, not guests, and the spirits were guests, not hosts, so the two were at a decided disadvantage when it came to the flood. They could not remain together if one was subject to death, and the other required the effect of flesh from addiction.

“And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.” [Gen 6:6-8,11-13,17]

Peter tells us what happened to those angels who were disobedient –
“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”

And again – “For if God spared not the angels that
sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;” [II Pet 2:4-5]

Though God created Adam in flesh, it was never his intention that flesh and blood would inherit a kingdom intended for spiritual inhabitants. Indeed, he stands ready to exchange our clothing of flesh and mortality for an eternal clothing of incorruption and immortality. [II Cor 5:1-4]

I Cor 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

With Christ as our high priest, and we being in Christ, a priesthood , God expects us to crucify our flesh in living sacrifice with Christ [Gal 2:20][Rom 12:1-2] So that as Christ in the world we may present ourselves justified by the blood of the crucified Christ, by our faith therein, by the grace of the God who designed the plan, the logos.

I Cor 15:42 “It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption;
       43 “It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory;
           It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power;
       44  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

I Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

I Cor 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

I Cor 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

I Cor 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

II Cor 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

II Cor 5:2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

II Cor 5:3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

II Cor 5:4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

It was always God's plan to provide a “way of escape” for flesh, so his creation could be justified from a spiritual perspective rather than from a fleshly one, “For in thy sight shall no man living be justified.” [Psa 143:2]

For man to be clothed with oikeeteerion REQUIRES more than original creation by which he was “clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life [II Cor 5:1-2]; it requires in fact, first, a “putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” [Col 2:11]; and we are counted as circumcised with Christ, who are baptized into Christ, wherein we also rise with him. [Col 2:12]

Jesus was the first man raised from the dead; the first to “Put on immortality;” The first to “Put on incorruption; the first fruit of them that slept ; the first born from the dead [Col 1:18]; firstborn among many brethren [Rom 8:29]; and therefore was the first man to both die and not see corruption, and the first man to put on the oikeeteerion which is from heaven, and which is worn by the elohiym.

Paul tells us we who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ [Gal 3:27] and if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection [Rom 6:5]; which we attain in baptism [Rom 6:3-4]; it remains for us to so live that it is no longer I that lives, but Christ living in me [Gal 2:20]. Any man in Christ is a “new creature.” [II Cor 5:17]

Just as God put Adam and Eve out of the garden because of the proximity of the tree of life, to keep them from eating therefrom and living forever, so also he flooded the earth to keep those countefeit children of the Gods from populating the earth.

The problem that arose, if he had not destroyed the counterfeits, is that the angels who disobeyed, would not have been punished, but as the men died out, the angels would have continued on, perhaps recycling to rebel again and return to the earth once more, in a never ending cycle.

But God's justice demanded that the rebellion be punished, but he couldn't punish the angels without destroying the men. So he put them all away from his sight with a flood; thus preserving his own plan for Messiah, son of man, son of God.

I do hope this clears up the issue between us, because your friendship means more to me than I have shown in my recent posts to you.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kerwin @ June 02 2011,20:05)

So if Jesus came forth from God even as John came forth from God then it follows that in the same way Jesus sent his apostles into the world even as he states in verse18, chapter 17 of John.  He also states in verse 14 that the apostles are not of the world. But if Jesus is preexistent spirit being who were sent in to the world to become a human being then it follows that the apostles are also preexistent spirit beings that he sent into the world to become the Twelve.

There is a valid point to what you are saying.

But if Jesus was from above and we from here, then it still works.

God can send Jesus from Heaven to Earth and he can send Apostles from Jerusalem to Samaria, even New Zealand.

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (kerwin @ June 02 2011,20:05)

Quote (kerwin @ June 01 2011,11:22) To all, I agree that the man in John 9:30-33 stated that Jesus was of God becausehe believed Jesus was a man of God, attested through his righteous miracles. I do not state that that all miracles are testimony of that the one they are performed through is from God because God tells us that miracles are performed through the teachers of false gods in order to test our heart, Deuteronomy 13:1-3. I am convinced that all good things; includeing but not limited to Jesus, the Prophets, the Patriarchs, and righteous miracles; come frorm God. Wispring brings up a good point. To all, Combining the understandings I have heard with the following scriptures I come up with two alternative conclusions.  Which is in accordance with the truth of God? Quote John 16(King James Version (KJV)) Quote 28I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. Quote John 17(King James Version (KJV)) Quote 14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Quote 18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. So if Jesus came forth from God even as John came forth from God then it follows that in the same way Jesus sent his apostles into the world even as he states in verse18, chapter 17 of John.  He also states in verse 14 that the apostles are not of the world. But if Jesus is preexistent spirit being who were sent in to the world to become a human being then it follows that the apostles are also preexistent spirit beings that he sent into the world to become the Twelve.

Kerwin…………I agree with you finding on this also. Jesus was foreknown Just the same way the Apostles and all God the father choses to serve him is, John the baptist as well as all the apostles even Judas they and all Saints were foreknown by GOD the same as Jesus was .

This separatist teaching between Jesus and US from Trinitarians and Preexistences is not of GOD IMO, but simply and extension of the Gnostic false doctrines that existed in the time of the Apostle John and Paul. It all took root then but fully surfaced at the council of Nadica in 225 AD and exists in both the Doctrine or trinity and the doctrine of Preexistence of Jesus as a Sentinel being. These teachings are the basis for MYSTERY RELIGION that abound in Christendom. IMO

peace and love to you and yours……………………gene

[942767]

Hi Brother Paladin:

Relative to your appology to me, I believe that you just got a little frustrated with all of us here discussing this subject, and may have responded to me in a way that you ordinarily would not have responded, and that happens to the best of us, and so, appology accepted.

I respect your knowledge of the scriptures, and will always want to hear what you have to say on any biblical topic, but also, if I understand the scriptures differently than you or anyone else is teaching, God has shown me to go and say, “look I do not understand these scriptures the way that you are teaching, I am not saying that I am right, or that you are wrong, but let me share my understanding with you, and if after this we can't agree, let us join hands in prayer, asking God to bring us into unity”.  

I don't mind being corrected if I am wrong.  In fact, I want to be corrected because I do not want to teach anything that is not God's Word.

I read your post explaining what you believe or understand relative to this matter, but I would like to print it and study what you are saying with prayer. These scriptures in 1 Peter 3 have been difficult for me to understand, and so, maybe God is teaching me through you.

You are my brother in Christ, and I love you and desire the very best for your and your family, and so, the Lord has said in the epistle of James:

Quote

14Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. 16Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[GeneBalthrop]

Paladin……….Good Post, You have brought out some interesting points i have fully considered before brother.

Peace and love to you and yours brother…………………………………….gene

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (t8 @ June 02 2011,21:25)

Quote (kerwin @ June 02 2011,20:05) So if Jesus came forth from God even as John came forth from God then it follows that in the same way Jesus sent his apostles into the world even as he states in verse18, chapter 17 of John.  He also states in verse 14 that the apostles are not of the world. But if Jesus is preexistent spirit being who were sent in to the world to become a human being then it follows that the apostles are also preexistent spirit beings that he sent into the world to become the Twelve. There is a valid point to what you are saying. But if Jesus was from above and we from here, then it still works. God can send Jesus from Heaven to Earth and he can send Apostles from Jerusalem to Samaria, even New Zealand.

T8………Come on, Jesus did not exist before his berth on this earth it is just that simple , He only existed in the PLAN and WILL and PURPOSE of GOD. Peter said it right Jesus was FOREORDAINED (BUT) was MANIFESTED brought into existence in our time.
It is just that simple T8.

peace and love to you and yours……………………………..gene

[Paladin]

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

Quote (Paladin @ June 01 2011,08:16) [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. 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? 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. This is how the NWT Kingdom Interlinear puts it: ….to the   glory   which   I was having   before……… It seems that you want to claim a present tense scenario, as if Jesus was saying “the glory I AM STILL HAVING TO THIS VERY DAY” – as if that glory was never discontinued.  But this is obviously not the case, as shown by the fact that John the Baptist died, and AFTER THAT, Matthew recorded a PAST event that had since been discontinued, using the imperfect tense of echo.  It is the same in John 17:5.  Jesus wants to be reunited with the glory he KEPT ON HAVING, or CONTINUED TO HAVE alongside his God before the creation of the world.  And remember that KEPT and CONTINUED are PAST TENSE words. Jesus is recounting a PAST occurance – a time when he DID (past tense) continue to have glory alongside his God. mike

Mike, your post is not contributing to clearification of the issue. You quote my remark on the imperfect “eixon” then offer correction of the verb “to be” which is “einai.”

And no, I am not trying to make it appear Jesus is present tense scenario; I am telling you that the Greek language used to show “before the world was” is wrong, as it describes a world that is, and still is. It therefore should read, “before the world;” as in “right out there in front of the world,” not prior to the world, as in “before the creation of the world.”

As to explaining why anything is in “NetNotes” I recommend you go ask a NetNotes Scholar. Aren't they the one's who added “fully” to “and the logos was God” so it reads “And the logos was fully God?” And you ask ME to explain their “scholarship?”

And I see you are still evading the obvious –
Jesus claims glory [para = dative] with God – [John 17:5]
Mary claims favor [para = dative] with God – [Luke 1:30]

Neither of which require one's presence in order to fulfill.

[mikeboll64]

Paladin,

These are YOUR words:

Quote

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.

It is THESE words to which I responded, showing yet another of your many claims to be inaccurate.

But instead of ACKNOWLEDGING this fact and correcting yourself, you have tried to imply my response was to your “before the world” point.  I CLEARLY did not respond to that point at all, but instead responded to the point posted in YOUR OWN WORDS above, which is why I ONLY quoted THOSE words in my response.

Why do you do this?  And then you implied that I haven't addressed the Luke 1:30 issue, when I did but you didn't respond to that post.  What is with you, man?

I will NOW respond to your “before the world” claim, showing it to ALSO be inaccurate:  First of all, it is an HISTORICAL present tense obviously, or the sentence makes no sense at all.  Secondly in your translation of “right out there in front of the world,” where do you fit in the word “einai”?  Translate it your way INCLUDING that word, and let's see how that works out.

[kerwin]

Quote (t8 @ June 02 2011,16:25)

Quote (kerwin @ June 02 2011,20:05) So if Jesus came forth from God even as John came forth from God then it follows that in the same way Jesus sent his apostles into the world even as he states in verse18, chapter 17 of John.  He also states in verse 14 that the apostles are not of the world. But if Jesus is preexistent spirit being who were sent in to the world to become a human being then it follows that the apostles are also preexistent spirit beings that he sent into the world to become the Twelve. There is a valid point to what you are saying. But if Jesus was from above and we from here, then it still works. God can send Jesus from Heaven to Earth and he can send Apostles from Jerusalem to Samaria, even New Zealand.

T8,

My point is to demonstrate that when one states they come from God it does not necessarilly mean they bodilly came from the presence of God but rather that God is the authority behind them.

God is also in heaven so stating you were sent from heaven can be used in the same way as stating you were sent from God.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 03 2011,15:10)

[/quote] Paladin, These are YOUR words: Quote 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. It is THESE words to which I responded, showing yet another of your many claims to be inaccurate.

Mike, my friend, what you are failing to acknowledge is, your own reference lost you in the translation.

It was YOUR reference that told you clearly

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.

Mike, the “imperfect” you are calling in question, is not the verb “to be;” it is the verb eixon “I had.”

I was responding to your question in threadpage 161, post #2; which asks –

Quote

Shall we break down John 17:5 the same way, so we can see whether or not a figurative understanding of para is supported in that scripture? mike

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

I then proceeded to “break down John 17:5” as you suggested –

And………kai = co-ordinating conjunction
now………nun = adverb
glorify…..doxason = *imperative aor act 2s v
me……….me (egw) = 1s acc pronoun
thou……..su = nom 2s pronoun
Father……pater = voc masc s noun
with……..para = dat preposition
thyself…..seautw = dat masc 2s pronoun
the….tee (o`) = dat fem s def art
glory…….doxee = dat fem s noun
which…….ee = dat fem s rel pronominal adj
I had…….eixon = ind *imperfect act 1s v
before……pro = *gen preposition……………….
the………tou (o`) = *gen neut s def art……….!
the………ton (o`) = acc masc s def art…        !
world…….kosmon = acc masc s noun…….!        !
to be…….einai (eimi) = pres act *gen infinitive.!
with……..para = dat preposition
thee……..soi (su) = dat 2s pronoun

Mike, my friend, if you have a problem with the transliterated Greek, take it up with John. If you have a problem with the grammatical applications posted, take it up with the Greek grammarians.

[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].

Bu John used the imperfect form of echo, which constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past.

[NOTE: Present Infinitive [“einai”] stresses the fact the world is in the proccess of continuous being; therefore “was” is inappropriate translation; should be “before the world that is.”

[NOTE: Acts 12:6 pro tees thuras “before the door”][Prep w/gen]
[NOTE: Mat 11:10 pro prwsopou sou “before thy face”][prep w/gen]

The terminology in John 17:5 references a world already created, and the glory promised to Jesus was “before” the whole world, (as in “right before our eyes).

John 17:5 is a reference to a prophecy, not recorded as far as I know, but certainly alluded to in Hebrews – “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” [Heb 12:2]

“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I have with thee before the world.”

For comparison, Scripture references for the imperfect form  
“eixon” are:

Mat 14:5; 21:46; 27:16
Mark 3:10; 8:7; 8:14; 11:32
Luke 4:40; 19:20
John 17:5
Acts 2:44; 4:14; 13:5; 25:19
Heb 11:15
3 John 1:13
Rev 6:9; 9:8,9;  

Quote

But instead of ACKNOWLEDGING this fact and correcting yourself, you have tried to imply my response was to your “before the world” point.

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.

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.

With all of your attacks on my Greek Grammar/Language use, You failed to realize the switch that took plac ein your own source material, and now you continue to try to take down my Greek use, all the while failing to realize, I did not write the Greek New Testament, I only present what I find published therein, and then offer my best effort toward understanding it.

Now you continue to compoung your own error while assigning error to my post:

Quote

I CLEARLY did not respond to that point at all, but instead responded to the point posted in YOUR OWN WORDS above, which is why I ONLY quoted THOSE words in my response. Why do you do this?

See above response.

Quote

And then you implied that I haven't addressed the Luke 1:30 issue, when I did but you didn't respond to that post.  What is with you, man?

Mike, my friend, I have not implied anything at all. I plainly said you were avoiding the obvious- but now in researching, based upon your statement that you have in fact responded to it, I found your response at threadpage 165, post #2; For which I thank you for pointing it out, and apologize for missing it.

Quote

I will NOW respond to your “before the world” claim, showing it to ALSO be inaccurate:  First of all, it is an HISTORICAL present tense obviously, or the sentence makes no sense at all.

Well, don't you see Mike, “obviously” to whom? “Makes no sense” to whom? That is why there are debate boards, Mike, some things are not so “obvious” to everybody.

What is obvious, is that you are getting your Greek as you go, from one of the worst sources online, NetText. They are the publishers of Net Bible which changes John 1:1 to read “and the word was fully God.”

Quote

Secondly in your translation of “right out there in front of the world,” where do you fit in the word “einai?”   Translate it your way INCLUDING that word, and let's see how that works out.

No, Mike, not until you acknowledge some problems with your Greek and your posts responding to me. And if you persue your current line of “scholarship” you will be disappointed. Look up every instance of “einai” in the New Testament, (there are 123 of them) and you will find that every one of them references a “present” of the time of the writer or of the narrator.

This alleged “Historical Present” is simply the trinitarian theologians ruse to pretend that the “present” can be manipulated to accomodate their triune theology. The “pre-historic Jesus” believers fall for it because it explains the unexplainable to them.

Tell me Mike, can you think of one instance in the new testament, where the “present” is not historically so?

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:16)

[/quote] 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?

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]

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.”

[mikeboll64]

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.

Did I ever imply that “I had” was the verb “to be”?  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.  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.

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, so Jesus couldn't possibly have NOT had that glory at the time he asked for it back.

YOU ARE WRONG, as I showed you from your very first “proof text” about John the Baptist.  John 17:5 refers to a glory that Jesus WAS HAVING in the past, but no longer had at the time he was asking to be returned to it.  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.  Instead of dealing with the point I corrected you on, you attributed a claim to me that I didn't even make, and then posted about how that claim doesn't apply to 17:5.  You are right that the “to be” claim doesn't apply to 17:5, but even though you knew I never made that claim, you have implied that I did so you could be right in correcting me about this false claim “I made”, thereby diverting from the information I actually DID use to show your understanding to be inaccurate.

Please address THAT information at this time.

CASE IN POINT #2

Quote (Paladin @ June 02 2011,13:51)

I am telling you that the Greek language used to show “before the world was” is wrong, as it describes a world that is, and still is.

Again, this is not even what I addressed in my post that responded to your claim “But John used the imperfect form of echo, which constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past.”  I didn't address the “before the world” issue at all, yet you diverted from the issue I DID address by switching the issue to this “before the world” one.  Again, you acted as if you're correcting my “misunderstanding” by talking about things I didn't even address.

CASE IN POINT #3

Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2011,00:50)

I was responding to your question in threadpage 161, post #2; which asks – Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Shall we break down John 17:5 the same way, so we can see whether or not a figurative understanding of para is supported in that scripture? mike John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I then proceeded to “break down John 17:5” as you suggested –

Yes, I did ask to break down 17:5.  And yes, you did post a response to that request.  But then I answered your response already, with the info in “CASE IN POINT #1” above.  It is now up to you to address my RESPONSE to your RESPONSE – not to bring the original question back up and re-post the same information I've already responded to.  This is your “round and round and round we go” method of diversion.  You used this method famously on the John 1:1 discussion.  And I forced myself to not get frustrated, but instead to keep following you where ever you lead me.  And many posts later, we STILL ended up with your understanding that the logos WAS actually God, and then became something that was “not God”.  Which was weird in itself, because the whole time your posts kept leading you to this same conclusion, you were vehemently denying that something that WAS God could ever become something that was “not God”.  And yet there you were, continually leading yourself to the same conclusion that you denied could be possible.

So don't bother running me through the whole 17:5 discussion again – just answer the point in “CASE IN POINT #1” above, okay?

CASE IN POINT #4

Quote (Paladin @ June 02 2011,13:51)

As to explaining why anything is in “NetNotes” I recommend you go ask a NetNotes Scholar. Aren't they the one's who added “fully” to “and the logos was God” so it reads “And the logos was fully God?” And you ask ME to explain their “scholarship?”

This is what I call the “NWT Diversion”.  Many Trinitarians on this site use this particular diversion when faced with an obstacle.  Instead of dealing with the facts of the matter, they will instead say something like, “That's just more of the Jehovah's Witnesses crap!”, as if because the JW's say it, it must be wrong.  You are doing it here with the 25 expert Greek scholars that NETNotes is comprised of.  Just because you and I don't agree with many of their conclusions is no reason to doubt their knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages.  Now if the info I posted from them actually said something about the Greek present tense that is debated by other scholars, then you'd have a point.  But they seem to agree with what your scholars say, which is, the perfect tense “constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past“.

Do you find reason to think the NETNotes info
I posted on the Greek perfect tense is flawed?  If so, then please bring that discrepancy to my attention.  If not, then you can't rightfully blow off the message just because you don't agree with EVERYTHING the messenger has ever said.

CASE IN POINT #5

Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2011,00:50)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Secondly in your translation of “right out there in front of the world,” where do you fit in the word “einai?”   Translate it your way INCLUDING that word, and let's see how that works out. No, Mike, not until you acknowledge some problems with your Greek and your posts responding to me.

This is what I call the “Cry like a baby” diversion.  You have used this one more than any of the others against me, Paladin.  Taking the position that you won't answer my points because I didn't “ask you politely” or didn't “phrase things just right” or whatever is lame and transparent.  All here can see that if you CAN'T answer one of my points, and all other diversion tactics have been used up, this one is your “ace in the hole”.

In response to your latest “Cry like a baby” diversion, I HAVE now addressed YOUR problems (not mine) with my recent posts and clarified some issues you were inventing to avoid the real issue.  (See CASE IN POINT #1).  So you have no further reason to avoid showing me where you place the word “einai” in YOUR translation of 17:5, right?  

Seems that you are out of diversions for the time being, and will HAVE TO address your misunderstanding of the Greek perfect tense, huh?

I'll bet money on the fact that you don't though.  I'll bet that instead you use the “Cry like a baby” diversion to deal with this whole post, claiming I wasn't “nice” to you or whatever.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2011,08:10)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:16) [/quote] 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?   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] 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.”

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.

If you don't, then tell me what exactly YOU think Jesus is asking for.

Thanks,
mike

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 05 2011,04:10)

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?   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] 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.”[/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. If you don't, then tell me what exactly YOU think Jesus is asking for. Thanks, mike

“you” in Greek is “su.”

Greek “Seautou” translates into English reflexive pronoun
“yourself.”

Figure it out.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ June 06 2011,09:03)

“you” in Greek is “su.” Greek “Seautou” translates into English reflexive pronoun “yourself.” Figure it out.

 Okay, I fixed it.  Will you answer it now?

But okay, tell me what the first use of “para” in 17:5 signifies.

And now, Father, glorify me WITH YOURSELF………..

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.

If you don't, then tell me what exactly YOU think Jesus is asking for.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 07 2011,11:47)

Quote (Paladin @ June 06 2011,09:03) “you” in Greek is “su.” Greek “Seautou” translates into English reflexive pronoun “yourself.” Figure it out.  Okay, I fixed it.  Will you answer it now? But okay, tell me what the first use of “para” in 17:5 signifies. And now, Father, glorify me WITH YOURSELF……….. 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. If you don't, then tell me what exactly YOU think Jesus is asking for.

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]

You are com-paring different things.
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.

I am 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.”

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Paladin @ May 05 2011,20:25)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2011,02:06) Hi All To deny the preexistence of Jesus is to deny a very basic fundamental truth. There are way too many scriptures that one has to explain away or give some ethereal interpretation to the text when it is obvious a literal interpretation of the text is what is meant by the writers. Are you aware of the meaning of “ethereal” WJ? It means to define in “out of this world terms.” It is a reference to a realm beyond earth, of almost a fairy-story quality.”

Hi Paladin

It has been a while I know. But I hadn’t forgotten. I have been busy and I usually do post based on how and when I am led to.

Your above definition of “ethereal” is one definition and use of the word. But, surely you know that words can have various meanings depending on context don’t you?

Ethereal can also mean; lacking material substance : immaterial, intangible. So I could have said…

“There are way too many scriptures that one has to explain away or give some ethereal immaterial or intangible interpretation to the text when it is obvious a literal interpretation of the text is what is meant by the writers.”

But thanks for the lesson!  

Quote (Paladin @ May 05 2011,20:25)

It is unfortunate you have chosen to attack the Greek of those with whom you disagree, because your application of Greek in your statement is almost totally wrong.

First of all I do not know what you are talking about. It seems you are on the defensive though. But I assure you my post doesn’t attack any credible Hebrew or Greek scholarship for I do not know enough to do that and would be the first to admit it. In fact my post is full of Greek scholarship and definitions given to us by those experts. You may oppose them and that is your right. But I also have the right to believe them over you.

Quote (Paladin @ May 05 2011,20:25)

First you give a translation of a Greek text, instead of the Greek or some part thereof.

So what is the point? Unless I have clear reason to mistrust the translators then I trust them. I cannot fluently read or speak Greek can you?

Quote (Paladin @ May 05 2011,20:25)

Then you mount an attack upon those with whom you disagree, by characterizing them as “men who know nothing of the construction of the Greek have set out to make themselves greater than the truth.”

You mean like your attack on me over my grammar? Yet none of them including you have not shown me how the Greek applications I gave are wrong.

Quote (Paladin @ May 05 2011,20:25)

You attempt to make your case without making your case, but simply asserting it;…

That of course is your opinion.

Quote (Paladin @ May 05 2011,20:25)

You fail to explain that in many cases it is the translators who are at fault, rather than the authors.

Of course you would say that even though most all of the translators were fluent in Biblical Hebrew and Greek Grammar and have the years and credentials to back them up. Do you?

Quote (Paladin @ May 05 2011,20:25)

Then you formulate your attack by assertion, with no evidence from the Greek text, which from your argument, we would expect to see some examples therefrom.

I'm beginning to think your whole post is only to attack me. But even so, I have given examples that neither you or any of the others have refuted at this point.

Quote (Paladin @ May 05 2011,20:25)

And you throw in terminology without explaining what it means. “Unitarian” interpretation, for example, means exactly what?

Paladin I am not here to explain or give the definition for every word I use. Do you? Unitarians do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus.

I figure most here know what a “Unitarian” is. But I guess I was wrong. Do your own research as others should also.

Quote (Paladin @ May 05 2011,20:25)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2011,02:06) The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's G2597 – katabaino… “Katabaino” actually means to come down (like descending a staircase) or fall down. If you type into bible program's word processor “I have come” you will not get “katabaino” as a preferred Greek source. You will get “erxomai.” So it is a little misleading to say “The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's “katabaino.”

Okay, my mistake for not highlighting the word “Down”. But it is not at all misleading because the Translators added the words “I have” to make sense of the verse and they rightfully added those words because of the tense, voice and mood of the verb “down”, “katabaino”. I thought you would know this?

Quote (Paladin @ May 05 2011,20:25)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2011,02:06) The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's G2597 – katabaino which is defined… 1) to go down, come down, descenda) the place from which one has come down from b) to come down “In every place the word is used it is referring to a literal action by a person and not an abstract “thought or plan”“. Then please explain Mat 7:25 & 7:27 [rain]; 11:23 a city; Luke 8:23, a storm; & 9:54 fire; Acts 8:26, a highway; 10:11 & 11:5 – a certain vessel; or James 1:17 gifts from God; or Rev 3:12 a city, or 12:12, the devil. Tell us who this person is in each reference, that “came down.”

Ok and who caused the action of the “storm”, and 'rain” etc.?

My point was the “rain” etc. literally came down from somewhere or heaven and in all of your scriptural references there was a literal “coming down” as opposed to an “abstract” (you like that word better?) thought or plan coming down.

Quote (Paladin @ May 05 2011,20:25)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2011,02:06) katabaino is in the “perfect” tense, and the “active voice” and the “indicative” mood! Again, a misleading statement. “katabebeeka” is the perfect, indicative, active form of katabaino. It is found in two verses in the new testament; John 6:38 and John 6:42 And only in two verses

OK so how am I misleading when all I did was post from two sources the Greek word Katabaino and the tenses  Here and Here the Greek word for John 6:38 is “katabaino” which is in the “perfect tense” the “active voice” and the “indicative mood”. So how am I misleading?

Quote (Paladin @ May 05 2011,20:25)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2011,02:06) “The perfect tense” in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated. The Greek “perfect” references a completed action, with results that carry into the present. The Greek “perfect” tense has no exact equivalent in English. [This is not all there is to say about the Greek “perfect” – it is all that applies to this report]

Is this Greek according to Paladin?

Your statement is misleading when you say, “The Greek “perfect” references a completed action, with results that carry into the present.”

However Mr Strong disagrees with you when he says…

The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed “as having been completed in the past, ONCE AND FOR ALL, NOT NEEDING TO BE REPEATED.

…which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.

Quote (Paladin @ May 05 2011,20:25)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2011,02:06) Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI (“It is finished!”) is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely “It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time.” Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense in a manner equivalent to the normal past tense. These few cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above. Greek past tense or english past tense? There is no Greek past tense.

The perfect tense in Greek CORRESPONDS to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed “as having been COMPLETED IN THE PAST, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.

When Jesus “descended” from heaven it was a literal action (indicative mood) that he performed (active voice) and that took place in the past once and for all (perfect tense)!

I will try to address the rest of your post when I have time.

Blessings!

WJ

[Author]

Posts