- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 14 2011,09:12) MIke………Now show me where i ever said Paladin was “WRONG” so now who is being Dishonest Here You or ME?
Oh, you've learned from Paladin?
Do I now have to quote you verbatim too? 
What you said was that you KNEW Paladin was in trouble with the imperfect tense of “echo”. And coming immediately after Marty acknowledged the truth of the matter, I took that to mean that YOU knew he was wrong too.
So Gene, WAS Paladin wrong? Or are me and Marty wrong?
And if Paladin was right, then what did you mean by this statement: Fact is i knew all along Paladin was heading into trouble with You about this “echo” thing.
How could Paladin be “heading into trouble with me” if he was doing nothing but speaking the truth of the matter?
See? Even now you would rather play games than have an HONEST discussion.
Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2011,17:20) I will try to have the data collected in the next day or two and maybe we can come to some better understanding. In the meantime, chill out.
I can't wait Paladin. And in the mean time, I will treat others exactly as they treat me.You do realize that you have now ACCUSED me of wrongdoing for the SECOND time on this thread, right?
Don't forget what happened the first time – how you FINALLY ended up apologizing for WRONGFULLY accusing me of wrongdoing. (Just ONE of the MANY times I HAVE proved you wrong.)
If you don't show posts to back up your accusation this time, you'll either owe me another apology, or I'll owe you another tile.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 14 2011,11:43) Quote (942767 @ July 13 2011,08:38) He had this glory by “faith” to be manifest in God's timing,
So your understanding is that God had FOREORDAINED a glory for Jesus before the world was even created? And 17:5 represents Jesus asking for that glory, (which he knew about through faith), to be manifested upon him?Is that correct Marty?
No!Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Gene Balthrop @ July 14 2011,09:12) I was ask by another poster here to report you to T8 for misrepresenting what i Said and if i did report your LIE , i wounder what would really happen to you. As i have said Mike you simply are a Hypocrite, because you try to hold others to a standard you yourself don't live by. IMO and others also i might add.
Hi Gene,Please DO report my “misrepresentation” to t8. Let's see what the owner of the site, who happens to be an HONEST MAN, thinks about the statement you made. Let's see if he would have come to the same conclusion I did from your words.
I am an HONEST man Gene. I am trying my best to hold the others here to that SAME standard, not a DIFFERENT one.
Quote (942767 @ July 14 2011,18:28) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 14 2011,11:43) Quote (942767 @ July 13 2011,08:38) He had this glory by “faith” to be manifest in God's timing,
So your understanding is that God had FOREORDAINED a glory for Jesus before the world was even created? And 17:5 represents Jesus asking for that glory, (which he knew about through faith), to be manifested upon him?Is that correct Marty?
No!Love in Christ,
Marty
Please elaborate then.Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2011,17:20) I will try to have the data collected in the next day or two and maybe we can come to some better understanding.
I have an idea for a better use of your time, Paladin. Instead of spending hours trying once again to show me as deceitful, (which didn't work out so well for you the first time), how about you just answer the simple YES or NO question that Marty finally answered?Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 prohibit Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past? YES or NO?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2011,11:00) Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2011,17:20) I will try to have the data collected in the next day or two and maybe we can come to some better understanding. In the meantime, chill out.
I can't wait Paladin. And in the mean time, I will treat others exactly as they treat me.You do realize that you have now ACCUSED me of wrongdoing for the SECOND time on this thread, right?
Don't forget what happened the first time – how you FINALLY ended up apologizing for WRONGFULLY accusing me of wrongdoing. (Just ONE of the MANY times I HAVE proved you wrong.)
If you don't show posts to back up your accusation this time, you'll either owe me another apology, or I'll owe you another tile.
I thought it was 3 or 4.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2011,11:00) Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2011,17:20) I will try to have the data collected in the next day or two and maybe we can come to some better understanding. In the meantime, chill out.
I can't wait Paladin. And in the mean time, I will treat others exactly as they treat me.You do realize that you have now ACCUSED me of wrongdoing for the SECOND time on this thread, right?
Don't forget what happened the first time – how you FINALLY ended up apologizing for WRONGFULLY accusing me of wrongdoing. (Just ONE of the MANY times I HAVE proved you wrong.)
If you don't show posts to back up your accusation this time, you'll either owe me another apology, or I'll owe you another tile.
Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2011,17:20) I will try to have the data collected in the next day or two and maybe we can come to some better understanding. In the meantime, chill out.
Quote I can't wait Paladin. And in the mean time, I will treat others exactly as they treat me. So are we to look for some civility from you finally?
Quote You do realize that you have now ACCUSED me of wrongdoing for the SECOND time on this thread, right? Depends upon what you mean by “wrong doing.” You have actually “done me wrong” many times, with your use of “You deliberately did…” and similar language, when I was not wrong to begin with.
You like to throw around all that tough-guy boot camp stuff, Mike, then threaten with “tiles.”
Help yourself Mike. You have a box of tiles, I have nothing to defend myself against bullies, so make yourself important. Tile me. I guess that is easier than telling the truth and actually repeating what someone actually says.
I will have the data when it is ready. Save your threats.
Don't forget what happened the first time – how you FINALLY ended up apologizing for WRONGFULLY accusing me of wrongdoing. (Just ONE of the MANY times I HAVE proved you wrong.)
If you don't show posts to back up your accusation this time, you'll either owe me another apology, or I'll owe you another tile.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2011,10:54) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 14 2011,09:12) MIke………Now show me where i ever said Paladin was “WRONG” so now who is being Dishonest Here You or ME?
Oh, you've learned from Paladin? Do I now have to quote you verbatim too? What you said was that you KNEW Paladin was in trouble with the imperfect tense of “echo”. And coming immediately after Marty acknowledged the truth of the matter, I took that to mean that YOU knew he was wrong too.
So Gene, WAS Paladin wrong? Or are me and Marty wrong?
And if Paladin was right, then what did you mean by this statement: Fact is i knew all along Paladin was heading into trouble with You about this “echo” thing.
How could Paladin be “heading into trouble with me” if he was doing nothing but speaking the truth of the matter?
See? Even now you would rather play games than have an HONEST discussion.
Mike……….The only deceptive person here is YOU not Me or Paladin , Fact is I never said Paladin was Wrong (that is your LIE) nor did even suggest he was wrong in that statement. I knew he was going to get in trouble with that becasue i knew who you would twist up what he was saying and make it a major argument against him because that is your MO Mike. Just as your force the text to say what in fact it is not saying you do the same with things people quote here IMO.Your false (Assumption) is biased on your desperation to try to prove Paladin Wrong. and that is the truth Mike so face it, and quite dancing around and trying to side step the truth MIKE. If you hold us to your standards we would all be doing what you are doing and misquote and misrepresent what a person actually is saying, as you do scriptures IMO>
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2011,11:46) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 14 2011,09:12) I was ask by another poster here to report you to T8 for misrepresenting what i Said and if i did report your LIE , i wounder what would really happen to you. As i have said Mike you simply are a Hypocrite, because you try to hold others to a standard you yourself don't live by. IMO and others also i might add.
Hi Gene,Please DO report my “misrepresentation” to t8. Let's see what the owner of the site, who happens to be an HONEST MAN, thinks about the statement you made. Let's see if he would have come to the same conclusion I did from your words.
I am an HONEST man Gene. I am trying my best to hold the others here to that SAME standard, not a DIFFERENT one.
Mike………….I have never reported anyone to T8 in around 5 or 6 years i have been here, if he can't see what is going on with you then i would question even his judgement , but knowing T8 as i do i think he does know to tell the truth , it is obvious to me and other non preexistences here also. He is a Preexistence as you and Pierre and Irene are so he has to balance this out and it gives you an advantage to abuse and distort what other who disagree with you say. IMONew material will be underlined in this data post
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2011,14:08) Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2011,17:20) I will try to have the data collected in the next day or two and maybe we can come to some better understanding. I have an idea for a better use of your time, Paladin. Instead of spending hours trying once again to show me as deceitful, (which didn't work out so well for you the first time), how about you just answer the simple YES or NO question that Marty finally answered?
Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 prohibit Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past? YES or NO?
Mike, I posted this information to you in March:
======================================================================
31-8
======================================================================Quote (Paladin @ Mar 20 2011,05:11)
——————————————
“…With reference to John 17:5, Consider “eixon” indicative imperfect active, translated “had” should have been translated “was having,” as it references a continuing action in the past. Completed action would be “had.”Then consider the present infinitive “einai” which stresses the fact “the world is in the proccess of continuous being,” so “before the world was” is inappropriate for the Greek. It should be saying, “Now, O Father, Glorify me with thine own self with the glory I was having before the whole world that is being” [right in front of the whole word, i.e., in prophecy the whole world can see]
There is no excuse other than doctrinal bias, for translating “pro tou kosmon einai” as “before the world was” as though it relates to time, when it is telling us about something that existed “before” as in “in front of” the world that is in existence. There is no inference of “was” in the passage. “einai” is a present active genitive infinitive, and pro is a genitive preposition, meaning “in front of” in passages such as [Acts 12:6] pro tees thuras “before the door”][gen Prep w/gen] and [Mat 11:10 pro prwsopou sou “before thy face”][gen prep w/gen]
======================================================================
48-4
======================================================================Quote (Paladin @ Mar 29 2011,21:06)
————————————————————Jesus is simply asking God to “..glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.“I had” is from the Greek “exw” and is imperfect active. The Greek imperfect consists of continuous action at some time prior to the event of asking. In other words dear sister, Jesus had it all along in promise. That is the only way this makes any sense at all, given the Greek tenses.
The second word I want to discuss is the Greek word “pro” which means before, and can reference either time or place. It has been translated to mean “time,” but it is wrong. “Pro” in this verse should be understood the same way it is used in Acts 12:14 “Peter stood before the gate” meaning “Peter stood in front of the gate.”
Then there is “was,” the last word in the request should not, cannot, be “was” because it is present active, not aorist or imperfect or any other past tense Greek verb. The Greek word used here is a form of “eimi” and It means “is.” Jesus is not referencing a time prior to creation, he is referencing a promise of something that was right there before the whole world for all to see, in time, not eternity. An example of this glory that was before the world for all to consider, is found in Isaiah – “Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.” [Isa 52:13]
Many of the Psalms show Jesus at God's right hand [Psa 80:17]; and Isaiah even references that event [52:11-15], but it is not a past event, but future when Isaiah writes of it; Zechariah writes of the man that is God's “fellow” [Zec 13:7]. Yet it is right there for all the world to read and understand and look forward to seeing.
John 17:5 is not a request to restore anything, but to give something promised. The Greek word translated “restore” is apokatasteesei and is future active; it is not in John 17:5.
======================================================================And in June, I posted this information:
======================================================================
163-8 ======================================================================Quote (Paladin @ June 02 2011,01:16) [EIXON]
[NOTE: Imperfect Indicative [eixon] describes a continuing action occuring in the past. If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous. Had John used the “perfect” tense, it would have been an action that was brought to completion, with present continuous results. But John did not use the “perfect” tense of echo [esxeeka; 2 Cor 2:13][esxeekamen, Ro 5:2; II Co 1:9][esxeeken, II Co 7:5][esxeekota, Mark 5:15].If John intended to convey a prehistoric glory Jesus once had, but no longer has, as in “discontinued,” it would be aorist, simple completed action form of echo;[esxomen, I Thes 1:9]; or [esxon; Mat 22:28;Mark 12:23;Luke 20:33; Philemon 1:7;Jude 1:3].
But John used the imperfect form of echo, which constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past.
[EINAI]
[NOTE: Present Infinitive [“einai”] stresses the fact the world is in the proccess of continuous being; therefore “was” is inappropriate translation; should be “before the world that is.”[PRO]
[NOTE: Acts 12:6 pro tees thuras “before the door”][Prep w/gen]
[NOTE: Mat 11:10 pro prwsopou sou “before thy face”][prep w/gen]The terminology in John 17:5 references a world already created, and the glory promised to Jesus was “before” the whole world, (as in “right before our eyes).
John 17:5 is a reference to a prophecy, not recorded as far as I know, but certainly alluded to in Hebrews – “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” [Heb 12:2]
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I have with thee before the world.”
HERE'S WHERE YOU BEGAN SCREWING THINGS UP MIKE…see the bolded parts-
======================================================================
165-1
======================================================================Quote ( mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:06)
———————————————————————–
<!–QuoteBegin–Paladin+June 01 2011,08:16)
[NOTE: Imperfect Indicative [eixon–>Quote (Paladin @ June 01 2011,08:16)
[NOTE: Imperfect Indicative [eixon)describes a continuing action occuring in the past. If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous. (Mike)
Quote The action WAS contiuous? Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time? HERE'S WHERE YOU QUOTED NETNOTES AND MIXED, THEN CHANGED THE TENSES IN YOUR QUESTIONS: First, you posted NetNotes remark as one, then asked me about “past tense” words. When I correct you on it, you get all bent out of shape and bvegin your accusations, and use words like “deliberately” and “on purpose.”
Quote From NETNotes:
5775 Tense – Imperfect
The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.So what I'm asking you, Paladin, is why the PAST TENSE word “kept” is in NETNote's illustration? In your first sample scripture, Matt 14:5, the people held John as a prophet. HELD, or REGARDED, or BELIEVED or THOUGHT, or CONSIDERED him as a prophet. These are all past tense words, right?
The “Past tense” is in NetNotes because they included in the remark, the verb “to be” which when I pointed it out to you, you denied referencing it, and abused me yet again.
HERE'S WHERE YOU TRY TO MAKE JOHN 17:5 A PAST TENSE ISSUE INSTEAD OF IMPERFECT, ALL BECAUSE YOU CHANGED THE TENSE IN THE ABOVE QUESTION.
(Mike)
Quote Jesus is recounting a PAST occurance – a time when he DID (past tense) continue to have glory alongside his God. ======================================================================
165-10
======================================================================Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2011,06:51) mikeboll64,June wrote:Paladin,June wrote:[NOTE: Imperfect Indicative [eixon] describes a continuing action occuring in the past. If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:06) The action WAS contiuous? Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time? From NETNotes:
5775 Tense – Imperfect
The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.So what I'm asking you, Paladin, is why the PAST TENSE word “kept” is in NETNote's illustration? In your first sample scripture, Matt 14:5, the people held John as a prophet. HELD, or REGARDED, or BELIEVED or THOUGHT, or CONSIDERED him as a prophet. These are all past tense words, right?
But did John ever discontinue being a prophet? Of course, because he died. So your “discontinue” point is null and void, because Matthew was not saying that the people ARE STILL CONTINUING TO THINK JOHN IS A PROPHET TO THIS VERY DAY, as if this action hasn't since discontinued.
After you continued to ask me the same question, ignoring the correction I posted to you, you continued to be abusive.
(Paladin)
Quote Mike, your post is not contributing to clearification of the issue. You quote my remark on the imperfect “eixon” then offer correction of the verb “to be” which is “einai.” And no, I am not trying to make it appear Jesus is present tense scenario; I am telling you that the Greek language used to show “before the world was” is wrong, as it describes a world that is, and still is. It therefore should read, “before the world;” as in “right out there in front of the world,” not prior to the world, as in “before the creation of the world.”
======================================================================
166-1
======================================================================Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 03 2011,15:10)
———————————————————————–
Paladin,
These are YOUR words:Quote
If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous.It is THESE words to which I responded, showing yet another of your many claims to be inaccurate.
You haven't shown anything wrong with any of my posts yet, Mike. You just stumble around in your commentary Greek, and huff and puff and tell everyone how bad Paladin's Greek is.
======================================================================
166-3
=========
=============================================================Paladin,June wrote:———————————————————–
[Quote=mikeboll64, June 03 2011,15:10]
Paladin, These are YOUR words:Quote
If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous.It is THESE words to which I responded, showing yet another of your many claims to be inaccurate.
Quote Mike, my friend, what you are failing to acknowledge is, your own reference lost you in the translation. It was YOUR reference that told you clearly
Quote
From NETNotes:
5775 Tense – Imperfect
The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.”In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.
Quote Mike, the “imperfect” you are calling in question, is not the verb “to be;” it is the verb eixon “I had.” In the next post is where you get real snotty and abuse me, piling on false statement after false statement; whimpering and sobbing your little heart out. You called my effort “crap” and continued to pile on abuse; inventing “diversions” you imagined you found in my posts; even numbering them, to your shame.
======================================================================
166-5
======================================================================Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 05 2011,04:07)
——————————————————————-
Hi Paladin,
Let me show you some of the diversions you use to avoid my point:CASE IN POINT #1
Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2011,00:50) Mike, the “imperfect” you are calling in question, is not the verb “to be;” it is the verb eixon “I had.” I have not “tried to imply” anything, Mike, I pointed out an obvious error in your response to me. In a plainly posted attempt to show that the imperfect of the verb eixon was improper, You plainly said “in the case of the verb “to be” and continued to tear down my presentation as though you were on the right track.
(MIKE) Did I ever imply that “I had” was the verb “to be”?
Yes, Mike, you did exactly that. Read your post again. You plainly said –
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:06) The action WAS contiuous? Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time? From NETNotes:
5775 Tense – Imperfect
The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.So what I'm asking you, Paladin, is why the PAST TENSE word “kept” is in NETNote's illustration? In your first sample scripture, Matt 14:5, the people held John as a prophet. HELD, or REGARDED, or BELIEVED or THOUGHT, or CONSIDERED him as a prophet. These are all past tense words, right?
And when I called your attention to it, you denied it, saying
(MIKE; Cont'd)
Quote Why would you divert from the issue with this crap? I quoted a source about the imperfect Greek text in which they mentioned the verb “to be”. I quoted the source in full, but I did not ever mention the “to be” part, because it does not fit this circumstance. You highlighted the verb to be” in green letters, Mike, so please, quit saying you did not reference the verb “to be.”
Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:06) The action WAS contiuous? Or the action will keep on continuing until the end of time? From NETNotes:
5775 Tense – Imperfect
The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.So what I'm asking you, Paladin, is why the PAST TENSE word “kept” is in NETNote's illustration? In your first sample scripture, Matt 14:5, the people held John as a prophet. HELD, or REGARDED, or BELIEVED or THOUGHT, or CONSIDERED him as a prophet. These are all past tense words, right?
What you are failing to understand Mike, is that what is considered “past tense” verbs to YOU, was “IMPERFECT” tense to the writer 2,000 years ago. I have told you this before, but you failed to acknowledge it. Now you have misused it.
(MIKE:Cont'd)
mikeboll64,June wrote:Instead, 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. It does NOT refer to an activity that CONTINUES ON TO THIS VERY DAY, but to an activity that was IN THE PAST and has since ceased.
But, to the writer 2000 years ago, it was IMPERFECT, not “past tense.”
Quote 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.And what you've concluded is that Jesus couldn't have HAD glory in the past, then NOT had it, and then ask for that something he no longer has again, all because of the tense of the Greek word. You claim that the imperfect tense would refer to a glory that GOES ON AND ON AND ON, so Jesus couldn't possibly have NOT had that glory at the time he asked for it back.
YOU ARE WRONG, as I showed you from your very first “proof text” about John the Baptist. John 17:5 refers to a glory that Jesus WAS HAVING in the past, but no longer had at the time he was asking to be returned to it.
And I finally found the source of your constant whining about “Prohibit” which you keep accusing me of saying in your question.
Quote The imperfect tense of the word does NOT prohibit this glory from having ended, and therefore does not prohibit Jesus from asking for something back that he USED TO HAVE. PLEASE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, instead of making diversions out of something I never claimed in the first place. Do you see what you did Paladin? Of course you do, because you did it purposely.
And finally, you change from talking about the Imperfect tense to this:
Quote Seems that you are out of diversions for the time being, and will HAVE TO address your misunderstanding of the Greek perfect tense, huh? And you continue with your false accusations and “poor me” accusations.
(MIKE)
Quote I'll bet money on the fact that you don't though. I'll bet that instead you use the “Cry like a baby” diversion to deal with this whole post, claiming I wasn't “nice” to you or whatever.
======================================================================Finally, Mike, you show the world you know nothing about the Greek when you asked me this:
166-6
======================================================================mikeboll64,June wrote:———————————————————————-
Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2011,08:10)
[Quote] (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2011,13:16)
[Quote] (Paladin @ June 01 2011,08:39)
Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour [para = dative] *with God.[God = dat]Whatever you say about “para” in John 17:5 must also apply to Luke 1:30, or a reasonable explanation as to why not,
First that's a strange assertion, that one use must mean the same thing as all the others. For example: “There came a man sent BY God” versus “This man is staying as a guest with a man named Simon, a tanner, whose house is BY the sea.” Does “para” have to mean the same thing in both of these scriptures?
I responded to your ignorance with this
(Paladin)
Quote Mike, do you really not understand the difference betweem the possessive case, and the accusative? The accusative case references the direct object of the verb; the genitive case references the case of possession. John 1:6 There was a man sent [para] from God, whose name was John. [para = genitive]
Acts 10:6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is [para] by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.[para = accusative]
This is where I used this language –
(Paladin)
Quote This difference forbids making the same use argument. But that was not the case with John 17:5 and Luke 1:30 – In all three cases, “para” is dative, which expresses the case that poinhts to the direct object.
We are comparing like things
“favor with God” [Lk 1:30
“glory with thee” [John 17:5]
“glorify with thyself [John 17:5]Direct object “God;” “Thee;” “Thyself.”
Then you continued
(MIKE)Quote CASE IN POINT #6
This is called “Avoiding the meat of the issue by focusing on a lessor side issue”.Paladin, the following is the MEAT of my point, please address THIS part of my post:
But okay, tell me what the first use of “para” in 17:5 signifies.
And now, Father, glorify me WITH YOU………..
Does the first use coincide with Luke 1:30? If so, how? I don't consider Mary to have been physically WITH God in Luke 1:30. But I do consider Jesus to be asking to be glorified in the physical presence of God in 17:5.
If you don't, then tell me what exactly YOU think Jesus is asking for.
I have already told you in the above post, Mike, all three uses of para in these verses are dative, therefore pointing us to the direct object of the preposition “para.”
“favor with God” [Lk 1:30
“glory with thee” [John 17:5]
“glorify with thyself [John 17:5]In your objection, you referenced two different cases, the genitive and the accusative and thought they were the same.
You really should stop questioning my Greek applications, clean up your act, and quit your accusations and stop calling your friends to watch you clean my clock online.
Okay Paladin,
That was a very big and confusing post. I did see one instance where I mistakenly wrote “Greek PERFECT tense” by mistake. It was clearly a typo, since we both know our disagreement is about the Greek IMPERFECT tense.
Other than that, I don't see anything that differs from what I've been saying all along. Would you, (in a MUCH SMALLER POST), show me where I've “twisted your intentions” or posted the “reverse” of what you really claimed? Because all I see is a bunch of questions I asked you to solicit some clarification about some of the things you said.
I mean, look at the post you just made, Paladin. Look at the whole discussion about NETNotes. You still are claiming I pointed to the verb “to be” when you can clearly see from the posts that YOU just quoted that I didn't. I don't know what to say. I bolded “they KEPT on asking”, yet you keep saying I bolded the “to be” part of NETNote's info.
It's right there in what YOU just posted, dude. I don't see any bolding of the “to be” part. How is it that you do?
To anyone on this thread: PLEASE read the part of Paladin's huge post that includes the green quote from NETNotes. Does anyone else see where I pointed to the “to be” exception that NETNotes included in their explanation? Does anyone see where I bolded the “to be” part? I am really confused because Paladin seems to be seeing things that aren't there. Please help him to see that I NEVER even mentioned the “to be” part, let alone bolded it.
Okay, now on to the ONLY thing I've been trying to discuss for weeks:
Quote If John intended to convey a prehistoric glory Jesus once had, but no longer has, as in “discontinued,” it would be aorist, simple completed action form of echo;[esxomen, I Thes 1:9]; or [esxon; Mat 22:28;Mark 12:23;Luke 20:33; Philemon 1:7;Jude 1:3]. But John used the imperfect form of echo, which constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past.
This was taken right out of your last post, Paladin. These are your words. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it sure seems to me that you are saying the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibits John from speaking of “a prehistoric glory Jesus once had, but no longer has”.If you just put the words I supersized together, it sounds like this: If John intended to convey a prehistoric glory Jesus once had, but no longer has, as in “discontinued,” it would be aorist, but [since] John used the imperfect form of echo, [this cannot be what he intended to convey].
Is this what you were implying, or not? If not, then simply answer the following question that I've been asking and end this thing.
Does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5, IN AND OF ITSELF, prohibit Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past? YES or NO?
If that IS what you were implying, then Marty and I are both here to tell you that your implication was inaccurate.
mike
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 15 2011,08:14) Mike……….The only deceptive person here is YOU not Me or Paladin , Fact is I never said Paladin was Wrong (that is your LIE) nor did even suggest he was wrong in that statement. I knew he was going to get in trouble with that becasue i knew who you would twist up what he was saying and make it a major argument against him because that is your MO Mike. Just as your force the text to say what in fact it is not saying you do the same with things people quote here IMO.
Hi Gene,Please elaborate for all of us. Could you:
1. Show me where I have been deceptive with Paladin – or anyone else for that matter?
2. Show me where I LIED?
3. Show me where I twisted anything Paladin said?
4. Show me where I forced the text to say something other than what it says?
Gene, did you see where Marty posted the truth of the disagreement I'm having with Paladin? Did you see the Barabbas scripture that proves that Marty and I are the ones who are posting the truth of the matter?
It truly seemed to me that you were also finally siding with truth. But according to your following posts, it appears I misunderstood your comments. Which confuses me all the more – because why wouldn't you want to land on the side of the TRUTH of the matter at hand?
It's like you made a truthful statement, and then immediately started back-peddling to make sure every one knows that's NOT what you intended to do.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,15:26)
Okay Paladin,That was a very big and confusing post. That was a very big and confusing post. I did see one instance where I mistakenly wrote “Greek PERFECT tense” by mistake. It was clearly a typo, since we both know our disagreement is about the Greek IMPERFECT tense.
No, Mike, WE do not have a disagreement. YOU have a disagreement with the Greek grammarians and New Testament.
Quote Other than that, I don't see anything that differs from what I've been saying all along. Would you, (in a MUCH SMALLER POST), show me where I've “twisted your intentions” or posted the “reverse” of what you really claimed? Because all I see is a bunch of questions I asked you to solicit some clarification about some of the things you said. I mean, look at the post you just made, Paladin. Look at the whole discussion about NETNotes. You still are claiming I pointed to the verb “to be” when you can clearly see from the posts that YOU just quoted that I didn't. I don't know what to say. I bolded “they KEPT on asking”, yet you keep saying I bolded the “to be” part of NETNote's info.
It's right there in what YOU just posted, dude. I don't see any bolding of the “to be” part. How is it that you do?
To anyone on this thread: PLEASE read the part of Paladin's huge post that includes the green quote from NETNotes.
Does anyone else see where I pointed to the “to be” exception that NETNotes included in their explanation? Does anyone see where I bolded the “to be” part? I am really confused because Paladin seems to be seeing things that aren't there. Please help him to see that I NEVER even mentioned the “to be” part, let alone bolded it.TO ANYONE READING THIS THREAD, JUST FOLLOW THE DODGING MIKE – That's quite a charade Mike. You play dumb and ask all your friends to play dumb with you. Your problem is, you don't read what's right in front of your eyes, Mike. Can you tell the difference between “bolded” and “underlined?”
My new post is in underlined letters, and makes things quite clear.
Can you tell the difference between “Bolded” and
“green letters?” I never said you “bolded the words “To be,” I said you “highlighted the verb “to be” in green letters Mike, so please, quit saying you did not reference the verb “to be.”And stop calling your friends to help you in your perfidy. Begin by reading what I actually said in my post.
Quote Okay, now on to the ONLY thing I've been trying to discuss for weeks: Quote If John intended to convey a prehistoric glory Jesus once had, but no longer has, as in “discontinued,” it would be aorist, simple completed action form of echo;[esxomen, I Thes 1:9]; or [esxon; Mat 22:28;Mark 12:23;Luke 20:33; Philemon 1:7;Jude 1:3]. But John used the imperfect form of echo, which constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past.
This was taken right out of your last post, Paladin. These are your words. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it sure seems to me that you are saying the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibits John from speaking of “a prehistoric glory Jesus once had, but no longer has”.
“Correct you if you are wrong? Correct you if you are wrong? How does one go about “correcting” you Mike? I just showed you where you highlighted the verb
“to be” in NetNotes remark, and you didn't even see it.I have been telling you for weeks to stop translating my post into what you think I meant to say. Finally you admit “prohibits Jesus from asking…etc” came from your post.
Now, Mike, If I were to follow the standard of behaviour you have set for the thread, here's where I am supposed to accuse you of all kinds of nefarious perfidy, and use phrases like “deliberate” and “on purpose,” and a few others. Why? Because you claim your standard is to “treat them like they treat me.” After all, the monitor is supposed to set the standard for all other posters.
I don't need to abuse you Mike, you are doing that just fine without my help. And to make it worse, you appealed to your friends to come help you do it.
Quote If you just put the words I supersized together, it sounds like this: If John intended to convey a prehistoric glory Jesus once had, but no longer has, as in “discontinued,” it would be aorist, but [since] John used the imperfect form of echo, [this cannot be what he intended to convey]. Is this what you were implying, or not?
Nope! I have told you before, Mike, I do not “imply,” I clearly state what I intend to convey. Go back and read my
“statement” and you will see what I clearly “said.” I “implied” nothing whatsoever. And the reason is due to two words;
“imply” and “infer.” If I “imply” something, you may “infer” something else from what I “implied.” That is where all those thousands of denominations come from. One scholar “implies” something, another “infers” something else, and a new denomination springs into being from nothing other than a bad inferrence from a false implication. I don't play that game.Quote If not, then simply answer the following question that I've been asking and end this thing. But it never ends with you Mike, you change what was posted, just as you changed my remark about “green letters” to “BOLDED
Quote Does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5, IN AND OF ITSELF, prohibit Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past? YES or NO? If that IS what you were implying, then Marty and I are both here to tell you that your implication was inaccurate.
I already answered that question in the prior post, Mike, go back and read it and “end this thing.”
Quote (Paladin @ July 16 2011,04:01) Can you tell the difference between “Bolded” and
“green letters?” I never said you “bolded the words “To be,” I said you “highlighted the verb “to be” in green letters Mike, so please, quit saying you did not reference the verb “to be.”
Paladin, for the FOURTH TIME, I simply quoted the WHOLE piece of info from NETNotes. I always put secular sources in green letters and scriptures in brown letters to set them aside from my own purple letters.Did I ever bring up the “to be” part of NETNote's info to you? Did I ever try to make a claim that “echo” was the verb “to be”?
If so, show me where I did this. And I mean the EXACT sentence where I ever tried to use the “to be” part of the NETNotes quote as an argument.
Do you think we can't all see what you're doing? The disagreement never was about “to be”, although you'd like to divert everyone’s attention to that to distract them from the REAL issue. Look at your own huge post. You can see that at least TWICE I tried to explain to you that “to be” was never something I pointed to or tried to use as info in our discussion. It was merely info that happened to be included in the entire NETNotes explanation of the Greek imperfect tense that I quoted. I didn't use it. I didn't “highlight it” in any way to set it aside from the rest of the NETNotes quote.
In fact, I DID highlight the part of that quote that I DID use in our discussion. That was the “they KEPT on asking” part.
I also highlighted the word “generally”. But I didn't even say one word about the “to be” part of the quote.
Paladin, do you think people here can't read? Do you think they can't read how you TRIED to cover up your own mistake by making the discussion be about the verb “to be” when I never even mentioned that part? Do you think they can't read my own words:
Quote Did I ever imply that “I had” was the verb “to be”?
That was the FIRST time I told you I wasn't saying anything about the “to be” part of NETNote's quote.Quote Why would you divert from the issue with this crap? I quoted a source about the imperfect Greek text in which they mentioned the verb “to be”. I quoted the source in full, but I did not ever mention the “to be” part, because it does not fit this circumstance.
That was the SECOND time I told you I wasn't saying anything about the “to be” part of NETNote's quote.These quotes are from your own post, Paladin. And here is the actual quote I made of the NETNote's info – ALL OF IT IN GREEN – as is nearly always the case when I quote a secular source:
5775 Tense – Imperfect
The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.Now Paladin, there is ONE single word and ONE single phrase of that whole information that I “highlighted”. Can anyone here tell me the FIVE words of this whole quote that I “highlighted”? Can anyone here tell me if the last sentence which deals with the verb “to be” was ever “highlighted” or mentioned by me at all?
Yet here I am, once again spending an hour of my life explaining away your false accusations. And why? Because you can't bring yourself to answer a simple YES or NO question that would prove you wrong? So instead, you try to distract people's attention away from that fact by making up a false story about me.
Paladin, if I make a quote of a secular source ALL in green letters, and then BOLD only FIVE of the words in that quote, which FIVE WORDS THAT ARE BOLDED do you suppose I'm “highlighting”?
(I underlined the answer………………now can you guess it correctly?)
Paladin, can you produce a single statement that I made in MY OWN WORDS that would lead anyone to believe I was making a case using the verb “to be”?
Paladin, are you able to read your own post and identify at least TWO times that I point blank told you that I never argued anything using the verb “to be” and that I only included that last sentence because it was part of the WHOLE information from NETNotes about the Greek imperfect tense?
So why in the Name of God are you STILL trying to avoid answering a simple YES or NO question with this same lame distraction? And why would you use a situation that so obviously shows YOU to be WRONG to try and prove that I am the one who is “wrong” in some way?
You're shooting yourself in the foot, dude.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,15:46) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 15 2011,08:14) Mike……….The only deceptive person here is YOU not Me or Paladin , Fact is I never said Paladin was Wrong (that is your LIE) nor did even suggest he was wrong in that statement. I knew he was going to get in trouble with that becasue i knew who you would twist up what he was saying and make it a major argument against him because that is your MO Mike. Just as your force the text to say what in fact it is not saying you do the same with things people quote here IMO.
Hi Gene,Please elaborate for all of us. Could you:
2. Show me where I LIED?
MIke……..This has nothing to do with Paladin, it has to do with you saying I was saying what he said was “Wrong” , and that was a LIE any way you want to hack it. Trying to divert the attention to Paladin is just a ploy on your part to divert away from the truth. So be the Man Here and give yourself a Tile as you so quickly do others disagree with you who you accuse of lying about or Misquoting others, Or are you immune from being held accountable for you false representation of what others are saying. IMOQuote (Paladin @ July 16 2011,04:01) “Correct you if you are wrong? Correct you if you are wrong? How does one go about “correcting” you Mike? I just showed you where you highlighted the verb
“to be” in NetNotes remark, and you didn't even see it.
Yes Paladin, correct me if I'm wrong. I hopefully just taught you that if someone's whole post is in the color green, and they've bolded five words out of that post, it is only the five bolded words that are “highlighted”, and not the WHOLE GREEN POST.So…………….
Okay, now on to the ONLY thing I've been trying to discuss for weeks:
Quote If John intended to convey a prehistoric glory Jesus once had, but no longer has, as in “discontinued,” it would be aorist, simple completed action form of echo;[esxomen, I Thes 1:9]; or [esxon; Mat 22:28;Mark 12:23;Luke 20:33; Philemon 1:7;Jude 1:3]. But John used the imperfect form of echo, which constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past.
This was taken right out of your last post, Paladin. These are your words. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it sure seems to me that you are saying the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibits John from speaking of “a prehistoric glory Jesus once had, but no longer has”.So, an honest man who just wants to discuss scripture would either CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, or ADMIT that this really IS what he was saying.
Which one is it? WERE you saying the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibited Jesus from speaking of a glory he had, but then no longer had…………….or not?
I just recently summed up what I thought Marty was saying about 17:5 in the “Pre-existent” thread. I asked him if I was understanding his understanding correctly. What do you suppose Marty did, Paladin? Do you suppose he ran me through hoops and tried all kinds of diversions to avoid my very simple question? Do you suppose that months later, I'm still going round and round trying to get my simple question answered?
NOPE. Marty simply hit the letter “N” on his keyboard, followed by the letter “O”, and formed the word “NO”.
See? I asked him a fair and honest question about whether or not I was understanding what he was saying correctly, and he just said “NO”.
Wow! Imagine the kind of discussion I can have with Marty because he knows how to discourse with another human being!
Now I've asked YOU a fair, honest, and simple question designed to bring ME to a better understanding of what YOU believe. WHY would you not WANT to help me to understand what you believe? WHY would you rather make this thing go on and on and on until infinity?
Aren't you TRYING to help people understand your version of the truth?I just don't understand why you wouldn't answer a simple question. It truly baffles me.
mike
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 16 2011,09:37) MIke……..This has nothing to do with Paladin, it has to do with you saying I was saying what he said was “Wrong” , and that was a LIE any way you want to hack it.
Well let's see. I have been asking a simple question about the imperfect tense of “echo” for a long time. Marty finally answered my question honestly and correctly – for there IS only one truthful answer to that specific question.I taunted you saying, “See Gene? Paladin WAS wrong!”
And your next response was, in essence, “I knew all along that Paladin was going to run into trouble with this 'echo' thing”.
So forgive me for taking that sequence of words and events to mean that you also knew the correct answer to the question like Marty did. But that IS truly how I took your statement. Therefore, it wasn't a LIE, like you've been saying, but an apparent misunderstanding.
Which brings the same question back up to you again:
Gene, did the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5, IN AND OF ITSELF, prohibit Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past? YES or NO?Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 16 2011,09:37) So be the Man Here and give yourself a Tile as you so quickly do others disagree with you who you accuse of lying
Could you show me the time I “quickly” gave anyone a tile? Could you show me the time where anyone got a tile from me without first being given the opportunity to make a correction of their statement to avoid the tile?Ask Jack if he got a chance to correct what he said before receiving his tiles. Ask Istari if I gave him the same chance.
Now, anyone in their right mind would have taken the same circumstance and words to mean the same thing I took them to mean. And for YOU to keep insisting I “lied” when it's obvious that it was an honest mistake is a lie in itself, Gene. So perhaps it is YOU who should receive a tile, eh?
mike
5775 Tense – Imperfect
The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.
Hi Gene,Could you point out the five words in this quote that I “highlighted” for Paladin?
Marty, could YOU?
Pierre? Irene? Anyone?
Thanks,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
