- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Paladin………… You have explained it right brother, Jesus indeed is the recipient of the Covenant promised to Abraham. I see it that way also and I also believe God himself is the only Creator of that Covenant and all who believe GOD as Abraham and Jesus can also be heirs and are enjoined to that same covenant also. It all works by Faith in GOD the Father who made and established this covenant with us and Jesus, through the operation of FAITH. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………………………….gene
These are your words, Paladin:
“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.”
But that is INCORRECT, isn't it Paladin? The imperfect tense does NOT prohibit Jesus from asking for a prior glory he had in the past, does it? YES or NO?
If right now I ask for something I used to have, would I be asking to have that thing AGAIN? YES or NO?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 01 2011,08:21) Mike…….If it was just a matter of the word by it self that could mean as you say many different ways. However it is not (IN) the sentence Peter said that way now is it? . Peter says it this way Jesus was “FOREORDAINED” (but) WAS “MANIFESTED” in our time.
Gene,What more can I say? Manifest does NOT mean “brought into existence”. So the fact that Jesus was manifest to us in these last days implies he was already there, but we were allowed to SEE HIM in these last days.
The foreordained part does not mean what you think, as I've REPEATEDLY shown you. You could right now be foreordained to be God's court jester in the future; but that doesn't mean you don't exist right now, right?
Some of us are foreordained to have glory IN THE FUTURE. But that doesn't prohibit us from having glory now, or in the past. And since your Lord said he DID have glory before the creation of the world, I suggest you believe him. If not, it is you to whom he'll someday say, “Away from me, I never knew you”.
Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2011,07:36) Quote (Paladin @ July 01 2011,20:38) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2011,13:20) Hi Ed, Paladin won't agree, and he knows why.
But if he does, it is to be a one question and one answer within a post that is 250 words or less……………and only for me and Paladin.
Is there supposed to be some kind of shame attatched to failure to respond to a debate challenge?
Hi Paladin,Once again you and me see eye to eye. (Click on this link)
He was already a defeated foe here. (Last Post on this Link)Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
Ed,Your post is misleading. Paladin is speaking of a debate with ME, and your post says “HE was already defeated………”
The word “HE” implies you are speaking of “ME”, yet I'm no where in the links you posted.
Please clarify who the “HE” is.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2011,02:13) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 01 2011,08:21) Mike…….If it was just a matter of the word by it self that could mean as you say many different ways. However it is not (IN) the sentence Peter said that way now is it? . Peter says it this way Jesus was “FOREORDAINED” (but) WAS “MANIFESTED” in our time.
Gene,What more can I say? Manifest does NOT mean “brought into existence”. So the fact that Jesus was manifest to us in these last days implies he was already there, but we were allowed to SEE HIM in these last days.
The foreordained part does not mean what you think, as I've REPEATEDLY shown you. You could right now be foreordained to be God's court jester in the future; but that doesn't mean you don't exist right now, right?
Some of us are foreordained to have glory IN THE FUTURE. But that doesn't prohibit us from having glory now, or in the past. And since your Lord said he DID have glory before the creation of the world, I suggest you believe him. If not, it is you to whom he'll someday say, “Away from me, I never knew you”.
Mike…………I am not worried about Jesus saying “He never knew me” , because i do Know him and relate with him as a (FELLOW HUMAN BEING) JUST LIKE I AM. But you and your fellow Preexistences and Trinitarians can't even begin to relate with Him as a “FELLOW HUMAN BEING” now can you , so it's you preexistences and trinitarian people who do not “KNOW HIM” and He intern does not KNOW YOU EITHER > and as He will say “I (NEVER) KNEW YOU”.Because you (NEVER) have related with Him on HUMAN TERMS Now have YOU? But don't fill alone because MANY, MANY, have never either' “known” Him. Most like you SEPARATE JESUS FROM THEMSELVES, as well as others, some calling him a “morphed” GOD and some a Demigod, and Some a morphed angel Some Michel the archangel and on and on the charade goes but all of this works to “SEPARATES” JESUS FOR OUR EXACT IDENTITY. IMO
So if you can't relate with him NOW what Makes you think YOU can Later?. Jesus is both Lord and Master, but (ABOVE THAT) He is a fellow Human Being and alway will be, he is my Brother both now and forever, and that to me is (ABOVE) any title or position of authority we can place on him. He is (FIRST) MY BROTHER , THEN MY KING AND MASTER. But (FIRST) and (FOREMOST) My BROTHERR. Who loved me and gave his life for my life He is my “KINSMEN REDEEMER “, WHO LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR ME. i AM INDEBTED TO HIM, because he loved me and gave himself for me so i can have eternal life he gave the ultimate sacrifice for me and justified me to eternal life before OUR FATHER MY FATHER AND HIS FATHER MY GOD and HIS GOD. We are KINSMEN and Brothers. IMO
It is sad to me that you can't understand that Mike.
peace and love………………………………..gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2011,02:02) These are your words, Paladin: “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.”
But that is INCORRECT, isn't it Paladin? The imperfect tense does NOT prohibit Jesus from asking for a prior glory he had in the past, does it? YES or NO?
If right now I ask for something I used to have, would I be asking to have that thing AGAIN? YES or NO?
Mike, I am really not interested in thinking up all the ways someone in '2011' can ask for something they had in the year '0' – I am interested in establishing what the scriptures of '33' had to say about issues raised in that time period.I know that when something was “restored” to a previous owner, in 2 Samuel 16:3, the language used to so indicate the fact was “To day shall the house of Israel *restore me the kingdom of my father.” [epistrepsousin (epistrephw) ind fut act 3rd pl v]
And I know that when God intended to restore Israel's judges to a previous state of rightousness, the language used to depict this action was – “And I *will *restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.[Isa 1:26] [episteesw (ephisteemi) [ind future act v]
I know that when Jesus prayed “Father, glorify thy name,” Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it, and *will *glorify it *again.”[John 12:28]
[palin = adverb][doxasw = ind future act verb]When Jesus was teaching about Elias “restoring” all things, he used this language – “And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and *restoreth all things..” [Mark 9:12][apokathistanei = ind pres act v][vipa–3s]
And when the disciples asked Jesus about the restoration of Israel, their question included this language “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time *restore again the kingdom to Israel? [Acts 1:6][apokathistaneis = ind pres act v][vipa–2s]
But, when Jesus made a request to “Now” be glorified, he did not ask to have a former glory “again” as was referenced in John 12:28; and he did not ask for forrmer glory to be restored to him, as referenced in Isa 1:26 shown above.
So, Jesus knew the scriptures, and he knew the languages of scripture, plus, he had the unjlimited involvement of the Holy spirit, so there is no question as to whether he knew what he was asking. Nor is there really any question about what he wanted us to understand when we read his words, if we don;t let doctrinal needs get in the way of reality.The reality is, Jesus did not ask for a former glory to be restored, nor did Jesus ask for a former glory to be bestowed upon him “again.”
All Jesus was requesting, was for the glory that was his before the world, now be given to him. “Before the world” is a reference to place or position, not time; just as is expressed in threadpage 167 post #5:
Before thy face [Mat 11:10]
Before the door [Acts 12:6]Here is John 17:5 parsed again for convenience of observation
John 17:5 And now, O Father, [1]glorify thou me [2]with thine [3]own self with the [4]glory which [5]I had [6]with thee [7]before the world [8]was.
[1[doxason = imperative aor act]
[2]para = dat prep]
[3[seautw = dat masc pronoun 2nd s]
[4[doxww = dat fem s noun]
[5[eixon (exw) ind imperfect act 1st s v]
[NOTE: imperfect active = Continuous action in past]
[6[para = dat prep][pd][soi (su) dat pronoun 2nd s]
[7[pro = gen [prep]
[tou (o`) = gen def art]
[ton (o`) = acc masc s def art]
[kosmon = acc masc s n]
[8[einai (eimi) = pres act gen v infinitive]
[NOTE] present active infinitive = present continuous action NOW.The express request is for glory that has been before the world, to be given him now as his mission grows to a close.
It had been promised [Isa 52:13] and highly anticipated, [Heb 12:2]; now it is prayed over.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2011,02:16) Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2011,07:36) Quote (Paladin @ July 01 2011,20:38) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2011,13:20) Hi Ed, Paladin won't agree, and he knows why.
But if he does, it is to be a one question and one answer within a post that is 250 words or less……………and only for me and Paladin.
Is there supposed to be some kind of shame attatched to failure to respond to a debate challenge?
Hi Paladin,Once again you and me see eye to eye. (Click on this link)
He was already a defeated foe here. (Last Post on this Link)Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
Ed,Your post is misleading. Paladin is speaking of a debate with ME, and your post says “HE was already defeated………”
The word “HE” implies you are speaking of “ME”, yet I'm no where in the links you posted.
Please clarify who the “HE” is.
mike
Hi Mike,Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was referring to BD not you.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Gene Balthrop @ July 02 2011,09:29) It is sad to me that you can't understand that Mike.
Oh but I DO understand, Gene. I understand completely that you personally and very strongly believe that Jesus never was anything except for “exactly like us”. But your view is your own, and not supported by the scriptures. You are welcome to it. But I have no use for that view, as I form my understanding AROUND the scriptures, instead of the way you do it.Quote (Paladin @ July 02 2011,15:55) Mike, I am really not interested in ………………………..
Blah, blah, blah. More circling and diversions, huh?The fact is that YOU claimed the imperfect tense prohibited Jesus from referring to a glory he had before. The fact is that YOU were WRONG!
Either own up to your mistake or continue to let everyone see how far you are willing to go to pretend you weren't wrong.
Quote (Paladin @ July 03 2011,08:55) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2011,02:02) These are your words, Paladin: “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.”
But that is INCORRECT, isn't it Paladin? The imperfect tense does NOT prohibit Jesus from asking for a prior glory he had in the past, does it? YES or NO?
If right now I ask for something I used to have, would I be asking to have that thing AGAIN? YES or NO?
Mike, I am really not interested in thinking up all the ways someone in '2011' can ask for something they had in the year '0' – I am interested in establishing what the scriptures of '33' had to say about issues raised in that time period.I know that when something was “restored” to a previous owner, in 2 Samuel 16:3, the language used to so indicate the fact was “To day shall the house of Israel *restore me the kingdom of my father.” [epistrepsousin (epistrephw) ind fut act 3rd pl v]
And I know that when God intended to restore Israel's judges to a previous state of rightousness, the language used to depict this action was – “And I *will *restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.[Isa 1:26] [episteesw (ephisteemi) [ind future act v]
I know that when Jesus prayed “Father, glorify thy name,” Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it, and *will *glorify it *again.”[John 12:28]
[palin = adverb][doxasw = ind future act verb]When Jesus was teaching about Elias “restoring” all things, he used this language – “And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and *restoreth all things..” [Mark 9:12][apokathistanei = ind pres act v][vipa–3s]
And when the disciples asked Jesus about the restoration of Israel, their question included this language “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time *restore again the kingdom to Israel? [Acts 1:6][apokathistaneis = ind pres act v][vipa–2s]
But, when Jesus made a request to “Now” be glorified, he did not ask to have a former glory “again” as was referenced in John 12:28; and he did not ask for forrmer glory to be restored to him, as referenced in Isa 1:26 shown above.
So, Jesus knew the scriptures, and he knew the languages of scripture, plus, he had the unjlimited involvement of the Holy spirit, so there is no question as to whether he knew what he was asking. Nor is there really any question about what he wanted us to understand when we read his words, if we don;t let doctrinal needs get in the way of reality.The reality is, Jesus did not ask for a former glory to be restored, nor did Jesus ask for a former glory to be bestowed upon him “again.”
All Jesus was requesting, was for the glory that was his before the world, now be given to him. “Before the world” is a reference to place or position, not time; just as is expressed in threadpage 167 post #5:
Before thy face [Mat 11:10]
Before the door [Acts 12:6]Here is John 17:5 parsed again for convenience of observation
John 17:5 And now, O Father, [1]glorify thou me [2]with thine [3]own self with the [4]glory which [5]I had [6]with thee [7]before the world [8]was.
[1[doxason = imperative aor act]
[2]para = dat prep]
[3[seautw = dat masc pronoun 2nd s]
[4[doxww = dat fem s noun]
[5[eixon (exw) ind imperfect act 1st s v]
[NOTE: imperfect active = Continuous action in past]
[6[para = dat prep][pd][soi (su) dat pronoun 2nd s]
[7[pro = gen [prep]
[tou (o`) = gen def art]
[ton (o`) = acc masc s def art]
[kosmon = acc masc s n]
[8[einai (eimi) = pres act gen v infinitive]
[NOTE] present active infinitive = present continuous action NOW.The express request is for glory that has been before the world, to be given him now as his mission grows to a close.
It had been promised [Isa 52:13] and highly anticipated, [Heb 12:2]; now it is prayed over.
Paladin……….Good Post anyone with the Spirit of truth in them can easily understand what you have brought our brother. Problem is they just can't recieve it because it has not been given them to and their false preconceived teachings has blinded them and they can't understand it. As Jesus told the Pharisees the same applies here with the Preexistences and Trinitarians .Peace and love to you and yours…………………………gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2011,02:02) These are your words, Paladin: “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.”
But that is INCORRECT, isn't it Paladin? The imperfect tense does NOT prohibit Jesus from asking for a prior glory he had in the past, does it? YES or NO?
If right now I ask for something I used to have, would I be asking to have that thing AGAIN? YES or NO?
Why do you refuse to learn Mike? Do you honestly think you can teach by accusation? You continuously attempt to belittle whose with whom you disagree, and ask such stupid questions they are insulting.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2011,11:33) Blah, blah, blah. More circling and diversions, huh?
All it takes is for you to produce a verse that shows Jesus receiving something he had before, and the activity being described in the Greek imperfect parallel to how it is used in John 17:5.
Basics of Biblical Greek: Wm. D. Mounce – page 180
Paragraph 21.2 Greek describes action occuring in past; different tenses for different aspects.Imperfect describes continuous action usually occuring in past. [eegapwn = “I was loving.”]
Aorist describes undefined action in past.:
[eegapeesa = “I loved.”][End Mounce page 280][Paladin's comment] For you to describe Jesus as having glory in the past, and it stopped, and he now wants it restored, or applied again, requires Aorist application to the grammar, not imperfect, which describes a continuous possession of glory, and being continuous, cannot be given again, nor can it be restored, because it was never lost or taken from him.[end]
[Mounce page 187)
Translating Imperative: Almost everything in the imperfect tense (person, number, mood) behaves the same way as it does in the present tense. The only difference is the aspect and usually the time. In general, the Imperfect tense is translated as a past continuous. [End Mounce Remark]It's Still Greek To Me; David A. Black [page 105-6]
Strictly speaking, the Imperfect tense views the action as in progress. It is represented by the english past continuous forms.[emphasis mine (P)]It is important to distinguish between Imperfect and Aorist and to note that Greek prefers to use the Aorist in narrative unless there is a real need to emphasize that an action is in progress.[End Black's remarks (Emphasis mine (P)]
You keep asking me “could it be…” “does it prohibit…?” Then you refuse to read my response and continue to accuse, as though that will make it change to what you require for your doctrinal need; which you deny having.
It is not my fault if the translators failed to remain true to the Greek applicable grammatic codes. But it most certainly will be my fault if I ignore that knowledge God has prepared me with for the purpose of teaching Greek, which I have been doing for a number of years.
You and others on the board have continually hassled me about something you call “credentials” as though each of you has an impeccable set of your own. It is obvious from your stumbling presentation of Greek, and your questions about obvious issues of Greek grammar, you are getting your Greek out of commentaries as you go. And the commentaries are wrong; consequently you are wrong. The sad part Mike, is, you don't even know it.
You argue with Marty that he doesn't offer you any scriptural verses, that it is not enough [threadpage 110 post #4], then argue with me when I do, that it is too much;
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2011,11:33) Blah, blah, blah. More circling and diversions, huh? You argue both ways Mike, and continue with your insults. You really need to get out of the sandbox and quit throwing toys.
You use A.T.Robertson, but you don't read his book. You scan the pages until you get a soundbyte you think will deal with a snippet of an issue, and ignore it when he tells you something you need to know.
It was A.T.Roberson who said (on page 389, Limits of Syntax) “…theological bias will inevitably determine how one interprets the Greek idiom. When the grammarian has finished, the thrologian steps in, ans sometimes before the grammarian is through.”
On page 419 he states: “In general the words go together that make sense, and the interpretation is sometimes left to the reader's insight.”
I have learned over the years, it is not the Greek grammar rules that matter in translating the Greek text into a proper English comprehension; it is the application of the Greek grammar rules that make it so. You continually try to make the Greek imperfect behave as though it is an Aorist, then get angry with me when I tell you the limitations of the Greek Imperfect, to the english interpretation and translation.
John 17:5 in the Greek allows one understanding in the english, and that understanding is as follows –
“And now Father, glorify thou me with thyself, with the glory I was having before the world and am having with thee.”
The only way this is possible, Mike, is if it references prophecy in the form of a promise of glory. Otherwise, it only references a circular request for what is already reality. If it is a prophetic issue, then he can both have it (in prophecy) and request it (which he does).
The Greek “eixon” is imperfect, (continuous action) but “einai” is a present active infinitive, which is also “continuous action,” only in the present of the speaker; in this case, Jesus at prayer.
So you have two references to continuous action in the verse, one in “imperfect” referencing a past continuous action, and one in the present active infinitive referencing a continuous action.
There is no way a correct translation can render an action taking place prior to the creation of the world, when the issue deals with something that is happening before the world (in front of), as in prophecy, which is certainly backed up with scripture. To say it happened prior to creation, not only corrupts the English, it ignores the Greek for doctrinal reasons.
You really need to try to absorb some of the information posted to you Mike, and stop requiring “Yes, or no” responses which do nothing toward helping understanding.
Good morning brothers and sisters in Christ:
I asked God for understanding relative to the Greek Words Logos and Rhema, and I believe that He has shown me that the Logos is “The totality of God's Word” whereas the Rhema are “the individual sayings of God”.
Thus when Jesus was tempted by the devil he replied:
Quote Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word(Rhema) that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Love in Christ,
MartyIstari…………I agree , Mike tries to ridicule others to hide his own ignorance that he has acquired from a past of preconceived ideologies as nearly all preexistences and Trinitarians do. Paladin is definitely a GOD send to this site, and we all need to listen more closely and that includes me also. He expounds the Greek more perfectly then anyone i have heard here in the past five or six years. We all have a chance to grow here with a more sound understanding of scriptures and we need to take advantage of his knowledge he is affording us. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………………………gene
Quote (Paladin @ July 03 2011,02:00) All it takes is for you to produce a verse that shows Jesus receiving something he had before, and the activity being described in the Greek imperfect parallel to how it is used in John 17:5.
Blah, blah, blah. EVEN MORE circling and diversions, huh?The fact is that YOU claimed the imperfect tense prohibited Jesus from referring to a glory he had before. The fact is that YOU were WRONG!
Either own up to your mistake or continue to let everyone see how far you are willing to go to pretend you weren't wrong.
Paladin, listen VERY closely here:
DOES THE IMPERFECT TENSE OF ECHO PROHIBIT JESUS FROM REFERRING TO A PAST GLORY THAT HE HIMSELF HAD OR NOT?
You have implied that the Greek grammar PROHIBITS such a thing. Are you correct in that claim or not?
It is a very simple question. You now KNOW the answer, because I showed it to you. And for you to continue on and on with the big posts of more of your fluff only shows how willing you are to be dishonest about the ONE very simple question I'm asking of you.
I will continue to show you how “before the world” refers to time and not place, (as I've already done), and I will continue to refute the other twistings of scripture that you perform on a daily basis. BUT ONLY AFTER you show yourself to be MAN ENOUGH to admit when you are WRONG.
Until THAT time, I won't budge off this “imperfect echo” subject. You MUST be held accountable, and I will make you so even if I have to post the same “Blah, blah, blah” post over and over for the next 10 years.
Please answer the bolded question above DIRECTLY, without venturing off into miles and miles of other things.
Quote (Istari @ July 03 2011,03:44) Hmm… Interesting summary of Mikeboll64. Seems to be a growing opinion!
Good!
Because, like Jesus, I came here not to bring peace, but a sword.
And apparently, judging by those of you who spout unscriptural nonsense crying to your mamas, I am doing what I came to do.
Quote (942767 @ July 03 2011,08:02) Good morning brothers and sisters in Christ: I asked God for understanding relative to the Greek Words Logos and Rhema, and I believe that He has shown me that the Logos is “The totality of God's Word” whereas the Rhema are “the individual sayings of God”.
Thus when Jesus was tempted by the devil he replied:
Quote Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word(Rhema) that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Love in Christ,
Marty
Hi Marty,Please explain your revelation in light of this scripture:
1 Cor 2:4 NRSV ©
My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power,Both bolded words above are the Greek word “logos”. I don't intend to make light of your revelation, and I applaud you for asking the only One who can give understanding, but here is the same scripture with your new understanding inserted:
1 Cor 2:4 NRSV ©
My totality of God's Word and my proclamation were not with plausible totality of God's Word of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power,Is Paul saying his proclaimation was NOT from the Word of God? Please explain.
peace,
mikeQuote (Gene Balthrop @ July 03 2011,08:23) Paladin is definitely a GOD send to this site, and we all need to listen more closely and that includes me also. He expounds the Greek more perfectly then anyone i have heard here in the past five or six years. We all have a chance to grow here with a more sound understanding of scriptures and we need to take advantage of his knowledge he is affording us. IMO
Hi Gene,Most of what Paladin says is above your head anyway. I've watched you say “You have it right, brother” when he posted something that totally disagrees with what you continue to claim as truth.
He disagrees with almost everything you've ever posted about pre-existence, yet you applaud his knowledge while continuing to claim your same misunderstandings that he's solidly refuted.
Let me dumb down what's currently going on between Paladin and me:
Make believe scripture: Jesus is now WITH God.
Paladin: The English word “with” CANNOT POSSIBLY refer to Jesus being PHYSICALLY “with” God, so it MUST be a metaphorical “with”.
Mike: While the word “with” could refer to a metaphorical “with”, you cannot come to the conclusion that it IS a metaphorical “with” based ONLY on the English word “with”.
Paladin: Blah, blah, blah…………..many other words about many other things to avoid admitting that Mike is right and I truly cannot make the claim I did based ONLY on the English word “with”.
And so on, and so on. You see Gene, Paladin made a false claim that the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 forbids Jesus from speaking of a glory he had in the past. And while he is welcome to add other facts into the equation to support his understanding that Jesus WASN'T speaking of a glory he had in the past, HE CAN'T RIGHTFULLY CLAIM THAT THE IMPERFECT TENSE OF “ECHO” IN AND OF ITSELF PROHIBITS THIS OCCURANCE………….BECAUSE IT ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T. YET THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE HAS CLAIMED, AND I WON'T LET HIM GET AWAY WITH IT.
And that's what much of Paladin's “Greek expertise” amounts to here. He makes a claim using Greek grammar rules and terms that he knows some of us will have a hard time understanding. And he thinks that if we don't fully understand his big words and grammar rules, we'll just accept what he claimed as truth.
Many like you have followed this maze of lies and deceit and call him a “God” like you just did. I am NOT one of you. I'm not the world's most intelligent guy, but I know how to read and research for myself. And after doing so, I've come to find out he has tried to pull the wool over our eyes.
Don't worry Gene. I'm on it. I'll keep him honest so you can remain oblivious to the fast ones he's trying to pull, okay?
As for your part, you can continue on believing anything and everything he says as long as you think he's agreeing with you. For that is what you're truly after anyway. Not truth, but anyone who seems to agree with your own “truth”.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ July 04 2011,03:30) Paladin,July wrote:All it takes is for you to produce a verse that shows Jesus receiving something he had before, and the activity being described in the Greek imperfect parallel to how it is used in John 17:5.
Mike LISTEN VERY CLOSELY
All it takes is for you to produce a verse that shows Jesus receiving something he had before, and the activity being described in the Greek imperfect parallel to how it is used in John 17:5.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
