Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[Wispring]

Dear Thread Readers,
  I took it upon myself to do my own research via the internet regarding the definition of “perfect tense” in the Greek language. I will present my results and post the links from each source below the presentation.

Quote

One of the most notable features that Ancient Greek has inherited from Proto-Indo-European is its use of verb “tense” to express both tense proper (present, past, or future) and the aspect of the time (as ongoing, simply taking place, or completed with a lasting result).   Perfect (traditionally also often called perfective, but not to be confused with the above): indicating that the action is completed with a result that remains into the time being considered. The perfect (in all moods) as well as the pluperfect and future perfect carry this combination of relative tense and aspect.

Here is the link:
Wikipedia source

Quote

Perfect Tense The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action. For example, Galatians 2:20 should be translated “I am in a present state of having been crucified with Christ,” indicating that not only was I crucified with Christ in the past, but I am existing now in that present condition. “…having been rooted and grounded in love,” Eph 3:17

Here is the link for this source:
ntgreek.org

Quote

D) PERFECT TENSE 1) [Eph 2:8 cont.]: (v. 8) “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -” a) “you have been saved..” = “este sesosmenoi…” “este” = “are”, 2 pers. pl. pres., active voice, indicative mood = statement of fact “sesosmenoi” = saved, participle, perfect tense passive voice. [SYNTAX OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK, James A. Brooks, Carlton L. Winbery, University Press of America, Lanham, Md., 1988, pp. 104-5]: “The perfect tense expresses perfective action. Perfective action involves a present state which has resulted from a past action. The present state is a continuing state; the past action is a completed action.

Here is the link for this source:
biblestudymanuals.com

Quote

The perfect denotes a completed action the effects of which still continues in the presentÓ (Smyth and Messing 1956); Óthe primary perfect indicative (commonly: perfect) signifies that the state resulting from the completion of the verbal action exists at the moment of utterance (the ÔpresentÕ) (Rijksbaron 1984).

Here is the link to this source:

A very technical and scholarly examination of Greek perfect tense morphology through time.

Quote

The force of the perfect indicative is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past, has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker).

  Here is the link to this source:
bcbsr.com

  I hope this helps in your understanding of the “perfect tense” in Greek. If after reading this you understand that “perfect tense” nearly all time denotes a past action that has effects that carry over to at least the present of the author then I will have helped you.
  The bolded above is and example of the english future perfect tense just so you might get an example of a real world application of some sort of effect. In this case a learning experience.

                                                          With Love and more love,
                                                                  Wispring

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi Wispring

Thanks for the info and the links! I might point out in your first link some info you left out that is important…

B) PRESENT TENSE

Greek grammar books often stipulate that present tense expresses progressive or linear action but then they add the proviso that such action is more specifically defined by context and modifiers such as adverbs, phrases and conjunctions – often to the extent that it is neither progressive nor linear.

[Compare A. T. Robertson, “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 864, 879]:

“It is not wise therefore to define the present indicative as denoting 'action in progress'” like the imperfect as Burton does, for he has to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the 'Aoristic Present,' which he calls a 'distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present tense to denote action in progress.' In sooth, it is no 'departure' at all. The idiom is as old as the tense itself…

It has already been seen that the durative sense does not monopolize the 'present' tense, though it more frequently denotes linear action. The verb and the context must decide.”

So the key common denominator relative to present tense verb usage is that the action is to be viewed as internal as opposed to external wherein the former has in view action from within as it occurs, and the latter has in view action which is completed or action which has not yet occurred.

An examination of the various present tenses used in the New Testament Books will corroborate and clarify this:

[From: “Syntax of New Testament Greek” in {} brackets, Brooks & Winbery, 1979, University Press, Lanham, Md, pp. 82-90]:

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ June 07 2011,03:43)

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.”

I'm waiting for an answer to my question.

[Wispring]

Hi WJ,
  I once again will readily admit I am no expert in the Greek language. To me all the information in all the links I provided is of equal importance. I for one will be using all of them to further my own personal knowledge of the greek language. I think now I should have included in my previous post that it's purpose was to educate readers of this thread to one particular grammatical aspect of the Greek language, namely, the perfect tense. To be honest I did this in response to the debate between Paladin and yourself as to the grammatical meaning of perfect tense in Koine Greek. He had asserted that it is an event that occured that has on going effects in time after the event and you had responded that his assertion was mis-leading and had asked him if it was greek according to Paladin? What can be truthfully stated now is that it is greek according to many experts in greek. Even the results of Christ Jesus our Lord and Master last cry while on the cross have an ongoing effect, right? I have spent about 6 hours researching this and some folks on another Christian discussion board were discussing this same issue. Seems someone got the definition you are talking about from the blueletter bible site and perhaps the Thayers Lexicon. I will post this and my source.

Quote

I consulted Machen, my beginning Greek grammar in seminary, Dana & Mantey, my intermediate grammar in seminary, and two reference grammars, Robertson's and Moulton's.  I didn't find anything about \”once for all, not needing to be repeated\”.  The perfect refers to an action in the past with existing results.  It does not say anything about the future beyond the writer's perspective.  It says nothing about the action not needing to be repeated.  \”I have eaten\” does not imply that one must never repeat the action, does it?  It really is that simple. Blessings, Bob

gracecentered.com
  In conclusion exercising my own mind and my strong desire to understand greek correctly I am going to agree with Paladin's assertion regarding this dispute unless you can present compelling info as to why I should not.
  May the mind of Christ that Paul spoke of guide you and may God's eternal light of grace, truth, love, justice, forgiveness and mercy guide you in your walk with God.

                                                  With Love and more love,
                                                       Wispring

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 08 2011,14:43)

Quote (Paladin @ June 07 2011,03:43) 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 comparing 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.” I'm waiting for an answer to my question.

Your question was never the issue, was it Mike?

I have repeatedly told you that both instances of “para” in John 17:5 are dative, which expresses the case of the indirect object.

I have repeatedly showed you that “para” in Luke 1:30 is also dative, also expressing the case of the indirect object.

You are treating “para” as though all instances of the word apply the same way, especially when you compare John 1:6, the genitive “para” with Acts 10:6, the accusative “para.” And you asked me if they are used the same in both scriptures, as though that would have any significant application whatsoever to my position. It does  not. What it does Mike, is it shows all who read this thread, how very little you actually do know about the Greek, and causes some to wonder why you attack my Greek application so vehemetly, and especially with such nonsense tactics.

Mike, do you really not understand the difference betweem the possessive case, and the accusative? The accusative case references the direct object of the preposition; the genitive case points the reader to a possession in the sentence.

John 1:6 There was a man sent [para] from God, whose name was John. [para = genitive; i.e., telling us God possesses the man, but nothing about location]

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; i.e., the “sea side” is the direct object of the preposition “para,” telling us location.]

You are com-paring different things.
This difference forbids making the 'same use' argument.

As to the question you keep asking me, and looking for an answer from me, it is not relevant; and the reason it is not relevant is once more you are trying to impose different things into the discussion, as though they have a significant application. You are asking me to compare your belief against my belief, as regards the pre-existance of Jesus.

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

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 is not the issue with this verse, Mike. The issue of this verse, is simply, “What does the Greek teach?” It has nothing whatsoever to do with all the remote quesions you can drag into the discussion, trying to get one to fit your belief system. It never does, and it never will. The Greek will not change to fit your doctrinal needs.  My belief system also has no effect upon what the Greek has to teach us, if we simply allow it to do it's job.

John 17:5 and Luke 1:30 both utilize “para” in the dative case, (two in John, one in Luke) in all three applications of its use. This application points us to the indirect object of the preposition “para.”

Twice in John 17:5 and once in Luke 1:30 – In all three cases, “para” is dative, which expresses the case that points us to the indirect object of the preposition [Greek “para;” English “with”]

We are comparing like things –
“favor with God” [Lk 1:30] – God is not the subject, Mike, it is the indirect object of the preposition “para”, telling us with whom Mary found favor.

“glorify me with thyself” [John 17:5]- God is not the subject, Mike, “thyself” (seautw) is the indirect object of the preposition “para,” telling us with whom Jesus is to be glorified.

“glory with thee” [John 17:5] – “thee” (God) is again, not the subject, Mike, it is the indirect object of the preposition, telling us with whom glory was had before the world, i.e., (right before your eyes” as in prophecy). “Pro” is a genitive preposition in John 17:5, and it is present active, telling us that the glory Jesus is referencing was not something he “had” but something he “has,” because  if it is in prophecy, it is as real in God's promise, as it is in reality.

[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]

One of the prophecies Jesus relied on; “Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.” [Isa 52:13]

Scripture's own evaluation of the issue: “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]

[Pastry]

Paladin!  Sorry but I don't agree… I might be a little uneducated in the English language, but I see John 17:5 is talking about what glory Jesus had with His Father BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.

Jhn 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.

While Luke 1:30  is talking in the present tense….Also Mary will always have that favour with God…. She is the Mother of our Savior Jesus Christ.  At least she has a special place in my Heart….

Luk 1:30   And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

Peace Irene

[Paladin]

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2011,01:10)

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]
Correction; Dative is “Indirect Object.”

I had referenced it in my post as “direct object.” sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

“Accusative is case of “Direct Object.”

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2011,04:24)

As to the question you keep asking me, and looking for an answer from me, it is not relevant; and the reason it is not relevant is once more you are trying to impose different things into the discussion, as though they have a significant application. You are asking me to compare your belief against my belief, as regards the pre-existance of Jesus. That is not the issue with this verse, Mike. The issue of this verse, is simply, “What does the Greek teach?”

Okay Paladin,

WHAT DOES THE GREEK TEACH then?    Does the Greek teach that Jesus was asking for glory ALONGSIDE his God, as in “PHYSICALLY NEXT TO HIM IN HEAVEN”?  If not, then what exactly DOES the Greek teach, according to you? What was Jesus asking his God for in 17:5, according to the Greek?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2011,09:04)

Correction; Dative is “Indirect Object.” I had referenced it in my post as “direct object.” sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

Hi Paladin,

Thanks for the correction, but I assure you no harm was done (at least to me).  I rarely, if ever, read your whole posts anyway.  I usually just skim the 100 or so sentences to find the one or two that actually deal with the question I asked you.  

And because I've many times shown your Greek claims to be inaccurate, I almost always skip right over those parts of your posts.  When it is crucial to the point in question, only then will I take a look at what you've claimed about the Greek language to see if it is accurate or not.  Often, the grammar rules you post ARE in fact accurate; but just as often, they don't apply to the scripture in question the way you claim them to.

peace,
mike

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 09 2011,14:13)

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2011,04:24) As to the question you keep asking me, and looking for an answer from me, it is not relevant; and the reason it is not relevant is once more you are trying to impose different things into the discussion, as though they have a significant application. You are asking me to compare your belief against my belief, as regards the pre-existance of Jesus. That is not the issue with this verse, Mike. The issue of this verse, is simply, “What does the Greek teach?” Okay Paladin, WHAT DOES THE GREEK TEACH then?    Does the Greek teach that Jesus was asking for glory ALONGSIDE his God, as in “PHYSICALLY NEXT TO HIM IN HEAVEN”?  If not, then what exactly DOES the Greek teach, according to you?  What was Jesus asking his God for in 17:5, according to the Greek? mike

Mike, I am going to try to develope an analogy that may help you understand my position, and better understand what the Greek teaches.

suppose you bouhg a five gallon bucket of paint to paint your house, and your house and that bucket of paint could communicate while you weren't listening. (Could be, but we'll never know, because both the house and the paint bucket shut up whenever we are around)

So, the House says to the paint in the paint bucket, “Cover me with the glory that comes with being covered with yourself.” And the paint says, “well, house, you already have the glory that comes with being seen beside my container, the paint bucket.”

But you continue to contend with the paint, “but that is only the container, I want the glory of having a fresh new coat of
“you” covering myself, so that I am covered with “yourself” where all can see me and enjoy my new glory.”

Mike, being seen beside the bucket of paint is not the same as being covered with the paint from within the bucket.

Jesus is saying “Now Glorify me with thyself, with the glory I had before the world.” This is a reference to the prophecies dealing with Jesus being “extolled and made very high.”  
“Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.” [Isa 52:13]

And the Hebrews letter tells it this way – “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]

Jesus wants the glory of God himself, not the glory of being beside God. This happened when Jesus was glorified by the resurrection from the dead.  “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.”
[John 7:37-39]

When was Jesus glorified? When he was declared to be the son of God, with power, by the resurrection from the dead –
“Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:”[Rom 1:2-4]

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ June 09 2011,07:04)

Jesus wants the glory of God himself, not the glory of being beside God.

Surely Jesus knows that God shares His glory with no one, right?  

Paladin, if there is no Greek rule prohibiting 17:5 to have Jesus asking to be glorified IN THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE of his God (which there isn't), then all of this is just a waste of time.

Think what you want to.  I know that Jesus is the Word who was with God in the beginning, then became flesh, and dwelled among mankind with the glory of the only begotten from the Father.  He is the one through whom God created all things and ages.  He was existing in the form of God, but then emptied himself and was made into a human being.  And in 17:5, he is asking God to bring him back to his place beside Him, and restore the glory he had before the world was created through him.  The rest of chapter 17 confirms this by Jesus saying he will soon be leaving the world and coming back to his Father.  And instead of God giving him the glory he used to have, He exalted him to an even higher position and glory, and gave him rule over heaven and earth for a while.

That is my understanding which is based, not on my own preferences (for I couldn't care less either way), but on what the scriptures clearly teach us.

It is your choice to believe it or not, as well as Marty's and Kerwin's and Gene's.  Paladin, our conversations bring out the worst in me, for you rarely, if ever, directly answer my points, but instead have me chasing you around a bunch of misunderstood Greek rules of grammar and many diversions to the actual points we're discussing.

I don't really care any more what you believe.  We'll all know the truth eventually, (although some of us only for a brief moment before we're gone for good).

When my Lord and King says he came down from heaven, I believe him.  When he says he was created as the first of God's works, I believe him.  When he says he is the beginning of the creation of God, I believe him.  When he says that no man has seen the Father except for him who came from the Father, then I believe that he is “from” God in a way very different than the way John the Baptist was sent “from” God.   When he says he came from God and is RETURNING to Him, it is also clear that “from” in this case is literal.  

There are so many other scriptures and points, (in fact I think our Pre-existent Scriptural Database is up to over 60 of them now), but I just don't have the patience to deal with YOU concerning them.  I would love to discuss this with you DIRECT POINT versus DIRECT POINT, but you have shown yourself to be incapable of this sort of discussion.  I don't have the time to chase your extremely long, unorganized posts, fairy tales and illogical, alternate theories of clearly worded scriptures.

take care,
mike

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2011,13:41)

Quote (Paladin @ June 09 2011,07:04) Jesus wants the glory of God himself, not the glory of being beside God. Surely Jesus knows that God shares His glory with no one, right?   Paladin, if there is no Greek rule prohibiting 17:5 to have Jesus asking to be glorified IN THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE of his God (which there isn't), then all of this is just a waste of time. Think what you want to.  I know that Jesus is the Word who was with God in the beginning, then became flesh, and dwelled among mankind with the glory of the only begotten from the Father.  He is the one through whom God created all things and ages.  He was existing in the form of God, but then emptied himself and was made into a human being.  And in 17:5, he is asking God to bring him back to his place beside Him, and restore the glory he had before the world was created through him.  The rest of chapter 17 confirms this by Jesus saying he will soon be leaving the world and coming back to his Father.  And instead of God giving him the glory he used to have, He exalted him to an even higher position and glory, and gave him rule over heaven and earth for a while. That is my understanding which is based, not on my own preferences (for I couldn't care less either way), but on what the scriptures clearly teach us. It is your choice to believe it or not, as well as Marty's and Kerwin's and Gene's.  Paladin, our conversations bring out the worst in me, for you rarely, if ever, directly answer my points, but instead have me chasing you around a bunch of misunderstood Greek rules of grammar and many diversions to the actual points we're discussing. I don't really care any more what you believe.  We'll all know the truth eventually, (although some of us only for a brief moment before we're gone for good). When my Lord and King says he came down from heaven, I believe him.  When he says he was created as the first of God's works, I believe him.  When he says he is the beginning of the creation of God, I believe him.  When he says that no man has seen the Father except for him who came from the Father, then I believe that he is “from” God in a way very different than the way John the Baptist was sent “from” God.   When he says he came from God and is RETURNING to Him, it is also clear that “from” in this case is literal.   There are so many other scriptures and points, (in fact I think our Pre-existent Scriptural Database is up to over 60 of them now), but I just don't have the patience to deal with YOU concerning them.  I would love to discuss this with you DIRECT POINT versus DIRECT POINT, but you have shown yourself to be incapable of this sort of discussion.  I don't have the time to chase your extremely long, unorganized posts, fairy tales and illogical, alternate theories of clearly worded scriptures. take care, mike

Jesus did not ask God to “share” his glory with him. He asked God to “give” himself in glory to Jesus.

What do you perceive to be our glory when God is ultimately
“all in all?”

Do you think God will be “sharing his glory” or do you think God will give us himself in glory?

[mikeboll64]

Paladin,

I have no clue what “give Himself in glory” is even supposed to mean. The words make no logical sense in English, as opposed to the words Jesus said about having glory alongside his God before the creation of the world.

[Pastry]

No Paladin, we will share in the divinity with Christ. You simple ignore a lot of plain written Scriptures. Mike has done a great job, and you give never were credit is due….

2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Good post mike…. Peace Irene

[mikeboll64]

Thanks Firecrackers!

[Pastry]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2011,14:58)

Thanks Firecrackers!

You're Welcome….Sir….

[terraricca]

Mike

i agree with Irene ,you doing a great Job for the truth of scriptures and so to restore Godly truth were it should be .

Pierre

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2011,14:44)

Paladin, I have no clue what “give Himself in glory” is even supposed to mean.  The words make no logical sense in English, as opposed to the words Jesus said about having glory alongside his God before the creation of the world.

Well, Mike, that's what happens when you “translate” everything to accomodate your doctrinal needs.

“Along side” is not in the verse, any more than Mary finding favor “along side” of God would make sense. It is the same form of the same verb, and carries the same meaning.

It is you and your friends who ignore the “clear teaching of the Greek” in this issue, all becasue you put your faith in the language of scholars instead of the language of God.

[Paladin]

Quote (Pastry @ June 10 2011,14:51)

No Paladin, we will share in the divinity with Christ.  You simple ignore a lot of plain written Scriptures.  Mike has done a great job, and you give never were credit is due…. 2Pe 1:4   Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.   Good post mike…. Peace Irene

And just what do you think the source of that “divinity” is Irene? Do you think it is found in sitting beside God for eternity?

I think it comes from God being our glory, not simply being glory beside us.

Tell me Irene, what do you think this means –

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God:”

Why does Paul say “a man is the glory of God?” have you given it any thought Irene?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi All

I think the Greek of a world renowned Greek Grammarian like AT Robertson out ways any of the anti-preexistence chatter I have seen in this thread.

John 17:5…

With thine own self (para seautwi). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. Matthew 1:1 ) enjoyed before the Incarnation ( John 1:14 ). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father's side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (h eicon, imperfect active of ecw, I used to have, with attraction of case of hn to h because of doxh), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” (cf. verse John 24 ). It is small wonder that those who deny or reject the deity of Jesus Christ have trouble with the Johannine authorship of this book and with the genuineness of these words. But even Harnack admits that the words here and in verse John 24 are “undoubtedly the reflection of the certainty with which Jesus himself spoke” (What Is Christianity, Engl. Tr., p. 132). But Paul, as clearly as John, believes in the actual pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ ( Philippians 2:5-11 ).

Blessings Keith

[Author]

Posts