- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi All,
On page 163 of the “Incarnation” thread, Paladin made this comment:
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. 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.
(Emphasis mine)For 35 pages, (and probably approaching a million words of text and 20 hours out of my life), I have been trying to gain a simple understanding of Paladin's claim.
I have asked questions like this one, from page 196:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2011,22:26) 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?
To which I've receive many diversions, avoidances, and flippant remarks like this one, also from page 196:
Quote (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 have posted this simple question, (taken from page 196), to Paladin around 20 times now:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2011,22:26) 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? Yet he has refused to answer over and over. What gives? His latest response, from page 197, was:
Quote (Paladin @ July 17 2011,07:48) Mike, once more, and for the last time, it is not a “yes” or “no” answer, so quit asking it in a “yes” or “no” format.
Actually, as my memory serves, this is the FIRST time he even acknowledged I was asking him a question at all, so I'm not sure what he means by “once more, and for the last time”.
So, my questions to you are:
1. Is this in fact a YES or NO question?2. Should Paladin receive a tile for his continual refusal to simply answer it?
For those of you who aren't familiar with Paladin or his thread, he is a man who thrives on posting many fancy words of Greek grammar which he then tries his best to twist in order to convince others, who might not be adept at the Greek language, that the Greek language itself prohibits Jesus from pre-existing. His main claim is that the English translators of scripture have many times “misunderstood” the rules of Greek grammar, and therefore have produced a translation that favors the pre-existence of Jesus, when it truly shouldn't.
As far as this current disagreement we're having, I have showed him Matthew 27:16, which also uses the imperfect tense of the word “echo”, yet DOESN'T mean the Roman prisoner Barabbas was STILL in Roman custody at the time Matthew wrote his gospel.
So while the Greek imperfect tense indicates a action that was continuous in the past, it does not prohibit that action from having ended since then. According to NETNotes, it represents the difference between saying, “they asked” and “they KEPT ON ASKING”.
Now, the people who were “asking” could possibly STILL BE asking to this very day – but the imperfect tense does not prohibit the “asking” from having ended a long time ago.
And it has been MY understanding that Paladin's was claiming that Jesus couldn't have possibly been asking for the return of a glory he had with God before the creation of the world because the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibited such an event.
But I don't want to go off half-cocked, so I've been trying desperately to have him acknowledge whether or not that IS in fact what he was trying to claim. If I've incorrectly understood his claim, then why won't he just say so?
Aren't we here to not only share our understanding of scripture, but also to DEFEND what it is we've shared? Is there any credible reason for Paladin to string me along for months on this thing when I'm only asking, “IS this what you were saying, or is it NOT?” ? The answer TRULY only requires a YES or a NO, right?
Please vote for the appropriate combination of my bolded and numbered questions. This has been a maddening and very frustrating experience for me.
peace and love,
mikeMike
the stale mate with Paladin is normal like it is with all who do not see and want to enriched themselves with the truth of God s word,
so their allegiance to there religion or their own ego is preventing them to be found true before the Lord Jesus and our God Jehovah
those men are not for truth but they like to be saluted with what they know,and when they are faced with what they do ,Like Peter and Paul who corrected him for his behavior, it needs what they do not have humility.
we live in a strange world today and the truth of God as to be above all other if we want to benefit of God grace.
so good work brother mike
Pierre
Thanks Pierre,
Why is it that the only ones who ever refuse to answer questions or defend their claims are the ones claiming unscriptural things?
I can't remember me or you or Irene or t8 ever refusing to answer a LEGITIMATE direct question from someone.
peace,
mikeHi Mike! What I can say. Reading all those posts that Paladin has made, I would have given up a long time ago. I salute You for still posting and trying to make Him stand up for the truth. When a Brother avoids a question that many times, He should be punished for it.
Paladin thinks to highly of Himself, and even saying that He knows it better then the translators do.
Keep up the good work, Mike…
Peace and Love IreneQuote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2011,12:41) Thanks Pierre, Why is it that the only ones who ever refuse to answer questions or defend their claims are the ones claiming unscriptural things?
I can't remember me or you or Irene or t8 ever refusing to answer a LEGITIMATE direct question from someone.
peace,
mike
Mikewe are looking to do better in the knowledge of Gods truth ,
and so always ready to defend the truth we have learned ,
Pierre
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2011,12:02) Thanks Irene and Pierre! 
Your support through this is appreciated!
Your welcome…..IreneQuote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2011,19:02) Thanks Irene and Pierre! Your support through this is appreciated!
Mike Mike,
Quote For 35 pages, (and probably approaching a million words of text and 20 hours out of my life), I have been trying to gain a simple understanding of Paladin's claim.
Wow! that works out to 833 WPM, no wonder you can post 6000 posts in a year
Just kidding – Wm
Sorry I haven't been keeping up with that thread, and I've been too busy to research it, to make a proper judgment.
Wm
Hi Mike,
I haven't been following the thread; but not answering a question
with either a yes or a no answer, is hardly a tile-able offense.If one were to avoid a question altogether, that is a different matter.
This has only happened to me a small number of times (6 or 7),
mostly by Kangaroo Jack, but also once or twice by Kieth.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi All
Sometimes posters get an answer they don't like so then they claim you didn't answer them. In fact they won't accept an answer as a legitimate answer unless the answer agrees with the one who asked the question.
I don't think a tile should be given to anyone for not answering any question. Tiles should be for abusive and illicit behavior toward another poster.
WJ
Hmmmm………interesting responses.
I think the simple question “IS that what you were saying or not?” should be easy enough to answer. And if the answer is going to be, “Well, kind of – with these exceptions”, or something to that effect, then just SAY THAT! Don't sit there ignoring someone by saying, “It's not a YES or NO question”. If it's not a YES or NO question, then answer it however you want – BUT ANSWER IT! And reposting the post which brought up the question in the first place is no kind of clarification, right?
That's how I feel. And I notice that the only ones here who refuse to answer questions are those who are trying to claim what is not supported by scriptures. There is never a question too hard for those of us here who DO base our whole understanding on scriptures – and therefore we simply answer them.
Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's because I know I can answer every question thrown at me, I assume that others who are making claims are also able to defend those claims when asked questions about them.
Thanks for you comments and votes.
mike
Keith! To ignore someones question, is ignorance. Do you support that? I don;t….. And not only once did Mike asked that question, but many times…..Irene
Paladin
you say';
If I understand this “Incarnation” trinity theory, you are telling me that Jesus preexisted with the Father in eternity, then “incarnated” by the Holy spirit in the womb of Mary.Scripture tells a far different story. At least three times in three different accounts, we are told that Jesus is the seed of Adam or the woman (Eve), in Messianic prophecies.,,,,,,
We are told of the seed promise beginning with Gen 3:15, where the woman is told “Thy seed” so the incarnation begins with this woman of prophecy. Then her progeny carry that seed, and passed it on through several generations till Abraham is specifically mentioned by name, as one in a long line of the “seed carriers.” He is promised that “through thy seed” all nations will be blessed. It is similar to the promise first made to “the woman” of Gen 3:15
==============================================this is your main purpose to prove to all that Christ did not preexisted prior to his birth on earth,
and so use grammar to try to prove scriptures truth ,but what is that scriptures tells us ?1Co 2:4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power,
1Co 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.Eph 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.
2Ti 2:14 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
Ro 4:21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.
Ro 4:22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Ro 4:23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone,
Ro 4:24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
Ro 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.I do not see anything else than what happen between you and Mike is the friction on the preexistence of Christ ,that you deny and what Mike supports and in so debating grammar becomes the judge of the truth ?can this be ? NO
the truth of God is not based on grammar even if the written word as been written in a language any one ,the word of God does not rely on men's understanding but to men receiving the understanding of God,
no one will be saved on the bases of understanding Greek or Hebrew ,this would similar to be circumcised or following the law with animal offerings,
so if you are wise and have knowledge of godly understanding show it within scriptures,not grammar,but true knowledge and wisdom from above,
Pierre
————–
PR
i am just a fishermanQuote (Pastry @ July 18 2011,17:52) Keith! To ignore someones question, is ignorance. Do you support that? I don;t….. And not only once did Mike asked that question, but many times…..Irene
IreneReally, so when Jesus ignored questions from the hypocrites he was “ignorant”? When Jesus “opened not his mouth” that was ignorance? That seems like an ignorant remark to me Irene.
Sometimes the question is loaded for instance if I ask you “Have you beaten George lately?” If you answer “No” then I may assume that you have beaten George in the past and if you answer “Yes” then that means you beat George.
Can you see how the question is loaded and there is no right answer.
The correct and honest way to ask the question is “Have you ever beaten your husband”?.
As you can see the first question “Assumes” that you beat your husband and the second question doesn't assume anything but is just a straight forward question.
Another example would be “Do you believe in the Trinity, the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost”?
You would say “No” and then I could say that you do not believe in the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. But then that would not be true would it? That’s because you do believe in the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost.
As you can see the question is loaded because if I ask you “Do you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost then you would say “Yes”. That would be a straight forward question that isn't loaded with assumptions.
See what I mean?
WJ
Quote (Pastry @ July 18 2011,17:52) Keith! To ignore someones question, is ignorance. Do you support that? I don;t….. And not only once did Mike asked that question, but many times…..Irene
IreneSo you would give someone a “tile” for ignorance?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 20 2011,04:04) Quote (Pastry @ July 18 2011,17:52) Keith! To ignore someones question, is ignorance. Do you support that? I don;t….. And not only once did Mike asked that question, but many times…..Irene
IreneSo you would give someone a “tile” for ignorance?
WJ
Keith,All should take heed to this principle from the Christian Chat Forum
“No one is required to answer your questions, or respond in anyway to your messages. In most cases others will respond to messages posted, but nobody is required to. Don't demand other members of this website to answer your post. No one here owes you anything.”
http://www.christianchatforum.com/info/rules.shtml
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 19 2011,12:58) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 20 2011,04:04) Quote (Pastry @ July 18 2011,17:52) Keith! To ignore someones question, is ignorance. Do you support that? I don;t….. And not only once did Mike asked that question, but many times…..Irene
IreneSo you would give someone a “tile” for ignorance?
WJ
Keith,All should take heed to this principle from the Christian Chat Forum
“No one is required to answer your questions, or respond in anyway to your messages. In most cases others will respond to messages posted, but nobody is required to. Don't demand other members of this website to answer your post. No one here owes you anything.”
http://www.christianchatforum.com/info/rules.shtml
Jack
Exactly! And who will decide if someone should get a tile but Mike and t8?If everyone here is responsible to responding to every post or question then everyone should have tiles, but I doubt you will ever see Mike or t8 have one!
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
