What must it be like -- to be wrong on a doctrinal POV?

No you didn't. Only one of your passages even contained a perfect tense verb in it. Nice try. Now again please show me a Greek resource a book a Greek professor that says a perfect tense verb does not mean what I have spelled out.

I'm looking forward to this.

Well I've got several Greek scholars that disagree with you that have spent their lives studying the language. So please put your resource(s) on the table which says that a perfect tense verb, epescially the one in question can mean "but may not always be so."

So now you are admitting that it is possible. Having a hard time making up your mind there huh Bob. So please show me contextually why this is not a case that can be taken that far?

You just keep running into problems and having to change your story. Again I'm looking forward to this.

 

JJ?? Why did you get a new screen name? Are you posting incognito? :laugh:

 

BobRyan:

"The definition for Perfect Tense is NOT " CAN never be changed" as much as you like to imagine that to be true sir."

GE:

Looking at the English without an eye for the Greek at all, why not should 'Perfect' not mean 'can never be changed'? Christ was 'perfected' through and in resurrection from the dead - should he return to a mortal body, ever?

 

Steaver:

".... With that said, I don't believe that Isaiah 28:10 is the same as comparing scripture to scripture and allowing scripture to interpret scripture. .... (But ps brother, I don't think Isaiah 28 has anything to do with scripture interpreting scripture)."

GE:

Steaver, thank you very much for your humbleness; you serve as an example - in Jesus' footsteps together!

I would like though to correct a little misunderstanding.

I don't believe any '7-year tribulation' period, for exactly the reason you say, "scripture interpreting scripture".

I believe all (true) Christianity should be and is and had been co-suffering with and co-sufferers of, Jesus Christ. 'Suffering' is as much a 'sign' of genuineness of a Christian as are love and faith. No persecution or suffering through persecution is or should be exceptional for the believer or for the Church. It should be part of our make-up, in fact one of the indispensible first elements of our constitution. Therefore, for me in any case, 'the first resurrection' does not realise apart from the witness for Christ; the 'thousand years they reigned with Christ' never exempts witness through suffering and suffering through witness.

Did you know, only four 'things' are in the NT 'classified' as being an 'endeiksis' - an 'intrinsical sign' - the above three and Jesus Christ? Many things can be 'signs' - not of the same 'sign-ificance' as an 'endeiksis'; they may be described with the word 'sehmeia' -'germ', 'seed', like baptism is called a 'sign'. It does not MAKE one a Christian; whereas the four 'endeiksies' are what MAKE of one a Christian: Jesus Christ first, love, faith, and ... suffering!

Therefore, something else, as Isaiah should not out of context be applied to Rv20, just so should Daniel 7 or wherever the idea of some 7-years persecution be got from, not be misapplied to Revelation anywhere. I understand it just like you do!

 

GE:

I haven't met your pier in stubborn blindness.

 

I'm on a semi-vaction and away from my normal computer and don't remember my login information This is a screen name I created a couple of years ago for the same reason, but just never posted. And I can actually remember the password for this one .

 

How it feels to change a doctrinal POV, one can imagine, when I step by step through Grace leading, exchanged my old view of the 'Thousand Years' a la SDA, for this:

I mentioned the significance of suffering for being one of the only four true signs of the life of Christian faith. Therefore, it must be deduced, that John in Rv20 saw, One: Christ reigned (Past Tense - not the-e-ere in the future), and Two: the saints, Three: “on thrones”, “ruling”, “with Him”, “thousand years”, the while he saw: Four: “the souls” – seeing their life, their lives - Five: “under the altar” of sacrifice – their offering, their suffering; their witness; their ‘martyrdom’.

Thus the saints ruled and reigned and witnessed the thousand years with Christ under suffering; or they never, reigned.

Their thrones were the crowns of their suffering "for the faith of Jesus". This is the realism, the reality, the truth of both the saints’ rule and witness of their ‘Thousand Year Reign With Christ’. It is our Age of Faith.

Of the four ‘endeiksies’ two are lasting and eternal; two “for a short while” and passing. Paul says (Scripture explaining Scripture, Steaver), “Now abideth faith, hope, love”. But, says he, “Love beareth all things; Love suffereth long; Love endureth all things; Love never faileth.” In this Scripture Christ is scarcely distinguishable from Love. If instead of the word, ‘love’, is read, ‘Christ’, the passage still makes perfect sense. Jesus Christ and Love are the two eternal of the four essential signs of the Kingdom of heaven. Faith will end, and suffering will end, and in the resurrected life won’t be needed, used or experienced. Jesus Christ will be the Finisher of our faith in the resurrection. He is the Author of our faith in the First Resurrection.

Therefore John speaks of the era in which suffering and faith, with Christ and love, ‘constitute’, or ‘make up’, the very ‘first essentials’ of Christian witness. He pictures the ‘Thousand Years’ of Christ’s and the saint’s “reign” and “rule” wherein suffering crowns the glory of the saints. They are under the altar of suffering witness – they carry the altar as were it the crown on their heads. “They reigned Thousand Years, this, the First Resurrection”. (Just the letters of the text itself!)

This –Rv20:1-5– is the earthly reign and rule therefore under the conditions of our human existence in this very day of persecution, as subjects of the Kingdom of Heaven, being “strangers and pilgrims on the earth” still, “desir(ing) a better country, even an heavenly wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God.” “For He hath prepared for them, a city”. The souls under the altar wait for that city patiently, believing, Rv14:12, suffering, Rv20:1-4. “I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write! Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth.” Saved, “are they that die in the Lord henceforth” - from the beginning of their reign with Christ the Thousand Years - their lives and souls “hidden in Christ in God”.

 

I agree with you Bob, that the Perfect not necessarily implies eternal staus quo by initial cause. Thrust of context should determine; sort of cause and effect should be considered. Example: Acts 20:7 using the Participle - Perfect - states a temporary status quo by initial cause in the past: While having had assembled before for Holy Communion, being on the First Day assembled still, Paul dealt with matters with the disciples." The disciples have not been assembled to today still. The status quo of the Sabbath Day's cause - 'having assembled before' - lasted through the evening and night of the First Day; they remained assembled. The nature of the case: temporary.

But acts of God are not like acts of men. Once God had saved a person in the past, the status quo of cause and effect shall stand fast forevermore. OSAS! take it or leave it; it's no question of Grammar; it's a matter of Omnipotent Grace.

 

So you continue to claim to be your own resource. Not atypical, but certainly not proof!

And no one has argued that the perfect tense means continual action. Maybe you need to go back and re-read some of my posts for a little comprehension. Of course the text you stated doesn't mean they are going to continue to be persecuted. Although that was a real possibility that is not garnered from the perfect tense.

The tense does not mean the action continues. So once again it is yet your argument that falls short. Imagine that.

That would be quite incorrect. But your not going to believe them anyway, because I guess BobRyan is smarter than all the rest when it comes to Scripture.

Actually the context and comparing Scripture with Scripture we see that is the only possibility that exists. But that is more than what you have given us which is "no it's not." Hardly debunking of anything. No documentation, no scholarly research, just BobRyan says so. Sorry but I don't buy a LOT of what BobRyan sells.

 

More of your nonsenese since you can't deal with the actual text. NNE including myself has claimed that the perfect tense means the "ACTION" is continual. I already addressed that, but your selective reading must be taking over. Please stay up with the group if you want to participate.

You really need to deal with what people say instead of your art of deception. Your whole arugment against me is a strawman that YOU yourself have created.

NOT ONCE have I EVER said that the ACTION is continual as you accuse.

You just can't let go of your man-made doctrine can you. Out of curiosity why do you want to hold on to it so bad? What is the attraction that someone can be saved and then unsaved and then saved and then unsaved and then save, etc., etc., etc.?

I don't see the attraction of holding on to uncertainity. You I can see the attraction of everyone gets to rule and reign with Christ regardless of how they live their life error. But there is nothing that is attractive to holding on to this falsity? Maybe you can shed some light into your stubbernous .

 

GE:

This post of yours deserves to re-appear, so I used the 'with-quote' knoppie.

There's just one thing certain to BobRyan - his own deception; his own infallibility. As you say, he really needs to deal with what people say; he really needs to deal with his own and very bad art of deception.