- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,09:43) 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”?Basics Of Biblical Greek Grammar; Wm. D. Mounce [page 180]
The imperfect expresses linear action in past time and is only in indicative mood.Imperfect describes continuous action usually occuring in past:
[Page 187] In general, the imperfect tense is translated as a past continuous.
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 important to distinguish between imperfect and aorist and to note that Greek prefers to use the aorist in narrative unless there is a need to emphasize that an action is in progress.
Did you miss this the first two times they were posted? Or did you as usual, just read a line and start “blah blah blah” ing?
Quote (942767 @ July 04 2011,18:21) 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
Well I don't know, Marty. Why do WE have two or more different words to say the same things? Like “speak”, “talk”, “say”, “converse”, etc.Do you think that's the only Greek thought that has more than one word to describe it?
The FACT is that your revelation is left wanting because of the scripture I showed you, where “logos” simply means “word”.
The Word of God who BECAME flesh is Jesus, Marty. As God's main spokesman, he is called “the Word of God”. HE (not IT) became flesh and dwelled among mankind having the glory of an only begotten from the Father. WHO exactly would have that particular glory, Marty?
Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2011,18:59) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,09:43) 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”?Basics Of Biblical Greek Grammar; Wm. D. Mounce [page 180]
The imperfect expresses linear action in past time and is only in indicative mood.Imperfect describes continuous action usually occuring in past:
[Page 187] In general, the imperfect tense is translated as a past continuous.
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 important to distinguish between imperfect and aorist and to note that Greek prefers to use the aorist in narrative unless there is a need to emphasize that an action is in progress.
Did you miss this the first two times they were posted? Or did you as usual, just read a line and start “blah blah blah” ing?
Paladin,You are confusing an action that WAS continuous IN THE PAST with an action that is STILL ongoing and has NEVER ended.
Yes, the imperfect tense refers to an action in progress that happened IN THE PAST.
It is the difference between “they KEPT ON ASKING” (action in progress………IN THE PAST) and “they ASKED” (action completed…………also in the past).
Do you notice it is the word “KEPT”, not “KEEP”? They don't KEEP ON ASKING, Paladin. But they KEPT ON ASKING, as in past tense, finished, kaput, done.
I await your comment on Matthew 27:16.
Here is a translation that renders the Greek imperfect tense as a past tense:
NIV ©
At that time they had(past tense) a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas.And here's one that stays true to the imperfect tense used:
NASB ©
At that time they were holding(imperfect tense) a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas.Do you see the difference, Paladin? One says “held” or “had”. The other says “were holding” or “were having”.
One is a once for all completed action: HELD
The other is worded as a continuous action: WERE HOLDINGBut BOTH of them refer to something that ALREADY HAPPENED IN THE PAST, not to something that continues on to this very day.
Please tell me if the imperfect tense of “echo” in 27:16 means that Barabbas was STILL in custody when Matthew wrote his gospel. You do that, and this thing is solved, dude.
Actually, for most of us, it has been solved for pages. You're just apparently the last to know.
Well? Was Barabbas STILL in custody or not, Paladin?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,13:04) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2011,18:59) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,09:43) 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”?
Basics Of Biblical Greek Grammar; Wm. D. Mounce [page 180]
The imperfect expresses linear action in past time and is only in indicative mood.Imperfect describes continuous action usually occuring in past:
[Page 187] In general, the imperfect tense is translated as a past continuous.
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 important to distinguish between imperfect and aorist and to note that Greek prefers to use the aorist in narrative unless there is a need to emphasize that an action is in progress.
Did you miss this the first two times they were posted? Or did you as usual, just read a line and start “blah blah blah” ing?
Paladin,
You are confusing an action that WAS continuous IN THE PAST with an action that is STILL ongoing and has NEVER ended.
Yes, the imperfect tense refers to an action in progress that happened IN THE PAST.
It is the difference between “they KEPT ON ASKING” (action in progress………IN THE PAST) and “they ASKED” (action completed…………also in the past).
Do you notice it is the word “KEPT”, not “KEEP”? They don't KEEP ON ASKING, Paladin. But they KEPT ON ASKING, as in past tense, finished, kaput, done.
I await your comment on Matthew 27:16.
Here is a translation that renders the Greek imperfect tense as a past tense:
NIV ©
At that time they had(past tense) a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas.And here's one that stays true to the imperfect tense used:
NASB ©
At that time they were holding(imperfect tense) a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas.Do you see the difference, Paladin? One says “held” or “had”. The other says “were holding” or “were having”.
One is a once for all completed action: HELD
The other is worded as a continuous action: WERE HOLDINGBut BOTH of them refer to something that ALREADY HAPPENED IN THE PAST, not to something that continues on to this very day.
Please tell me if the imperfect tense of “echo” in 27:16 means that Barabbas was STILL in custody when Matthew wrote his gospel. You do that, and this thing is solved, dude.
Actually, for most of us, it has been solved for pages. You're just apparently the last to know.
Well? Was Barabbas STILL in custody or not, Paladin?
Mike, I don't care if Barnabas is driving a taxi in midtown Geneva Switzerland, He is your conjuration, not mine.
We have enough problems with your mishandling of the information posted, without you seeking more examples for me to wrestle with.
On threadpage (from here on I will use [166-5] to indicate this) 166, post #5, you changed the tense under discussion, and caused all kinds of confusion, because you contributed the information to my post, but it was changed in your post.
Now, you are arguing from a quote that looks like it comes from my post [166-3], but instead, is your erroneous quote from [166-5].
You stated in 166-5
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 05 2011,04:07)
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.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.CASE IN POINT #4 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“.
[/quote]
===========================================
Now, let's take a moment to deal with your requestQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 05 2011,04:07) 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. Remember this?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 05 2011,04:07)
You are doing it here with the 25 expert Greek scholars that NETNotes is comprised of.Consider these “25 expert Greek scholars” you referenced –
Quote In the First Edition (printed in 2005) a list of people on the “Net Bible Team” appears at the end of the Introduction. Twenty-two men and one woman are listed as translators and editors. For the Old Testament: Richard E. Averbeck, William D. Barrick, M. Daniel Carroll R. [sic], Robert B. Chisholm, Dorian Coover-Cox, Donald R. Glenn, Michael A. Grisanti, W. Hall Harris III, Gordon H. Johnston, Eugene H. Merrill, Allen P. Ross, Steven H. Sanchez, Richard A. Taylor, and Brian L. Webster. For the New Testament: Darrell L. Bock, Michael H. Burer, Buist M. Fanning III, John D. Grassmick, W. Hall Harris III, Gregory J. Herrick, Harold W. Hoehner,
David K. Lowery, Jay E. Smith, and Daniel B. Wallace.Although the Introduction does not mention it, seventeen of these people were teachers at Dallas Theological Seminary; and of the remaining six, five were students at DTS. Only one (William Barrick) has no obvious connection to Dallas Theological Seminary. Some of them have no publications, and are little-known outside of DTS. Evidently the version was almost entirely a project of the members of the DTS faculty, assisted by their students. This provides some context for the Introduction's statement that the translators were “chosen in every instance because of his or her work in that particular book.” The copyright page of the printed edition does not say where “Biblical Studies Press” is located, but from other sources we learn that its offices are in Garland, Texas—a suburb of Dallas. Evidently the people involved in the version have some interest in concealing its “Dallas” connection.
source HERE=============================================
Now, you are gloating over what you suppose is a change in my position on logos and reema.If you look at [44-2] you will find:
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 27 2011,20:25) Quote (Wispring @ Mar. 27 2011,19:19) Hi Paladin, So, the Logos of God is God's doctrine(among other things) and the reema is the declared expression of God's doctrine which of the Spirit of Truth(the Comforter) which is manifested physically in the bible and I would imagine other writings.This post that I am writing is a Logos of myself and the reema are the words I am using to express myself.If I were talking to you face to face the words departing my mouth would also be considered to be reema. Is this a suitable understanding of the use of the words Logos and reema?
With Love and Respect,
WispringHello my friend;
Sometimes “logos” and “reema” seem to be almost interchangeable; but there remains a subtle difference –
“And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these [reema] words: for after the tenor of these [logos] words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.” [Exo 34:7]A Covenat can be considered from two perspectives, the concept and the record. Sometimes when God tells men to write, he tells them to write the record, sometimes he tells them to write the concept.
“And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the [reema] words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. 7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these [logos] words which the LORD commanded him.
8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the [logos] words of the people unto the LORD. 9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the [reema] words of the people unto the LORD. [Exo 9:6-9]
But the real difference is delineated in the new testament –
We are told of a sword that can be used for both thrust and parry; attack and defense, which is the written word of God, and no false doctrine can stand against it: – “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the rhema [word] of God: [Eph 6:17]
Then again, we are told of something more powerful than any two-edged sword, and that is the concept behind what is written: – “For the logos [word] of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” [Heb 4:12]
The written account can be used to defeat error, but the conceptual account can be used to build strongholds of faith. If you understand the concepts, you can grow unto the fulness of the stature of Christ. And it helps to remember, the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. In other words, if you memorize scripture, you can defeat error; but if you submit your life to the spirit that inspired the letter, you will live forever.
If you remember, the difference is subtle and not every man will see this. There will remain those who will insist they are interchangeable. They are not. One must discern what it is God is saying; is he speaking of the record, or the spirit of the message?
=================================
And in [73-4] you will find:Quote (Paladin @ April 11 2011,20:47) Quote (kerwin @ April 11 2011,20:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 10 2011,07:27) Quote (kerwin @ April 09 2011,15:31) I am convinced that the can be more than one person or thing called The Word of God as after all my bible is The Word of God and yet it is not Jesus.
And what is your reason for thinking the Word who became flesh, dwelled among us, and had the glory of an only begotten Son from the Father is not the same Jesus who is the only begotten Son of the Father and the Word of God in Revelation?
I was pointing out that Just because the clause “Word of God” is speaking of Jesus does not mean it is in another.John expects his readers to know what he is speaking of and thus the passage has unwritten context. It therefore renders the passage of little use as a proof text.
The unwritten context that seems to fit is the Jewish belief that the Word of God rules the angels and the Spirit of God is that Word. It could also be as Marty states.
Hello Kerwin;
The correct application to “Word (of God)” as found in John 1:1 &14 and Col 1:25 and Rev 19:13
is λογος (pronounced logos).“In the beginning was the λογος , and the λογος was with God, and the λογος was God.” [John 1:1]
“And the λογος was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”[John 1:14]
“Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the λογος of God;” [Col 1:25]
“And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The λογος of God.”[Rev 19:13]
The correct application of “word (of God) as f
ound in Eph 6:17 is [ρεμα] (pronounced reema)“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the [ρεμα] of God:”[Eph 6:17]
==========================================
And again, in [77-3] you will find:Quote (Paladin @ April 12 2011,22:52) [/quote] Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 12 2011,14:12) Mike……….What your not understanding is and what Paladin is trying to bring out is that GOD'S LOGOS (WORDS) became REEMA in Christ Jesus , not that Jesus was the Logos OF GOD , Jesus was the REEMA of GOD , another word Jesus was the impressed writing of GOD and we also can be the same impressed writing of the Logos of GOD, buy the Logos of GOD being installed (IN) us as it was Jesus. If i am following this right> It does make sense to me. Because it fits John saying the WORD (LOGOS) was with GOD in the beginning and WAS GOD and (IT) the LOGOS of GOD became REEMA in flesh. So when John if you do not believe Christ (the anointing) of Logos, came to be in the flesh of Jesus You are anti Christs> If i am following this right, there is a difference between the two word, John did not say the REEMA was with God in the beginning he said the Logos was with God and was GOD, The Logos came to live IN the Flesh of Jesus, just as it can come to live in our flesh also. The same LOGOS as was (IN) Jesus, and when he expounded it it became Reema. Not sure if i have it exactly right but i believe that is what Paladin is saying. IMO
peace and love……………………………………..gene
No my friend, that is not what I am saying.
There is a certain logos thing I want to show you, but do not have a picture of it, so I use reema to describe my logos.
Did you ever see a blueprint? It is a picture drawing which can include plans of how to produce a logos thing, even including working drawings of the production stages.
Consider a house concept; there will be sketches of the foundation, all parts between the foundation and the roof, all on separete sketches. There will even be elevation sketches of the property upon which the house/logos is to be constructed. All the sketches will be reema used to describe the finished product/logos.
Paul tells us that the spirit is the reema of God.
John tells us that there is a concept to be constructed in each saint, called “the logos of God.” When we read all the reema produced by paul used to describe “the logos of God,” and how it is constructed, and how it is assembled, and how it is applied, and utilized, each saint can take that reema and assemble that logos of God in their own life. The reema is the blueprint, and must be followed in precise steps, first to last, in order, if we are to attainthat “logos of God” as it was designed for us.
========================================You owe Gene a public apology for treating him like the Moron you have been emulating. Of course he probably won't get one from you, but he should.
And you really need to study issues between us if you are going to gloat so publickly, only to be shown to be an idiot base on that alone.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,13:04) [/quote] Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2011,18:59) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,09:43) Paladin,July wrote: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”?Basics Of Biblical Greek Grammar; Wm. D. Mounce [page 180]
The imperfect expresses linear action in past time and is only in indicative mood.Imperfect describes continuous action usually occuring in past:
[Page 187] In general, the imperfect tense is translated as a past continuous.
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 important to distinguish between imperfect and aorist and to note that Greek prefers to use the aorist in narrative unless there is a need to emphasize that an action is in progress.
Did you miss this the first two times they were posted? Or did you as usual, just read a line and start “blah blah blah” ing?
Quote
Paladin,You are confusing an action that WAS continuous IN THE PAST with an action that is STILL ongoing and has NEVER ended.
Not me. I never claimed any such thing. I have never said
“Still ongoing” nor have I said “Never ending.” That is simply another example of your continual approach to my posts, Mike; i.e., you have to “translate” everything I say into
“what you think I meant.” And you are never right when you do that.Quote Yes, the imperfect tense refers to an action in progress that happened IN THE PAST. It is the difference between “they KEPT ON ASKING” (action in progress………IN THE PAST) and “they ASKED” (action completed…………also in the past).
Do you notice it is the word “KEPT”, not “KEEP”? They don't KEEP ON ASKING, Paladin. But they KEPT ON ASKING, as in past tense, finished, kaput, done.
The difference between “kept” and “keep” was never an issue between us.
Quote I await your comment on Matthew 27:16. I don't comment on demand.
Quote Here is a translation that renders the Greek imperfect tense as a past tense: NIV ©
At that time they had(past tense) a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas.And here's one that stays true to the imperfect tense used:
NASB ©
At that time they were holding(imperfect tense) a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas.Do you see the difference, Paladin? One says “held” or “had”. The other says “were holding” or “were having”.
One is a once for all completed action: HELD
The other is worded as a continuous action: WERE HOLDINGWrong! “Held” is an undefined action. You don't know for how long one was “held.”
Quote But BOTH of them refer to something that ALREADY HAPPENED IN THE PAST, not to something that continues on to this very day. Makes no difference, I never claimed Jesus had the glory continuing to this day. That is only found in YOUR post.
Quote Please tell me if the imperfect tense of “echo” in 27:16 means that Barabbas was STILL in custody when Matthew wrote his gospel. You do that, and this thing is solved, dude. Actually, for most of us, it has been solved for pages. You're just apparently the last to know.
Well? Was Barabbas STILL in custody or not, Paladin?
Who cares? I certainly don't. It was never an issue between us whetheer Barabbas was in custody or not. If you are having a problem parsing Barrabus's jailhouse schedule, take iot up with his jailors, not with me.
Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2011,20:48) But the real difference is delineated in the new testament – We are told of a sword that can be used for both thrust and parry; attack and defense, which is the written word of God, and no false doctrine can stand against it: – “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the rhema [word] of God: [Eph 6:17]
Then again, we are told of something more powerful than any two-edged sword, and that is the concept behind what is written: – “For the logos [word] of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” [Heb 4:12]
The written account can be used to defeat error, but the conceptual account can be used to build strongholds of faith. If you understand the concepts, you can grow unto the fulness of the stature of Christ. And it helps to remember, the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. In other words, if you memorize scripture, you can defeat error; but if you submit your life to the spirit that inspired the letter, you will live forever.
If you remember, the difference is subtle and not every man will see this. There will remain those who will insist they are interchangeable. They are not. One must discern what it is God is saying; is he speaking of the record, or the spirit of the message?[/quote]
To All……….This what Paladin has posted is the TRUTH and we should all study and really consider what is said there. Don't let Mike and a few others screw up your thinking. This is Sound and of the Spirit of TRUTH. It is a blessing to us all to have someone who is so Knowledgeable in the Greek Language on this site, to assist us in our struggle and understand of the truth. All of You please take advantage of this so you can grow in your understanding. Those who recieve this will better understand the word of GOD and LOGOS of GOD. IMOTo All! I find it so amazing that Paladin knows better then the translators. The Monks who are BTW trinatarians translated all Scriptures in the NT. If they wanted to mislead us, they would have not written all the Scriptures that prove the trinity wrong. They also would not have given us Col.1 and Rev. 3:14 that prove Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. Therefore who makes the claim that whoever believes in the preexisting of Jesus, are just like the trinitarians wrong.
And the Logos does not always mean the Word of God, throughout the Gospel of John He tells us of where Jesus came from before He became a man.Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
He is the only begotten Son of God, who is the only one right now that has ever seen God.
Jhn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].
Peace Irene
Irene……..Nearly All the Monks believed in the trinity. Where did you ever get the idea they were against the Trinity at. They are trinitarians and Preexistence. Nearly all scholars were and are too. It was Paladin that said the word reema and the word LOGOS were not the same thing , so if you were reading what he said right you are saying you are in agreement with what he said. Separate yourself from Mike and go back and read slowly and accurately what Paladin has written, study it with scripture , we can all grow by this understanding.
peace and love…………………………….gene
Paladin
Quote Paul tells us that the spirit is the reema of God.
John tells us that there is a concept to be constructed in each saint, called “the logos of God.” When we read all the reema produced by paul used to describe “the logos of God,” and how it is constructed, and how it is assembled, and how it is applied, and utilized, each saint can take that reema and assemble that logos of God in their own life. The reema is the blueprint, and must be followed in precise steps, first to last, in order, if we are to attainthat “logos of God” as it was designed for us.then God has no son ,right
Pierre
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 06 2011,02:58) Irene……..Nearly All the Monks believed in the trinity. Where did you ever get the idea they were against the Trinity at. They are trinitarians and Preexistence. Nearly all scholars were and are too. It was Paladin that said the word reema and the word LOGOS were not the same thing , so if you were reading what he said right you are saying you are in agreement with what he said. Separate yourself from Mike and go back and read slowly and accurately what Paladin has written, study it with scripture , we can all grow by this understanding. peace and love…………………………….gene
Gene! My point is because they believe in the trinity, and I can prove in THEIR translation of the Bible the trinity wrong, that they did not mislead us…they also don't believe that Jesus had a beginning Col. 1;15 ad Rev. 3;14….
The problem the trinitarian have,they don't believe that The Word of God (Jesus had a beginning)……Another point I made that the Monks didn't mislead us by their translations of the NT……
Maybe YOU need to read all those Scriptures slowly .IreneBacdk on 182-2 I posed this question oo Mike, WJ and any one else who questions my teaching credentials;
You claim to know the Greek well enough to accuse me of being wrong in the Greek, so let's just examine a theme and see where you go with it.
Tell me what john 21: 15-17 is about.
Since no one cares to respond, I will present you with a lesson in how to look beyond the surface of a translation, into the meaning presented by the Greek Author, by inspiration.
I heard a heartfelt sermon one time in which the preacher expounded on Jesus' love; he went on to observe that Jesus' love was unconditional, and that Peter had to learn it the hard way.
He referenced John 21:15-17 for his proof text. The main point of his whole lesson, was that since Peter denied Jesus three times, Jesus made him admit his love three times. I was saddened by the shallowness of that remarkable observation, for it not only adhered straitly to the mistranslation, but carried over into a misinterpretation of the Greek; and made Jesus much more of a man with frailties, than a man with a mission. Jesus never “got back at ” anybody in his life. And that understanding completely misses the truth of the referant material.
The faulted English translation reads thusly: “When they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, yea Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, feed my lambs.
He saith unto him again the second time Simon, son of Jonas, loveth thou me? He saith unto him, yea Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, feed my sheep.
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, Son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, lovest thou me? and he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus said unto him, feed my sheep.
In the Greek, a far different exchange takes place. There are several Greek words which are translated “love” in the English. Agape, as in devotion. A soldier loves his country, enough to die for it. A mother will die for her family because of this type of love.
Eros, from which we produce “errotica” which is a physically stimulating love between a husband and wife.
Pornos, from which we develope “pornography,” an illicit sexually explicit malfunctioning behavioural pattern.
Phileo; affection; Remember the two Greek words phileo and adelphos? love and brethren, from which we developed “philadelphia,” the city of brotherly love.
Jesus asked Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, are you devoted to me? (“Agape thou me?”) Peter replied, of course, you know I have affection for you. (I phileo thee) Jesus said, feed my lambs.
Jesus asked a second time, Simon, son of Jonas, are you devoted to me? (Agape thou me?) Peter answered, ye Lord, I (phileo) have affectiuon for thee. Jesus said feed my sheep.
Jesus asked him the third time Simon son of Jonas, (phileo) do you have affection for me? Peter was grieved because the third time, Jesus questioned his affection. Jesus said unto him, feed my sheep.
Notice two major lessons to be found herein: First, if your affection doesn't turn into devotion, Jesus will at some appropriate point, question your affection. Second, Jesus perceived Peter as adequately qualified to feed the little ones of the flock, because of his affection for the Lord. But when his devotion to the Lord was wanting, Jesus then found Peter qualified to feed only the sheep. The lambs were not to be fed by one who is lacking devotion.
And the English misses all this by a faulty translation.
I have two brothers, one older and one younger. My younger brother would make his baloney sandwich, and lay it on the counter while he poured himself a glass of milk. My older brother would take the baloney from the younger brother's sandwich, and place it in with his own, giving him a two-slice sandwich. When my younger brother ate his sandwich he never missed the baloney, because he was already sure it was in there, he could only accept that it tasted perhaps a little weaker than he remembered, but he never checked for the meat.
Sometimes, we miss the “meat” of the lesson because we have been taught that the preacher is after all, a man of God, and surely HE wouldn't make such mistakes. Besides all that, he has forty years experience.
Did you ever try to help someone do a job better that he was doing? And get rebuffed with “I've been doing this twenty years, and you think to tell me how to do my job?”
Did you ever stop to consider, maybe instead of twenty years experience, he has one years experience twenty times. And the preacher may have five years experience eight times.
We cannot allow ourselves to be misled at the jeopardy of our souls, based upon a misguided love for our preacher. But how to tell him he is wrong without offending? How to tell the truth without seeming to boast? How to present the humble story of redemption and salvation, without seeming to “take over” the board?
I have found that a simple statement of truth, reinforced with scripture, and presented without rancor, anger, or self agrandizement, often serves to pave thee way for a gentle discussion of issues raised. But sometimes even that is not enough. When one says “I don't care what you say” (even if you only quote scripture) “I know what I believe…”
Weeel l l l, there's not much you are going to do with that fella.
Then there's always the “but everyone knows…” theorist, who argues from the position of “common knowledge” instead of truth. Common knowledge once held that the earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was arrested, tried by the church, condemned to house arrest for life, and his books buried in a vatican library for 213 years, for daring to suggest that the earth is not the center of the universe. It was not until the nineteenth century, that the pope allowed his books to be returned to public scrutiny. Mixing “what everyone knows” with theology can get you burned at the stake in almost any century. It was scientists and theologians who led the fight against Galileo, with their “Orthodox Position”.
We sometimes need to just step back, take a look at the claims made by good-hearted, well-intentioned people, who happen to be zealous for the Lord, but wrong. Saul of Tarsus was an example of this type of man. He went about arresting Christians and carrieng them prisoner to Jerusalem, and murdering them as heretics, thinking he was serving God.
Anyway, if you will dig just a little deeper than the “translation” you will find real treasure beneath the surface.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,12:37) Quote (942767 @ July 04 2011,18:21) 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
Well I don't know, Marty. Why do WE have two or more different words to say the same things? Like “speak”, “talk”, “say”, “converse”, etc.Do you think that's the only Greek thought that has more than one word to describe it?
The FACT is that your revelation is left wanting because of the scripture I showed you, where “logos” simply means “word”.
The Word of God who BECAME flesh is Jesus, Marty. As God's main spokesman, he is called “the Word of God”. HE (not IT) became flesh and dwelled among mankind having the glory of an only begotten from the Father. WHO exactly would have that particular glory, Marty?
Hi Mike:I suppose that in the Greek as well as the English language there are synomyms, but I believe that God has given me the revelation as I have stated. However, it is possible to miss what God is saying and for this reason, I will continue to study the two words, Logos and Rhema.
But no, Mike the Word of God has no gender, and so, the Word became flesh or was made flesh (KJV). Not he became flesh. The totality of God's Word pertains to Jesus. All things were made by him and for him and without him was nothing made that was made.
Love in Christ,
MartyPaladin! In John 21:15-17 Jesus was asking Peter whether he had agape love. Since Peter denied Him three times, He did not have agape love, and Jesus knew that. Your claim always is you are right and all translators of the English and the German are wrong…..I don't claim to know Greek, but I trust the Translators more then I trust you. The reason is in my previous post, if you have read it….
Besides I trust mainly in Gods Holy Spirit, and I believe it is God that will open our eyes to the truth. And blinds others. There are to many Scriptures that would be faulty according to you. That I don't believe….
Peace IreneQuote (942767 @ July 05 2011,18:34)
Hi Mike:I suppose that in the Greek as well as the English language there are synomyms, but I believe that God has given me the revelation as I have stated. However, it is possible to miss what God is saying and for this reason, I will continue to study the two words, Logos and Rhema.
Hi Marty,Fair enough. If there are occasions where “logos” has a special conotation, that reason must be shown by the context; for it is clear from the scripture I showed you that the word “logos”, in and of itself, can be and is used to simply relate an ordinary human “word”.
Quote (942767 @ July 05 2011,18:34)
But no, Mike the Word of God has no gender, and so, the Word became flesh or was made flesh (KJV). Not he became flesh.
Read a little farther in the scripture, Marty:And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw HIS glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
That word “HIS” is the genitive form of “autou”. In this scripture, the word is a singular, masculine, personal pronoun. So it literally means “we saw the glory OF HIM…..”
So which HIM would ever have the glory of an only begotten from the Father? Which HIM did John make clear he wrote his gospel about? Which HIM was John the Baptist unworthy to even untie the sandal of?
Guess what? It was this same HIM who was with God in the beginning and was MADE FLESH. It was this same HIM without whom nothing came into existence. It is this same HIM through whom the world was made, even though the world didn't know him. It was this HIM who came to that which was his own, but his own didn't receive HIM.
Marty, this HIM is the same as “the Word” that became flesh. Read the passage again with the knowledge that it truly says “glory of HIM” and not “glory of IT”.
peace,
mikeQuote (Paladin @ July 05 2011,05:37) Quote (mike @ 64) Paladin, You are confusing an action that WAS continuous IN THE PAST with an action that is STILL ongoing and has NEVER ended.
Not me. I never claimed any such thing. I have never said
“Still ongoing” nor have I said “Never ending.” That is simply another example of your continual approach to my posts, Mike; i.e., you have to “translate” everything I say into
“what you think I meant.” And you are never right when you do that.
Oh, then I misunderstood you and you DON'T claim that Jesus could not have been referring to a glory he used to have, but had no longer?Because it sure seemed to me that you were claiming the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibited Jesus from asking for a glory that he had in the past.
But you now admit that Jesus COULD HAVE BEEN asking to have a past glory returned to him?
GREAT! We agree then – because that's EXACTLY what Jesus was doing.
Gene and Marty and Wispring,
I just want you to notice who your hero really is. I want you to take note of how he flooded and muddied up a bunch of posts in an effort to do ANYTHING to keep from answering a simple question that proves his original claim to be WRONG.
Did you see his flippant remarks about Barabbas? Would someone who has the truth on his side make smart-aleck responses like that? Or would a truthful person simply address the scripture I presented?
Let me present to you guys the same scripture I presented to Paladin:
Matthew 27:16
At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas.Matthew 27:26
Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.The bolded “HAD” in verse 16 is the imperfect tense of “echo”. We know from verse 26 that Barabbas was released the day Jesus was crucified. So we therefore know that the imperfect tense of “echo” does not prohibit the action from coming to an end. In other words, we know that even though Matthew chose to use the imperfect tense of “echo” instead of the past tense, the use of the imperfect tense does NOT prohibit the action described from having ended a long time ago.
Paladin's original claim was that the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 prohibited Jesus from speaking about an action that had since ended sometime in the past. And therefore Jesus COULDN'T HAVE BEEN referring to a past glory he once had, but has no longer.
Paladin was wrong, guys. He now wants to make flippant remarks instead of addressing Matthew 27:16 – BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT VERSE PROVES HIM WRONG.
Perhaps you two could urge your friend Paladin to do the honest thing. Urge him to admit he was mistaken in his original claim, and to admit that Jesus certainly COULD HAVE BEEN speaking of a glory he once had that had since ended.
This discussion has taken up much of my time and patience. It's gone on for pages over the course of many days. And still today he is trying to worm out of admitting he was wrong.
We all know he was. Won't you guys do the honest and supportive thing, and urge him towards honesty? Or would you prefer to support him even when you know he's being dishonest about this isssue?
God will judge, you know.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2011,09:43) 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”?
What really is amazing to me, is that you make any claims at all about any kind of Greek knowledge. your questions show that you do not have any idea what you are talking about. But that doesn't even slow you down when you decide to jump on my use of the Greek which is provided by others, it is not even mine in reality.Did you understand my prior post when I told you that the imperfect verb is used when one wants to show “Progress” in action?” Do you know what that means?
Did you understand my remark about the Aorist being the tense when you have undefined past action?
If you did understand those two remarks, then why your question
Quote Where do you come up with “not completed” from “a continuous action IN THE PAST”? Don't you understand that a past action was progressive, completed, or undefined? (imperfect, perfect, or aorist; and which term applies to which tense?)
Why do you continue to sling accusations when you have no concept of the Greek except what you think you have gleaned from commentaries?
You insist upon presenting “NetNotes” to the board as “25 expert Greek scholars –
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 05 2011,04:07) 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. In case you missed it the first time, here it is again –
Quote In the First Edition (printed in 2005) a list of people on the “Net Bible Team” appears at the end of the Introduction. Twenty-two men and one woman are listed as translators and editors. For the Old Testament: Richard E. Averbeck, William D. Barrick, M. Daniel Carroll R. [sic], Robert B. Chisholm, Dorian Coover-Cox, Donald R. Glenn, Michael A. Grisanti, W. Hall Harris III, Gordon H. Johnston, Eugene H. Merrill, Allen P. Ross, Steven H. Sanchez, Richard A. Taylor, and Brian L. Webster. For the New Testament: Darrell L. Bock, Michael H. Burer, Buist M. Fanning III, John D. Grassmick, W. Hall Harris III, Gregory J. Herrick, Harold W. Hoehner, David K. Lowery, Jay E. Smith, and Daniel B. Wallace. Although the Introduction does not mention it, seventeen of these people were teachers at Dallas Theological Seminary; and of the remaining six, five were students at DTS. Only one (William Barrick) has no obvious connection to Dallas Theological Seminary. Some of them have no publications, and are little-known outside of DTS. Evidently the version was almost entirely a project of the members of the DTS faculty, assisted by their students. This provides some context for the Introduction's statement that the translators were “chosen in every instance because of his or her work in that particular book.” The copyright page of the printed edition does not say where “Biblical Studies Press” is located, but from other sources we learn that its offices are in Garland, Texas—a suburb of Dallas. Evidently the people involved in the version have some interest in concealing its “Dallas” connection.
What are the criteria by which you identify an “expert Greek scholar?” Show up for payday? How do you get five “expert Greek scholar” out of five student aides, Mike? Yet you have testified to this and defended your experts for several posts now.
Even you admit they are not correct on John 1:1, but your only response to that so far, has been,
Quote 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.You have not proved me wrong, just included me with detractors of the JW doctrine. That is the same thing you keep doing with your Greek accusations, Mike. Hit and run.
You keep saying “Paladin's Greek is wrong” then instead of telling us what is correct Greek, you run. You keep insisting your imagined “exceptions” are actual Greek principles, as though you have an expert source that tells you so. Produce it. I have given you Mounce, Dobson, and black; besides A.T.Robertson, whose grammar is mostly correct, but whose theology is attrocious. Even some of his grammar is incorrect, because of the doctrine he tries to defend by his grammar.
And yes, I can give examples. But that would be more than three words, so you won't read it anyway.
Quote (Pastry @ July 06 2011,11:54) Paladin! In John 21:15-17 Jesus was asking Peter whether he had agape love. Since Peter denied Him three times, He did not have agape love, and Jesus knew that. Your claim always is you are right and all translators of the English and the German are wrong…..I don't claim to know Greek, but I trust the Translators more then I trust you. The reason is in my previous post, if you have read it….
Besides I trust mainly in Gods Holy Spirit, and I believe it is God that will open our eyes to the truth. And blinds others. There are to many Scriptures that would be faulty according to you. That I don't believe….
Peace Irene
Irene, you have already made your allegiance to Mike quite evident on this board, and on this thread in particular.You have taken his side even when he is obviously wrong, and you even agreed one time that he had “broken my spirit,” (though that was a figment of Mike's over active imagination.
I still called you “friend” and did not chide you for your attitude. And I still do not.
But please, do not post words of war and sign it “peace.”
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2011,12:43) Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2011,05:37) Quote (mike @ 64) Paladin, You are confusing an action that WAS continuous IN THE PAST with an action that is STILL ongoing and has NEVER ended.
Not me. I never claimed any such thing. I have never said
“Still ongoing” nor have I said “Never ending.” That is simply another example of your continual approach to my posts, Mike; i.e., you have to “translate” everything I say into
“what you think I meant.” And you are never right when you do that.
Oh, then I misunderstood you and you DON'T claim that Jesus could not have been referring to a glory he used to have, but had no longer?Because it sure seemed to me that you were claiming the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibited Jesus from asking for a glory that he had in the past.
But you now admit that Jesus COULD HAVE BEEN asking to have a past glory returned to him?
GREAT! We agree then – because that's EXACTLY what Jesus was doing.
mike, you and I will never agree, because you always change what is said, for what was not said, and claim, “If you don't mean this, then it must mean that,” when it is not true.Post your own conclusions under your own name and quit trying to put my name to your silly ways of saying things that are not so.
Quote (Paladin @ July 06 2011,21:14) Quote (Pastry @ July 06 2011,11:54) Paladin! In John 21:15-17 Jesus was asking Peter whether he had agape love. Since Peter denied Him three times, He did not have agape love, and Jesus knew that. Your claim always is you are right and all translators of the English and the German are wrong…..I don't claim to know Greek, but I trust the Translators more then I trust you. The reason is in my previous post, if you have read it….
Besides I trust mainly in Gods Holy Spirit, and I believe it is God that will open our eyes to the truth. And blinds others. There are to many Scriptures that would be faulty according to you. That I don't believe….
Peace Irene
Irene, you have already made your allegiance to Mike quite evident on this board, and on this thread in particular.You have taken his side even when he is obviously wrong, and you even agreed one time that he had “broken my spirit,” (though that was a figment of Mike's over active imagination.
I still called you “friend” and did not chide you for your attitude. And I still do not.
But please, do not post words of war and sign it “peace.”
Paladin! My decision has nothing to do with Mike, even so I agree with His understanding of the Bible, before you even came on the scene. I am not in war with anyone. Just responding with the claim you made in the last post you made.
Your attitude says that you know it better then the Catholic Monks, who translated from the Greek into English and German.
They were trinatarian and in spite translated it were we can prove the trinity wrong. If they wanted to mislead us in any way, they would not have done so. That is why I will trust God's Holy Spirit and know if I am wrong, God will eventually show me. God has done that before, and I acknowledge it, here on Heaven Net, with Nick…..I have nothing against you as a person, you are also Gods Son….. that goes for Gene also. I know He reads this too…but you have always said you are right and everyone is wrong.
Peace Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
