It's only neither here nor there in this case so that the conclusion desired, would carry.
The tense is painfully clear. The tense means what it means (time). The tense is against the position.
Nope. I decided to double check a few other sources. As it reads, the verse says: Whoever is believing that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. That is how I rendered it, that is how the major versions such as NASB, NIV, NKJV, KJV etc render it. The tense is not against the position at all. And in checking various sources regarding the thrust of what John is saying here, they concur. John puts believing in the continuing sense, as I noticed, there is NO discussion of when the believing began or how. As one student put it, the attempt to make born of God precedental in this verse is eisegesis. That was my take on it also. The textual evidence simply is not there. Once again, John is dealing with a heresy and showing how believing in Jesus as the Messiah is evidence of the validty of a person's faith.
Splitting the actions in two is a non sequitur -- unless you mean to split believing from being born of God. Then you'd have John not speaking in full sentences.
It is necessary to do so. Different actors. The individual is the one who believes, God is the one Who starts the new life. Believing in Jesus as Messiah is evidence of the validity of the new life.
Thus a violation of grammar. Again.
Nope, it is not a violation of recognized rules of grammar. It IS a violation of a presupposition. But that presupposition is not in the verse, and basing treatment of the verse on that presupposition is eisegesis.
John is explaining how to determine who's a heretic and who's not.
Agreed.
That's why he's talking so pervasively about how to tell who's been born of God.
Incorrect. He speaks elsewhere in this letter about the RESULTS of being born of God, as evidenced in a changed life. That does NOT address the issue of heresy. Heresy is one of a number of issues John speaks to. The entire letter is not about heresy, nor is it about being born again. Many subjects are covered.
That's quite an assumption, to consider John's letter to be so gerrymandered that he's implicitly addressing a specific heresy, using the exact same terms he's using elsewhere in the book.
Not gerrymandered at all, nor is the term apposite. John deals with a variety of issues in the early church. The terminology may very well overlap, in different applications.
No, the idea doesn't hold up in context. That's why the arguments are getting so outlandish. The grammar's against it. The context's against it. The terminology's against it.
Quite the opposite:
1) The grammar says, as the major translations put it, whoever is believing in Jesus as Messiah is born again.
2) The context is dealing with heresy and evidence that a person is a true believer.
3) The terminology is used both in the Johannine epistles, in John's gospel and elsewhere, in a variety of applications.
Reasonable exegesis is against it.
Incorrect. Although I double and triple checked a number of varied sources. 'Reasonable exegesis' does not support what you are trying to make the verse say.
