Use of the aorist

[TibiasDad]

Well, your SDA buddy has finally realized he can't refute me, nor can he defend his own views from my questions and points.

Were you aware that your Nazarene church is so closely related to the SDA's? Interesting.

Gee, let's see: You believe in the trinity, and so do SDA and Calvinists, and Nazarenes, and Catholics, Pentecostals, and Wesleyans etc, etc! These all believe in the resurrection, and in heaven and hell, and that there is no other way to the Father than through the Son! Were you aware that your FG church is so close to the rest of us? Really! The one who decries our use of ad hominem has no quibbles with defaming entire denominations, imminent scholarship, and the integrity of people you have never known and those you only know by the written characters on a computer screen, simply because they dare to disagree with not only your beliefs, but also the manner in which you express those beliefs. LGW and I have many disagreements, as our interactions on other threads portray quite clearly, but that doesn't mean we cannot fellowship in the things we do agree on. The same applies to GDL; I am sure, given enough time and discussion, that he and I would disagree about one thing or another, but that doesn't discount our points of agreement cast a shadow of ill repute on either one of us because we hold certain things in common. To make such an argumentative statement is just another highlight of the shallowness of your style of argumentation. (And note, for clarification, that I am not talking about you as a person, but your way of arguing!)

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

OK, let's take this from the top, one more time. I never said "everything". But that's what you seem to ALWAYS do; make up stuff to suit yourself.

I didn't say you specifically said "everything"! There were no quotation marks specifying anything. Your quotation puts the correct parsing, and thereby understanding of the meaning asserted by said parsing, squarely and exclusively on "Greek grammar"! I stand by my assessment of your words, and once again, join with Porky Pig and say, "That's all folks!"


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

I wonder if Wallace or Mantley or Mounce ever said that.

Dana and Mantley, page 201, on the perfect tense:

184. The significance of the perfect tense in presenting action as having reached its termination and existing in its finished results lies at the basis of its uses. Emphasis, as indicated by the context or the meaning of the verb root, may be on either the completion of the action or on its finished results. This possible difference in emphasis lies at the basis of the variation in the uses of the perfect tense.

With regard to the aorist:

180. While the aorist views an action as a single whole, it may contemplate it from different angles. It may regard the action in its entirety, which we call the constative aorist; e.g., ^rjaev, he lived. We might represent the constative aorist in a graph thus: <•>. The action may be regarded from the viewpoint of its initiation, which we. call the in-gressive aorist; e.g., airedavev, he died. The ingressive aorist might be graphically represented thus: •> „ When the action is viewed in its results, we call it the cul-minative aorist; e.g., direKreivev, he hilled. It may be indi-cated in the graph: < •. The same verb may, in dif-ferent contexts, present all three views; e.g., (idheiv may mean throw (constative), or let fly (ingressive), or hit (culminative). However, the verbal idea as well as the context usually affects very decidedly the significance of the aorist (cf. M. 130). These modifications of the fundamental idea present the regular uses. They appear in all four moods, and also the infinitive and participle.

I am sure the others would pretty much say the same thing.

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

The one who decries our use of ad hominem has no quibbles with defaming entire denominations

OK, Mr ad hominem, please show me where I "defamed an entire denomination". Can you do it?

imminent scholarship

And evidence of my "defamation" of imminent scholarship?

and the integrity of people you have never known and those you only know by the written characters on a computer screen, simply because they dare to disagree with not only your beliefs, but also the manner in which you express those beliefs.

OK, and esp those I guess you mean on this thread. So, show me your evidence that I've defamed any of those I've disagreed with.

What you have is STILL no evidence for your claims. Whether they are Scriptural or the random statements you just made (up).

(And note, for clarification, that I am not talking about you as a person, but your way of arguing!)

Doug

By "your way of arguing", you are referring to how effective it is, right?

It was effective enough to get your buddy to leave. Couldn't take the heat.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I didn't say you specifically said "everything"!

You didn't use the word "specifically" but you certainly said that I said "everything".

There were no quotation marks specifying anything. Your quotation puts the correct parsing, and thereby understanding of the meaning asserted by said parsing, squarely and exclusively on "Greek grammar"!

Yes, it was. And that is because it is important. Again, I NEVER said it "was everything" as you FALSELY ACCUSED. Just accept your error and move on, ok?

I stand by my assessment of your words, and once again, join with Porky Pig and say, "That's all folks!"
Doug

You should have just admitted your error and then moved on.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Dana and Mantley, page 201, on the perfect tense:

184. The significance of the perfect tense in presenting action as having reached its termination and existing in its finished results lies at the basis of its uses. Emphasis, as indicated by the context or the meaning of the verb root, may be on either the completion of the action or on its finished results. This possible difference in emphasis lies at the basis of the variation in the uses of the perfect tense.

With regard to the aorist:

180. While the aorist views an action as a single whole, it may contemplate it from different angles. It may regard the action in its entirety, which we call the constative aorist; e.g., ^rjaev, he lived. We might represent the constative aorist in a graph thus: <•>. The action may be regarded from the viewpoint of its initiation, which we. call the in-gressive aorist; e.g., airedavev, he died. The ingressive aorist might be graphically represented thus: •> „ When the action is viewed in its results, we call it the cul-minative aorist; e.g., direKreivev, he hilled. It may be indi-cated in the graph: < •. The same verb may, in dif-ferent contexts, present all three views; e.g., (idheiv may mean throw (constative), or let fly (ingressive), or hit (culminative). However, the verbal idea as well as the context usually affects very decidedly the significance of the aorist (cf. M. 130). These modifications of the fundamental idea present the regular uses. They appear in all four moods, and also the infinitive and participle.

I am sure the others would pretty much say the same thing.

Doug

Just one question then. Why don't you believe what they wrote?

 

[TibiasDad]

OK, Mr ad hominem, please show me where I "defamed an entire denomination". Can you do it?

You were doing that when you compared the Nazarene church with the SDA as if the SDA's beliefs were anathema.Why is it interesting that a Nazarene and an Adventist might be "so closely related" on this particular point? Am I supposed to think that his denominational distinctives are poison, and I should fear for my doctrinal purity because we agree at this point but not at others? What is your motivation behind making such statements? You certainly were not complimentary in your pursuit! If defamation is too strong a word, I apologize, but kindness most certainly was not your goal, and brotherly love has long left the building.

And evidence of my "defamation" of imminent scholarship?

You have discounted the scholarship of both Wallace and Mounce with a hubris waiving of the hand.

OK, and esp those I guess you mean on this thread. So, show me your evidence that I've defamed any of those I've disagreed with.

In one of our previous conversations you fell just short of calling me a heretic saying I had blasphemed the grace of God! And you also disparaged my Greek professor, calling him a fraud! I when I objected, you replied, "I stand by my words."

By "your way of arguing", you are referring to how effective it is, right?

It was effective enough to get your buddy to leave. Couldn't take the heat.

Yep, it is totally ineffective; unless of course the goal was simply to drive people away from wanting anything to do with you! If that was the goal, then I stand corrected-- you have certainly succeeded in that effort! I guess we'll just leave you to your ticker-tape parades and victory celebrations!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Just one question then. Why don't you believe what they wrote?

I do, why don't you?

Goodbye!

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

You were doing that when you compared the Nazarene church with the SDA as if the SDA's beliefs were anathema.

So, it's "as if", huh. That just smacks of an extreme amount of bias. The "as if" is in your own mind. Everyone who reads this thread can se that I was simply noting that your denomination agrees with the SDA regarding loss of salvation. But I guess you'll read anything you want into whatever I post.

Why is it interesting that a Nazarene and an Adventist might be "so closely related" on this particular point?

No particular reason. Just think it is interesting, that's all. Keep in mind that the SDA is considered a cult in many evangelical circles.

Am I supposed to think that his denominational distinctives are poison, and I should fear for my doctrinal purity because we agree at this point but not at others?

You can do whatever your heart desires.

What is your motivation behind making such statements?

Interest. As I said.

You certainly were not complimentary in your pursuit!

So it seems you were offended by the comparison? Why is that? But, to your point, HOW was I "not complimentary" in my comment? All I did was note your agreement with the SDA's. If that's offensive to you, maybe you should do some soul searching.

If defamation is too strong a word, I apologize, but kindness most certainly was not your goal

How do you know ANYTHING about my "goal"? How do you even know that I had a "goal" in mind". You don't. But you sure have a wild imagination. I suggest that you might want to corral it a bit.

and brotherly love has long left the building.

You sure have a knack for judging others, esp when you know absolutely NOTHING about others. Don't you remember what the Bible says about judging others?

You have discounted the scholarship of both Wallace and Mounce with a hubris waiving of the hand.

OK, another LIE from you. At least note the post # so I can look it up. I never ever even noted the scholarship of either guy.

In one of our previous conversations you fell just short of calling me a heretic saying I had blasphemed the grace of God!

Believing that salvation can be lost is totally anti-grace. You can call that charge blasphemy if you want, but I never said that. But I will always point out that the loss of salvation crowd knows nothing about grace.

We are saved by grace. But your OSNAS view has to add, "but we're kept by our own works". You can't get around that.

And you also disparaged my Greek professor, calling him a fraud! I when I objected, you replied, "I stand by my words."

And I stand by my words. Which it seems you never really read. I said IF IF IF he taught you what you now claim about the Greek, then he IS a fraud, because that means he was teaching falsely.

 

[TibiasDad]

So, it's "as if", huh. That just smacks of an extreme amount of bias. The "as if" is in your own mind. Everyone who reads this thread can se that I was simply noting that your denomination agrees with the SDA regarding loss of salvation. But I guess you'll read anything you want into whatever I post.


No particular reason. Just think it is interesting, that's all. Keep in mind that the SDA is considered a cult in many evangelical circles.


You can do whatever your heart desires.


Interest. As I said.


So it seems you were offended by the comparison? Why is that? But, to your point, HOW was I "not complimentary" in my comment? All I did was note your agreement with the SDA's. If that's offensive to you, maybe you should do some soul searching.


How do you know ANYTHING about my "goal"? How do you even know that I had a "goal" in mind". You don't. But you sure have a wild imagination. I suggest that you might want to corral it a bit.


You sure have a knack for judging others, esp when you know absolutely NOTHING about others. Don't you remember what the Bible says about judging others?


OK, another LIE from you. At least note the post # so I can look it up. I never ever even noted the scholarship of either guy.


Believing that salvation can be lost is totally anti-grace. You can call that charge blasphemy if you want, but I never said that. But I will always point out that the loss of salvation crowd knows nothing about grace.

We are saved by grace. But your OSNAS view has to add, "but we're kept by our own works". You can't get around that.


And I stand by my words. Which it seems you never really read. I said IF IF IF he taught you what you now claim about the Greek, then he IS a fraud, because that means he was teaching falsely.

Just to save you some time, you are now being ignored for a while.

Doug

 

[ewq1938]