- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Paladin @ July 09 2011,13:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2011,05:29) Quote (Paladin @ July 08 2011,15:21) Mike, I'm still looking for the post where I said what you claim I said. If you know where it is, you really should include it with the first time you make the accusation, so I won't have to spend so much valuable time researching for something that may not be there.
Paladin,At least TWO of the times you said this were in the last 10 pages of this thread. And I will be happy to show you where those posts are. But before I do that, thereby allowing you to play games about how you didn't cap the “T” or underline the “O” or whatever, enabling you to say you didn't really say what I claimed you did, how about answering one simple question that will end this thing once and for all?
Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 PROHIBIT Jesus from speaking about a glory he had in the past with his God? YES or NO?
I don't make deals with boot camp bullies,. Either show me where I made the statement, or don't. I will not bargain with you by committing to something I do not understand, only to find I never said what you claim, to begin with.so, show me where I said what you claimed.
Forget the past discussion for a moment and pretend that I'm starting a NEW discussion by asking you one simple question:Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 PROHIBIT Jesus from speaking about a glory he had in the past with his God? YES or NO?
You either ARE able to answer this direct question or you're NOT. If you are NOT, please enlighten us all as to WHY you are unable to answer a simple direct question.
Paladin,
Look at your own words here:
Quote I won't have to spend so much valuable time researching for something that may not be there. Quote I will not bargain with you by committing to something I do not understand, only to find I never said what you claim, to begin with. These are the words of a man who is unsure of what he may have said in the past. It seems as though you are carefully trying to avoid putting your foot in your mouth. Forget what you may or “may not” have said in the past, and just answer the bolded question in my last post from a position of TRUTH.
For a TRUTHFUL answer to this one question will solve the dilemma once and for all.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2011,07:11) Paladin, Look at your own words here:
Quote I won't have to spend so much valuable time researching for something that may not be there. Quote I will not bargain with you by committing to something I do not understand, only to find I never said what you claim, to begin with. These are the words of a man who is unsure of what he may have said in the past. It seems as though you are carefully trying to avoid putting your foot in your mouth. Forget what you may or “may not” have said in the past, and just answer the bolded question in my last post from a position of TRUTH.
For a TRUTHFUL answer to this one question will solve the dilemma once and for all.
Mike, why do you insist on showing the world you are a complete fool?Look at 24-6 for a clue.
Why can't you just answer a simple question and end this charade?
Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 PROHIBIT Jesus from speaking about a glory he had in the past with his God? YES or NO?
Gene and Marty: Are you guys paying attention? Here is your “expert” in action. Why do you guys suppose he can't even answer a simple question and end this game?
Quote (Paladin @ July 09 2011,20:17) Look at 24-6 for a clue.
Is it to this that you refer?Quote I have short term memory problems, If so, then just accept my word that you DID claim what I've said you claimed. Your claim was inaccurate, and I would sincerely like to see you admit this FACT. And I won't let up until you do.
As I said, it matters not what you did or didn't say before. What matters is that you answer the question before you now and put this matter to rest once and for all.
MIke………..It does matter what Paladin said before , just as it matter what you said before and he has dealt with all you stupid questions and answered them and given his Opinion on the and has posted proof to back up most everything he has said. All you are after is to try to find ONE thing to give you some creditability and desperately trying to discredit Paladin,here, but the over all facts are you have no idea what you are saying and are locked into your false doctrine of preexistences along with all trinitarians . IMO
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2011,13:42) Why can't you just answer a simple question and end this charade? Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 PROHIBIT Jesus from speaking about a glory he had in the past with his God? YES or NO?
Gene and Marty: Are you guys paying attention? Here is your “expert” in action. Why do you guys suppose he can't even answer a simple question and end this game?
Hi Mike:I believe that it is “You” who are making yourself to be the “judge and jury”.
What you are searching for with this question about Echo is to find some way to continue your arguement for the pre-existence of Jesus, and you can never prove that he pre-existed as a sentient person because there is not scripture which state that he did.
How man pages of discussion are there already relative to this topic? It is an endless discussion with your speculation of “it could have been this way or that way” based on how a Greek word was used in a particular scripture.
The matter of salvation is that Jesus exists now, and through him whosoever desires to be reconciled to God can do so.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Gene Balthrop @ July 11 2011,07:32) MIke………..It does matter what Paladin said before , just as it matter what you said before and he has dealt with all you stupid questions and answered them and given his Opinion on the and has posted proof to back up most everything he has said. All you are after is to try to find ONE thing to give you some creditability and desperately trying to discredit Paladin,here, but the over all facts are you have no idea what you are saying and are locked into your false doctrine of preexistences along with all trinitarians . IMO
genethis answer does nothing to clarify the truth but prevent the truth to known
Pierre
Quote (942767 @ July 11 2011,08:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2011,13:42) Why can't you just answer a simple question and end this charade? Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 PROHIBIT Jesus from speaking about a glory he had in the past with his God? YES or NO?
Gene and Marty: Are you guys paying attention? Here is your “expert” in action. Why do you guys suppose he can't even answer a simple question and end this game?
Hi Mike:I believe that it is “You” who are making yourself to be the “judge and jury”.
What you are searching for with this question about Echo is to find some way to continue your arguement for the pre-existence of Jesus, and you can never prove that he pre-existed as a sentient person because there is not scripture which state that he did.
How man pages of discussion are there already relative to this topic? It is an endless discussion with your speculation of “it could have been this way or that way” based on how a Greek word was used in a particular scripture.
The matter of salvation is that Jesus exists now, and through him whosoever desires to be reconciled to God can do so.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Martyyou are talking like you are not looking for truth of scriptures but your own ,you never answer my last comment as well,
so this type of answers that you give is bias,because you refuse to see COL 1;15-18
Pierre
NO MARTY!
Like I've already made ABUNDANTLY clear to you and all, this wouldn't even be a deal if Paladin had opined, like you yourself did, that Jesus wasn't speaking of a glory he had in the past.
But Paladin did not opine this thought. Instead, Paladin claimed AS A FACT that the imperfect tense of “echo” PROHIBITED Jesus from speaking of a past glory.
Why do you nonexisters pretend that you can't see this?
My disagreement with Paladin for the last 20 pages of this thread doesn't even have anything to do with whether or not Jesus pre-existed. It has to do with someone trying to pull the wool over other people's eyes by using big fancy words to make a FALSE CLAIM.
And I won't stop until he ADMITS the claim he made about “echo” was FALSE.
Haven't you noticed that he won't even answer the question about that claim? He KNOWS his original claim was false, and simply doesn't want to own up to it.
Marty, YOU know the claim was false because YOU know that Barabbas was not still in prison when Matthew wrote his gospel. That in itself PROVES that the imperfect tense of “echo” does NOT prohibit the action mentioned from ending sometime long ago in the past. And THAT proves that Jesus most definitely COULD HAVE BEEN asking God to RETURN a glory to him that he had IN THE PAST.
Once again, I have not even started to argue that Jesus WAS speaking of a past glory. All I've been trying to do is to get Paladin to ADMIT that the imperfect tense of “echo” does not PROHIBIT Jesus from speaking of a past glory.
You say that I'm being “judge and jury”? Well, why aren't you also on that jury? Aren't you an honest man, Marty? You can see the facts in front of your face, right? You can see that the Barabbas thing shows Paladin made a false claim, right? So why aren't you also a member of the jury? Do you prefer that your brother speak lies as long as the end result seems to support YOUR doctrine? Is that what you've resorted to? Are lies okay as long as YOUR SIDE ends up being right, Marty?
If not, then join me in calling your brother out on his lie. Let him know that this is not the way an honest man proves his doctrine.
Also, why didn't you answer my question, Marty? Why do you suppose Paladin won't answer my bolded question?
mike
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 10 2011,07:32) MIke………..It does matter what Paladin said before , just as it matter what you said before and he has dealt with all you stupid questions and answered them and given his Opinion on the and has posted proof to back up most everything he has said. All you are after is to try to find ONE thing to give you some creditability and desperately trying to discredit Paladin,here, but the over all facts are you have no idea what you are saying and are locked into your false doctrine of preexistences along with all trinitarians . IMO
Gene,Do me a favor and answer the bolded question I've been asking Paladin. Then we'll know whether or not to even take anything you say seriously, okay? Here it is:
Gene, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 PROHIBIT Jesus from speaking about a glory he had in the past with his God? YES or NO?
Quote (terraricca @ July 11 2011,01:48) Quote (942767 @ July 11 2011,08:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2011,13:42) Why can't you just answer a simple question and end this charade? Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 PROHIBIT Jesus from speaking about a glory he had in the past with his God? YES or NO?
Gene and Marty: Are you guys paying attention? Here is your “expert” in action. Why do you guys suppose he can't even answer a simple question and end this game?
Hi Mike:I believe that it is “You” who are making yourself to be the “judge and jury”.
What you are searching for with this question about Echo is to find some way to continue your arguement for the pre-existence of Jesus, and you can never prove that he pre-existed as a sentient person because there is not scripture which state that he did.
How man pages of discussion are there already relative to this topic? It is an endless discussion with your speculation of “it could have been this way or that way” based on how a Greek word was used in a particular scripture.
The matter of salvation is that Jesus exists now, and through him whosoever desires to be reconciled to God can do so.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Martyyou are talking like you are not looking for truth of scriptures but your own ,you never answer my last comment as well,
so this type of answers that you give is bias,because you refuse to see COL 1;15-18
Pierre
Hi Pierre:You keep bring up Colossians 1:15 with the emphasis of Jesus being the “firstborn” of all of creation. Compare these two scriptures and see if you can come up with the understanding of what God has stated:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (terraricca @ July 10 2011,08:48) Marty you are talking like you are not looking for truth of scriptures but your own
EXACTLY Pierre!And that can be seen clearly from this statement he made:
Quote What you are searching for with this question about Echo is to find some way to continue your arguement for the pre-existence of Jesus………… It is clear that Marty isn't interested in the truth that Paladin used a false claim as support for their doctrine. Instead, like Paladin, Marty is willing to avoid the truth of the disagreement because he thinks that truth might somehow work against his own doctrine.
People! This is NOT how Christians do things! We aren't suppose to lie and manipulate just to be right, are we? Aren't we all after TRUTH?
The number one reason atheists claim for not becoming Christians is Christians themselves. They show up at church on Sunday, honor God with their lips, and then leave the building and deny Him by their actions.
How many atheists are looking on here and watching certain self-claimed Christians weave and dodge and do anything they can to weasle out of just being HONEST?
It's sad. And also frustrating for those Christians among us who know how bad this kind of behavior reflects on the one who sent us a savior, and the one who came to be that savior.
Hi Brother Paladin:
Please answer Mike's bolded question. Otherwise, we will be here all day.
Love in Christ,
MartyHi Mike:
This is a true statement, and so, practice what you preach!
Quote People! This is NOT how Christians do things! We aren't suppose to lie and manipulate just to be right, are we? Aren't we all after TRUTH? Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2011,05:20) Quote (942767 @ July 08 2011,13:08) And as to the imperfect “Echo” as it pertains to Barabbas in Matthew 27:16 the imperfect shows continual action, but he was released from that imprisonment or continual action, and so, I do not see that this is an equivalent situation to Jesus saying: Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
“Echo” here was a continual action from which he was not released. It was a done deal
Hi Marty,Is the Word of God also the Son of God? Did God BEGET his own spoken words?
About “echo”: You are welcome to make your unfounded claim about the glory of Jesus. But that is not the point. The point of the disagreement has ALWAYS been: DOES THE IMPERFECT TENSE OF “ECHO” PROHIBIT JESUS FROM SPEAKING OF A PAST GLORY?
Does it Marty?
Hi Mike:The Word of God is that which God has spoken. In the whole of the OT God is speaking about the coming Messiah. In John 1:14 this became a reality.
If the imperfect means continual action, then given the circumstances of Jesus relative to the way that the Word “Echo” is used relative to Jesus than “yes” it would prohibit Jesus from speaking of a glory that he had in the past that somehow was now regained.
In the case of Barabbas, the word “Echo” was continual action until he was released from prison, and so, it is a different situation from that of Jesus. There was not interuption of the glory that Jesus had. It was a done deal from the beginning until the time that it was manifest.
Now, you asked me to give an opinion, and that is the way that I see this. I am neither a rocket scientist nor a Greek scholar, and so, I could be wrong. It is just the way that I see this.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ July 10 2011,09:30) Hi Brother Paladin: Please answer Mike's bolded question. Otherwise, we will be here all day.
Love in Christ,
Marty
THANK YOU, Marty!
Although I think “all day” has long since come and gone. I've been trying to get to the truth of this matter for weeks now.
Quote (942767 @ July 10 2011,09:37) Hi Mike: This is a true statement, and so, practice what you preach!
Quote People! This is NOT how Christians do things! We aren't suppose to lie and manipulate just to be right, are we? Aren't we all after TRUTH? Love in Christ,
Marty
I always do, Marty. But thanks for the encouragement!Marty…………You see it the same way i do also, Problem here is Mike and the other preexistences and Trinitarians whole house of cards come crashing down if they admit to the truth. This is why they are so desperate and try so hard to discredit Paladin and Me and You and Shimmer and others here also. even if they can't disprove what is said they use words like Mike Does “does this Prohibit it then”, and the possibility in scripture as you brought out does “Prohibit” it. I am in agreement with you brother and Paladin. Brothers
peace and love to you and yours……………………………………..gene
Quote (942767 @ July 10 2011,09:59)
In the case of Barabbas, the word “Echo” was continual action until he was released from prison…
True. Because unlike what Paladin has tried to imply, the imperfect tense does NOT refer to an ongoing action. It refers to an action that WAS (a PAST TENSE WORD) IN THE PAST (a PAST TENSE PHRASE).The “continuous” part of the description may be the cause of some misunderstanding. But it merely explains the way the author described the action that ENDED IN THE PAST.
For example, the past tense would say, “they ASKED”. This is something that happened IN THE PAST and has since ended. Otherwise, it would be the present tense, “they ARE ASKING”. Notice the present tense word “ARE”.
On the other hand, the imperfect tense would say “they KEPT ON ASKING”. Again, this refers to an action that happened IN THE PAST, and has since ENDED. Notice the past tense word “KEPT”.
So in the case of Barabbas, the imperfect tense says, “In those days, THEY WERE HAVING a man named Barabbas in custody………..”, while the past tense would say, “In those days, THEY HAD a man named Barabbas in custody………..” But BOTH tenses refer to an action that happened IN THE PAST and has since ENDED.
Quote (942767 @ July 10 2011,09:59)
There was not interuption of the glory that Jesus had.
This is spoken from a place of ignorance, Marty. The past tense in 17:5 would say, “the glory I HAD…….”, while the imperfect tense would say, “the glory I WAS HAVING”. Just like in the case of Barabbas, both tenses indicate an action that happened IN THE PAST, and has since ENDED. Again, notice the PAST TENSE word “WAS”.Compare Barabbas past tense: They HAD in custody
Barabbas imperfect tense: They WERE HAVING in custodySee? Both of them refer to something that happened IN THE PAST.
Compare 17:5 past tense: Glory I HAD
17:5 imperfect tense: Glory I WAS HAVINGSee? Just like with Barabbas, BOTH tenses refer to a PAST action that has since ended.
Marty, Jesus was CLEARY speaking about a glory “he WAS HAVING” in the past.
But remember that this is not what my disagreement with Paladin is about. My disagreement with Paladin began because he “mistakenly” (and I use that word lightly, for a mistaken man, once shown his error, would have immediately owned up to it and made a correction) said, not that the imperfect tense MIGHT NOT mean that Jesus was speaking of a past glory, but that it PROHIBITED him from doing so.
It does not. I hope that truth IS what you're after, Marty. Because I've laid it out as clear as a bell here for you.
peace,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
