Steven Avery

Point taken and received. My sincere apologies for contributing to any harshness in dialog.

btw, I do not have any Greek savvy. However, I enjoy language Bible discussions (e.g. see the 2 Samuel 21:19 brother of Goliath thread) and have good resources and contact with men who have specialized in researching and writing on these very verses ... along with that I have other web contacts, and some experience in dissecting and parsing and understanding various Bible exegesis issues. Plus I am a decent researcher and use common sense and logic :-) Tooting my own horn a bit, but hopefully only to splain why this thread jumped out at me as very significant.

Please understand that I originally had no intention in this dialog of getting involved in the various Earl Doherty theories, which to me have generally been another train passing in the night. And I was not even aware that these verses are (apparently) a cornerstone of his particular ahistorist views. In a sense it was a pleasant suprise to be pushed to go so deep into these various issues so quickly. And, as in any new discussion, it takes me a little time to separate out real issues from pseudo-issues from non-issues.

Soul, I consider all these issues on this thread very important
1st - the proper exegesis of these verses
2nd - the mythicist and ahistorict challenge using their interp of the Johannine epistles.

Your post of moderation and intent to uplift the dialog is much appreciated.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

EarlDoherty

This is a general remark to the thread to tie things up.

You know, all that Steven had to do was acknowledge that the reading or interpretation he prefers was a, shall we say, "pastoral" reading on the part of certain pastoral-oriented commentators who appeal to his own sensibilities, much in the way that a modern priest or minister takes a passage from scripture and draws some kind of meaning or significance from it. Where he went too far was in imputing that this had to be the meaning originally in mind and intended by the writer.

He quotes an Earl Henn (how can I disagree with someone with such a fine name?):

Now these are fine sentiments, and no doubt inspiring to those receptive to such things. And I see that Steven has reduced his bottom-line argumentation to an appeal to the use of the perfect tense in principle, basically in English, though I see no basic difference in Greek, though Greek has a much wider range of participles and forms for them, and makes much heavier use of them than English.

But if we were to apply the kind of literal application Steven wants to use, even the above statement by Henn would in its first part be nonsense. Yes, the perfect tense implies that Jesus was born as a flesh and blood human being (which is all I am claiming for both passages!), but it can hardly mean, as Henn states it, that Jesus Christ continues to be born as a human being. When I say that the action is completed in the past, this is clear. Jesus' birth was completed in the past. The perfect tense remains legitimate because the state of him having been born in the past continues as an historical fact with its effects in the present Christian movement.

If Henn wants to go only this far in reading the meaning in the writer's mind then all well and good, and Steven and I should have nothing to argue about. Or let's put it this way: we cannot demonstrate that the second part of the interpretation was necessarily in the writer's mind, and certainly not on account of his use of the perfect. Then we have a statement in the epistles which I can draw on to make the point I want to make. Where Steven crossed the line is to claim that I can't so draw on it, because it doesn't in any way refer to Christ's completed birth in the past, but only to this "ongoing presence" or reliving of a life in the believer. (At least that's the implication I took from him.) And yet, all three quotes Steven provides read this dual meaning into it. It almost becomes moot whether or not the original writer did or could have had the second part of the meaning in mind. Essentially, it doesn't matter to me, even though I personally can't read such a meaning into it because the tone and circumstances of the epistle do not suggest that such a nice thought was in play, or that it would have served his purposes. 1 & 2 John are simply too polemical, and the idea of rejecting apostles on that basis doesn't make sense. It is modern commentators who are making all 'touchy feely' with sentiments that today can be read into the words.

And just to make my point about completed actions in the perfect, consider (just the meaning, and nothing to do with the "main verb"):

The check you sent me in the mail has been deposited in my account.

The relationship with my girlfriend has been terminated.

Clearly there is no "ongoing action" in these uses of the perfect. I am not still depositing, and I am not still terminating. I could just as easily have said it in a direct past tense: "was deposited yesterday," or "was terminated yesterday." All that can be said in regard to the use of the perfect is that I choose it, probably unconsciously, to emphasize that we are now in a state of these things having been done.

I may have been a little harsh myself on Steven in my last post, but one has to understand that I get a lot of crap (understandably, it goes with the territory), some of it far worse than Steven's tone or accusations, and sometimes I just don't feel like taking it lying down.

That said, I will probably choose not to have any further dialogue with him.

Best wishes,
Earl Doherty

Julian

Being a moderator I cannot put praxeus on my ignore list, however, I will no longer engage in any debate with him. He has admitted to having little skill in Greek yet has undertaken to argue with people who know the language, much more Earl than myself, to be sure.

I will let the people who read this thread, based on Earl's and my post s versus prax's, judge for themselves who hold the more reasonable position and who shows the proper amount of maturity in their posts. I have no worries regarding the readers' judgment in this case.

You say that you know too little about Greek to judge the presentations regarding the Greek in this thread. Well, all you have to do is to look at is who has used Greek and commented upon it and who hasn't. That should clear up any confusion you may have in this thread.

The fact of the matter is that the kind of post we saw earlier from Earl is a fairly typical example of a good exegesis based on the particulars of Greek and, like most such presentations, it is hardly ever conclusive. While Earl's analysis based on the facts is flawless to the best of my knowledge (I would be the equivalent of a first year Greek student) his conclusions are subjective. This does not make them wrong but it does mean that other people will arrive at different conclusions. That is to be expected and is, after all, why we are here.

My opinion of prax's posts should be clear and I wouldn't pay too much attention to the bizarre prattle of a KJV only apologist who uses scornful derision in place of scholarly arguments. Just my opinion, of course, but one I am sure I share with most others.

Julian

Chris Weimer

I'm sorry to interrupt the thread here - but Earl's definition of a perfect passive participle didn't sound right to me. Indeed, if I may quote one book.

"The perfect participle refers to a state simultaneous with the main verb, which has resulted from an action before it."

In Greek, the perfect tense is described as a present state or action resulting from a past action. In Latin, however, the perfect is a completed action with no relation to the present state. I'm thinking the Latin imperfect is closer to the Greek perfect than the Latin perfect. Earl does accurately describe the Latin perfect, but not the Greek.

As an example, τεθνηκε (perfect) does not mean "he died" or but "he has died".

This is from a New Testament Greek book, so I checked it with a Classical Greek also.

The Classical Greek book is almost identical with the Greek one. Even in English, "he has died" and will continue to be dead. "He has read" and continues to read.

I John iv.2: Ιησουν ΧÏ?ιστον εν σαÏ?κι εληλυθοτα - Jesus didn't come in the flesh once and then leave. He is come in the flesh.

Honestly, the usage doesn't make sense to me at all here. The easier interpretation would be the aorist sense of the perfect, but it's not grammatically correct. Then again, there are other grammatical errors in the NT. It could be a particular creed being repeated, or it could be odd theology - it could even have been deliberately altered to make sense (I doubt it).

Since John is speaking polemically here, perhaps he's arguing against those who claim that Jesus not only was never in the flesh, but those who say that Jesus rose with a spiritual body, and not a fleshly body.

Ok, it makes more sense now. (sorry for being sporadic, I'm merely showing thought-processes.) For John, perhaps Jesus is still the risen Christ in the flesh - wasn't there an heretical group that claimed that Jesus rose in a spiritual body and not a body in the flesh? Perhaps this is an attack against them.

EDITED: I just checked with another person. I asked him about the specific grammar question, and failed to mention the controversy. His exact reply: "In classical Greek, the action extends into the present; it's considered primary sequence. But, in Koine and later, the perfect is considered a past tense."

Perhaps I need to get a new NT Greek book.

EDITED: Yet another book espousing the first view: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s/page152.html

Steven Avery

Earl, the point you hide here is very simple. These "sensibilities" are based upon a 100% acceptance and respect of the actual text and its grammar, seeking a full exegesis that matches every verse. Other folks like to work with conjectured layers and redactions. The "pastoral" folks are very uncomfortable with eliminating a verse from consideration by saying "well it really means something else, let's give it a meaning from over here" as some, including yourself, try to do with 2 John 7.

Overall, you are the one who should make an announcment saying -
"I will analyze these epistles, but I will put my own interpretative agenda over the actual text of the words"

Please do not deceive the forum in this manner. My bottom-line argumentation is that all of your claims about a "main verb" that "governed" the Johannine sections were smoke and mirrors. And that has been conclusively demonstrated, and you simply abandoned the field. So, in the last post I went to the one significant grammatical claim of yours that was not so based, and continued that discussion.

No, you are doing a lot more than that. You are claiming that this if the full and main sense of the verses, both in 1 John and 2 John. You do that below in this very post.

Yet, if the sense of the verses are acknowledging His divine nature, His Messiahship, His return, and most especially His manifestation through the body of beleivers, then your arguments trying to focus the interpretation on the physical birth of Jesus are of no significance.

However Henn and all the other quotes make themselves perfectly clear.

"John is saying that Jesus Christ is still human in the sense that He is living His life over again in human beings who submit to Him through the power of the Holy Spirit."

If the verse said, "Jesus Christ is born in the flesh" your attempt to rewrite Henn and Adams and Schep below might be of some interest, but it does not. You have taken a scalpel and dissected Henn's statements in a way that is scholastically indefensible.

This is one possible alternative understanding to those below. One key problem is that it will not extrapolate to 2 John 7, while the views below will.

Quote please ? Earl, this is the second time you have placed words in my mouth on critical issues. It did not show integrity when you bypassed the first case when it was challenged. Please show some integrity here.

Ahh, so my "crossing the line" was simply your reading into my words what I never said. Ok, so the earlier statement of what I said is now inoperative. I still would your appreciate going back to the earlier case of putting your words in my mouth ("main verb"). There you did it as a quote.

Thank you for at least defacto acknowledging that their understanding is consistent and grammatically sensible. From that point of view we can then go on to discuss both 2 John 7 and the context of both verses. You give part of your view of the context in the next section. I would prefer first to switch over to 2 John 7, and then go into the full context.

Here we will have a good base for a contextual discussion, although 2 John 7 grammar would be better first, since we have reasonable agreement on 1 John 4. If Earl bows out, as indicated, that is his right, perhaps others will take up the banner of the context being an anti-docetic polemic versus the types of understandings expressed below.

Obviously, it would be better to work with Greek forms of the perfect that are closest to this verse. And Chris already has pointed out problems with your attempts here to try to make the Greek perfect passive participle into a simple past event. We should continue this from his comments.

Your choice. I would appreciate your acknowledging two points if it is your intention to end the dialog.

a) the whole original "main verb" and "governed" attempt has been defacto abandoned.

b) the very translations that you used do not support your theory of a completed action in 1 John 4:2, (the theory that Chris also addresses on a grammatic level right above)

If you stay in, I see three other issues that are most on the table.

1) Chris's post expressing concern about your grammar understanding here
2) 2 John 7, and explaining its grammatical difference
3) Interpretation and context of the Johannine "come in the flesh" passages.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

This is a helpful acknowledgment. We have seen the actual analysis questioned as well, in the key issue of his attempt to make 1 John 4 as equivalent to a simple English past tense. More importantly, it is on the base of this questionable and subjective analysis upon which he builds his interpretations of the Johannine epistles. Understanding them as subjective itself is a good start.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Chris Weimer

Praxeus - there's evidence for both, as I did say. Earl isn't necessarily wrong. In fact, the point that the simple past works better than normal Greek use in this instance is probably evidence for it being so.

Steven Avery

Hi Chris. I understand that view and indicated that we are not that far apart on 1 John 4. Overall, it would be very helpful to see the closest analogous verses in the NT using that tense construction, since I understand that there are relatively few.

Where I say that Earl was flat-out wrong is in reference to his original attempt to subsume this part of the verse as a subordinate, one "governed", by a "main verb", the verb indicating that the no-confessors have gone forth, or are going forth, from us. That this argument was false (and now apparently abandoned) is crystal clear from a simple English examination of the full section.

Chris - would you would agree that there is great difficulty in trying to fit the tense usage of 2 John 7 into a concept of a fully completed action ? Something of a round verse in a square exegesis.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Chris Weimer

I'm sorry praxeus, but simple past seems better in that instance. It may not be correct, though, but it does look better, at least to me. I for one wouldn't hinge any theories on it.

Steven Avery

Please make sure you are giving a grammatical analysis and not super-imposing a doctrinal understanding. It is a common practice to translate to match doctrine. Have you done the same type of grammatical tense research that you did on 1 John 4 ?

Shalom Shabbat,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic