Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[Pastry]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,01:01)

Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2011,02:40) When God has an idea or concept, it is logos. When God expresses it by reducing it to a written record, it is reema. There are occasions in scripture where it seems that the words overlap in application.       Do you see that Marty?  This is the closest any of us will ever come to Paladin admitting he was wrong! But he has admitted more than he knows.  His acknowledgement that the words seem to overlap in application turns his original claim into a guessing game. And MY guess is that it will be Paladin who forever decides exactly when logos refers to a concept and when it is simply “overlapping” with rhema.   Face it boys, if your theory has gaps and exceptions, it's time to find yourselves another theory.   But I must thank Paladin for admitting (in his own “I will NEVER be wrong” way) that at least sometimes, logos simply means “word” – just like rhema.

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike…………I hardly call what you say and your Stupid Gestures as ADULT, if anyone is acting like a Child Here it is definitely You. You can't even carry on an intelligent conversation without childish antics like Large lettering or stupid Icons as if that give you any creditability.

You appear more like a court Jester to anyone with any true sense of truth, and that is to your shame Mike.

As fare as knowing what you and Paladin are disagreeing about that is simple anyone here should know this. You  because of your preconceived false teachings, believe the word LOGOS means simply a WORD, While the Truth Paladin has brought out is that the LOGOS is More then Just a WORD, It is the  Very expression of the living GOD that was (IN) Jesus, and that same expression of GOD can be in us also. I have said all along the Word WAS (NOT) Jesus, But was what was (IN) Jesus. BUT your simple mind does not percieve that, Because YOU have Made Jesus the Logos that was (IN) Him.

Mike face it you can't accept the truth or you house of cards will come crashing down, so you are throwing out all kinds of accusation using smoke and Mirrors strategies to try desperately to convience other you know what you are talking about , when in fact you have NO IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING> You simply can not learn your pride is  blinding and  preventing you. IMO and Others I might add.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2011,03:25)

What part of….. [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. …..don't you understand?

I understand completely that the imperfect tense indicates a continuous action that happened IN THE PAST.  It does NOT necessarily indicate an action that has continued on to this day.

For example, the past tense would say:  They ASKED.  The imperfect tense would say:  They KEPT ON ASKING.

Neither tense implies that they have been continuously asking up until this very day.  Instead, they both indicate an action that was COMPLETED in the past.

In 17:5, the past tense would be “the glory I HAD”, while the imperfect tense indicates “the glory I WAS HAVING”.  Again, they both indicate an action that was COMPLETED in the past.

Let me again post the scripture you've purposely ignored:
Matthew 27:16 NET ©
At that time they had in custody a notorious prisoner named Jesus Barabbas.

The bolded word above is also the imperfect tense of “echo”, just like in John 17:5.  And according to what YOU are trying to claim, the Romans STILL had Barabbas in custody at the time Matthew wrote his gospel.  But they didn't, did they?

So while the imperfect tense can sometimes refer to a continuous action that is still ongoing to this very day, it does not necessarily do so.

And while technically, the scripture above should be translated as, “At that time, they WERE HAVING a man named Barabbas in custody………”, the meaning is the same if we use the English past tense, as all translations do in this scripture.

Similarly, the English past tense in 17:5 also retains the same exact meaning of a glory Jesus WAS HAVING in the past, but no longer had at the time of his prayer.

Now…………what part of THAT can't YOU understand?

Paladin, in light of Matthew 27:16, where the imperfect tense of echo is used to indicate an action that has since been terminated, do you STILL claim that the imperfect tense of echo in 17:5, IN AND OF ITSELF, prohibits Jesus from referring to a glory he had in the past?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2011,08:22)

The problem is, sometimes in scripture the two seem to get mixed as though it doesn't matter, and that adds to the confusion among scholars.

Paladin,

They don't “sometimes seem to get mixed as though it doesn't matter”.  The fact is that the two words simply mean “word”, and they are interchangeable. Therefore it truly doesn't matter which one is used, for they both mean the same thing.

It is only because you want the Word who was with God in the beginning to be some “thought of God” or whatever that you even made your inaccurate claim that the two words mean different things in the first place.

You were wrong………….AGAIN.  “Rhema” and “logos” are simply two interchangeable words for “word”.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Gene,

Good guess, but no dice.    The “echo” thing we're discussing has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the “logos/rhema” thing.  I asked you to explain your view on the “echo” thing, and you sputtered some nonsense about the other thing.  That just goes to show that you have no clue what we're even disagreeing about.  And since you don't, you should remain silent.  Because when you post “You have it right, brother”, you don't even know WHAT you're applauding Paladin for.  And as it turns out, you've been applauding him for making inaccurate statements about Greek grammar…………..and you don't even know it!  

As I said before, it's not important to you that I've SCRIPTURALLY shown Paladin to be WRONG on both the “echo” AND the “logos/rhema” thing.  You only want to agree with whoever ends up supporting your own doctrine, no matter what the scriptures say about it.  That is why you will blindly and foolishly agree with things you don't even understand.  You would make a good candidate for a cult, Gene.  This is exactly the kind of lost people they look for.

peace,
mike

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike……….”AT (that) TIME”,  is the qualifier for  the “TIME” they “HAD”.  It clarifies   “echo” to us. Echo is then in that case a Perfect tense because of the words “at that time”. Jesus did not use it that way, He said the Glory He had  Before the World was, could be a Present Glory as Paladin expressed and if it was a Glory afforded  him in the very beginning of the plan of God or not you don't know if that was a predestined glory given him by God in the past or NOT. Saying He was alive and had that glory in a past existence, is a supposition on your Part, derived from your predisposition of Him preexisting his Berth on earth. As i said a long time you force the text to say what in fact it is not saying as you and many others do also, and all this is to make Jesus different then the rest of humanity it is to separate His Identity from US , His brothers. A all who hold to this will give an account in the future if not repented of. IMO

I believe Paladin's point of (BEFORE) is valid, Jesus did Have Glory while on earth afforded him By GOD the Father and Jesus could have been referring to his present glory he was expressing to the whole world as Paladin brought out. It make good sense to me , but then again i am not brain washed by the false Preexistence doctrine as you and some other are here. IMO

If anyone here doesn't know what they are talking about it is obvious to me and other it is YOU MIKE> You are in a debate with Paladin and Have not a clue of what you are saying but want to appear to other as if you do. When it is obvious to other you have no idea what you asserting . You can't win so you resort to insults and accusation like your of some “higher ” intellect then the rest and truth is you lack even the basics of true understanding of scriptures. IMO and OTHERS HERE also.You are a major preventer of Growth on this site and it is you who should be quite and pay more attention Mike> Who know you might learn something if that is Possible.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,01:37)

Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2011,03:25) What part of….. [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. …..don't you understand? I understand completely that the imperfect tense indicates a continuous action that happened IN THE PAST.  It does NOT necessarily indicate an action that has continued on to this day. For example, the past tense would say:  They ASKED.  The imperfect tense would say:  They KEPT ON ASKING. Neither tense implies that they have been continuously asking up until this very day.  Instead, they both indicate an action that was COMPLETED in the past. In 17:5, the past tense would be “the glory I HAD”, while the imperfect tense indicates “the glory I WAS HAVING”.  Again, they both indicate an action that was COMPLETED in the past. Let me again post the scripture you've purposely ignored: Matthew 27:16 NET © At that time they had in custody a notorious prisoner named Jesus Barabbas. The bolded word above is also the imperfect tense of “echo”, just like in John 17:5.  And according to what YOU are trying to claim, the Romans STILL had Barabbas in custody at the time Matthew wrote his gospel.  But they didn't, did they? So while the imperfect tense can sometimes refer to a continuous action that is still ongoing to this very day, it does not necessarily do so. And while technically, the scripture above should be translated as, “At that time, they WERE HAVING a man named Barabbas in custody………”, the meaning is the same if we use the English past tense, as all translations do in this scripture. Similarly, the English past tense in 17:5 also retains the same exact meaning of a glory Jesus WAS HAVING in the past, but no longer had at the time of his prayer. Now…………what part of THAT can't YOU understand? Paladin, in light of Matthew 27:16, where the imperfect tense of echo is used to indicate an action that has since been terminated, do you STILL claim that the imperfect tense of echo in 17:5, IN AND OF ITSELF, prohibits Jesus from referring to a glory he had in the past?

The very name of the Tense comes from its basic significant
feature, i.e., it describes a past continuous action AND it does not tell us whether that action was ever completed, or whether that action was not completed; it is silent as to the cessation of activity.

Thus, its name: “Imperfect,” i.e., not completed, not perfected.

If you could prove that the glory was ever not active for any period of time, the issue would then be resolved as the activity would be “perfect,” not “imperfect.

Learn a little Greek Mike, and quit slandering posters.

[mikeboll64]

While it is very telling that you now admit you can't tell whether the action was completed or not, I'm still awaiting an answer, Paladin.  The question is bolded at the bottom of my previous post. If you “can't tell”, then there is no way for you to claim with any certainty that the glory Jesus referred to hadn't ended, right? Therefore your claim that the imperfect tense PROHIBITS Jesus from speaking of a glory he once had but has no longer is bogus, right?

Thanks in advance for you DIRECT answer to my bolded question…………..

mike

[mikeboll64]

Btw Paladin,

Could you verify the accuracy of Gene's most recent post (the parts concerning our discussion about “echo”).  We both know it's nothing but gibberish, but maybe he'll believe it if YOU tell him.  

Then maybe he'll remain silent at the children's table until we're discussing something he understands.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2011,09:41)

The very name of the Tense comes from its basic significant feature, i.e., it describes a past continuous action AND it does not tell us whether that action was ever completed, or whether that action was not completed; it is silent as to the cessation of activity.

Hey Gene,

Did you read that?  How about you Marty?

After many time consuming posts, Paladin has now relented ever so slightly from his firm stance.

He is now ADMITTING that the imperfect tense of “echo” in 17:5 does not tell us whether that action was completed or not.

Are you following this, Gene?  This is your expert hero talking.  Your hero is admitting that I was right all along, and that the imperfect tense of “echo” in 17:5 does NOT prohibit Jesus from speaking of a glory he once had, but has no longer.

It does NOT prohibit this because, in your hero's own words, the imperfect tense “is silent as to the cessation of activity”.

In other words, you hero is ADMITTING that Jesus COULD HAVE BEEN speaking about a glory he once had in the past.

Well, what do ya know?  That's what I've been saying ever since your hero made his inaccurate statement about the imperfect tense of “echo” in the first place.  

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,01:47)

Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2011,08:22) The problem is, sometimes in scripture the two seem to get mixed as though it doesn't matter, and that adds to the confusion among scholars. Paladin, They don't “sometimes seem to get mixed as though it doesn't matter”.  The fact is that the two words simply mean “word”, and they are interchangeable.  Therefore it truly doesn't matter which one is used, for they both mean the same thing. It is only because you want the Word who was with God in the beginning to be some “thought of God” or whatever that you even made your inaccurate claim that the two words mean different things in the first place. You were wrong………….AGAIN.  “Rhema” and “logos” are simply two interchangeable words for “word”.

Mike, you are so full of yourself it ceases to be funny.

If I write black, you will try to change it to white.

Once more you have jumped into the fray, ignoraance first, and landed safely on your head, becasue if you landed anywhere else, damage could be done.

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,03:37)

Well, what do ya know?  That's what I've been saying ever since your hero made his inaccurate statement about the imperfect tense of “echo” in the first place.

Mike……….. Why LIE , you have been saying it is (A) Perfect Tense by saying it was directing a “PERFECT TENSE”, ABOUT JESUS PREEXISTENCE LIFE AS YOU constantly have maintained. So don't give us this, you treat it as a (IMPERFECT TENSE) because that is a complete LIE. Paladin incorporated the word “BEFORE” as a qualifier as to the tense of that Word . You understand the word Before as a Past life reference , But Paladin accurately understands it as (IN FRONT OF) Jesus was demonstrating the Glory as the ONLY Begotten son of GOD, “BEFORE” the whole world .

You force the text to meet your dogma, that Jesus Preexisted as a Being with that Glory before His berth on Earth. But no where does the context say or specifically imply that anywhere , that is just you rendition of the text as you and the rest of the Trinitarians and Preexistences ignorantly stumble alone with that and other texts regarding Jesus preexistences also. Your slanderous words only shows you stupidity and ignorance. Most here with any sense of truth at all can easily see this.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,03:19)

While it is very telling that you now admit you can't tell whether the action was completed or not, I'm still awaiting an answer, Paladin.  The question is bolded at the bottom of my previous post.  If you “can't tell”, then there is no way for you to claim with any certainty that the glory Jesus referred to hadn't ended, right?  Therefore your claim that the imperfect tense PROHIBITS Jesus from speaking of a glory he once had but has no longer is bogus, right? Thanks in advance for you DIRECT answer to my bolded question………….. mike

Wrong! What is there about “not completed” that you perceive as “stopped?”

If it was “stopped” it was in the “perfect tense.”

Now, rol over and play “stupid” for me one more time.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,03:24)

Btw Paladin, Could you verify the accuracy of Gene's most recent post (the parts concerning our discussion about “echo”).  We both know it's nothing but gibberish, but maybe he'll believe it if YOU tell him.   Then maybe he'll remain silent at the children's table until we're discussing something he understands.

I think it is a sign of maturity that Gene allows you to the table when he and I discuss things.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,03:37)

Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2011,09:41) The very name of the Tense comes from its basic significant feature, i.e., it describes a past continuous action AND it does not tell us whether that action was ever completed, or whether that action was not completed; it is silent as to the cessation of activity. Hey Gene, Did you read that?  How about you Marty? After many time consuming posts, Paladin has now relented ever so slightly from his firm stance. He is now ADMITTING that the imperfect tense of “echo” in 17:5 does not tell us whether that action was completed or not. Are you following this, Gene?  This is your expert hero talking.  Your hero is admitting that I was right all along, and that the imperfect tense of “echo” in 17:5 does NOT prohibit Jesus from speaking of a glory he once had, but has no longer. It does NOT prohibit this because, in your hero's own words, the imperfect tense “is silent as to the cessation of activity”. In other words, you hero is ADMITTING that Jesus COULD HAVE BEEN speaking about a glory he once had in the past. Well, what do ya know?  That's what I've been saying ever since your hero made his inaccurate statement about the imperfect tense of “echo” in the first place.

Pay attention Mike. The iomperfect was silent as to any “cessation” of activity, but was not silent as to any “progression” of activity.

If you want “cessaation” of activity, you want the “perfect tense.”

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 04 2011,15:22)

Paladin incorporated the word “BEFORE” as a qualifier as to the tense of that Word .  You understand the word Before as a Past life reference , But Paladin accurately understands it as (IN FRONT OF) Jesus was demonstrating the Glory as the ONLY Begotten son of GOD, “BEFORE” the whole world .

And as is so often the case, your hero is wrong about this as well.

Father, glorify me NOW with the glory I WAS HAVING……………..WHEN?  When was Jesus having this glory he mentioned, Gene?  Oh, that's right, BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.

Paladin's way says:  Father, glorify me now with the glory I was having IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD.

But still, the question is “WHEN?”  When was Jesus having glory IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD, Gene?  What is Jesus talking about?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2011,16:30)

Wrong! What is there about “not completed” that you perceive as “stopped?”

Where do you come up with “not completed” from “a continuous action IN THE PAST”?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2011,16:33)

Pay attention Mike. The iomperfect was silent as to any “cessation” of activity, but was not silent as to any “progression” of activity. If you want “cessaation” of activity, you want the “perfect tense.”

Then explain Matthew 27:16:

At that time they had in custody a notorious prisoner named Jesus Barabbas.

Was Matthew saying that Barabbas was STILL in Roman custody at the time he wrote his gospel? YES or NO?

Or was Matthew just not as smart as you when he used the imperfect tense of “echo” here?

STOP BEING A COWARD AND ANSWER THE FLIPPIN' QUESTION, PALADIN!

[mikeboll64]

Paladin,

You are showing yourself to be either very slow mentally, or very deceptive.

The imperfect tense says, “they KEPT ON ASKING” as opposed to the past tense, which says, “they ASKED”.

NEITHER of these refers to an action that has kept on going until the cows come home. BOTH of them refer to actions that eventually STOPPED at sometime IN THE PAST.

Now, common sense would tell anyone that since Jesus was asking FOR the glory he was having IN THE PAST (as your source confirms), he apparently didn't STILL have that glory or he wouldn't have been ASKING FOR IT!

So, which are you, Paladin. Extremely STUPID or extremely DECEITFUL?

[942767]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 04 2011,06:52)

Quote (942767 @ July 03 2011,13:07) I answered your question.  Paul is not talking about the Logos of God in these verses.  He is talking of human wisdom. Right.  Which means the word “logos” does not ALWAYS refer to “the totality of God's Word”, but sometimes simply refers to any plain old “word”.  I submit that you have either misunderstood your revelation, or that it didn't come from God.  I further submit that any secret or special distinction between using the Greek word “rhema” as opposed to “logos” is merely imagined by people like you and Paladin, who aim to use this imagined “revelation” as support to your flawed doctrine. peace, mike

Hi Mike:

You can submitt whatever you want. When I ask God to give me understanding, I know that He answers my prayer.

If it does not make a difference which Greek word is used, then why are two different words used?

Love in Christ,
Marty

[Author]

Posts