Featured The Grammar of 1 Jn. 5:1 is repetitive

Such trash is deplorable. This is not "humor" but pure base immorality. You LIE again by accusing me of believing I am "God" when I never made any such claim. This is all you can do, this all you have left in your arsenal - lies, distortions, false charges - all personal attacks because you have NOTHING to support your bias upon except yourself.

If you can't deal with the substantive evidences I provided then do us all a favor and act like a Christian and stop making personal attacks upon those you disagree with.

 

Except the very scholar Winman provided admitted that in every single case where "is born" is found in the first epistle of John causality in relationship of the action of the verb and participle is proven because even he admitted that no one with common sense would deny that the new birth is the cause of overcoming sin, overcoming the world, loving God and doing righteousness. So the very content of the texts prove John's consistent use of the Perfect tense verb gennao with the present tense participle always refers to causality in the sense we argue.

He simply disagrees with only one instance not due to grammar and not due to a consistent usage of every case up to that point but because of theological bias.

So, I ask you. Is the consistent use of the perfect verb "gennao" right up to 1 Jn. 5:1 used as causual just as we interpret 1 Jn. 5:1? If so, then what grammatical basis do you have for denying it in the last case cited by John? If not, then explain how one can overcome sin, overcome the world, do righteousness and love God as God loves us without the new birth being causal to all this?

You can't do it! So your only basis for your denial is not grammar but bias when it comes to John's usage in the first epistle.

 

All you can do is wallow in the ditch of personal attack and misrepresentation. Is this a revelation of your true condition?

I simply pointed out his ignorance of the text and provided proof by citing the complete ignoring of the negative particle in John 3:18 and leaving out the perfect tense evidence of "condemned already". I simply pointed out that his argument in the First John 5:18 text was irrational and pointed out that a perfect state of making God a liar in their mind is the cause of unbeleif.

None of these obvious contextual facts were addressed by you or the Inspector. You simply started a boasting affair about credentials and reduced it to a personal attack on me because you cant answer my responses, so that is all that you have left to fight with.

I presented the evidence to back up my charges and NOBODY has yet even attempted to deal with it? Because you can't, it is so obvious he misspoke and ignored the very context he is using to defend his erroneous bias.


Can we lift this discussion out of the ditch of personal attacks or is that the real you being exposed and so you are incapable of doing that because that is who you really are????

 

I appreciate your candid honesty. However, it is a matter of grammar and not a matter of mathmatics and so any interpretation based on the latter is not a true basis for exgesis as I will illustrate by your arguments.

You are reversing the grammatical cause and effect. Your position would be valid if the actions described by the present participles were found in the perfect tense and were verbs.

Furthermore, some of these very things listed have already been placed in relationship to "is born" in previous chapters and they are found in the present tense participle position while in each and every case "born" is found in the perfect tense position.

Finally, even the Greek authority cited by Winman admits this consistency with the perfect tense "is born" in every single instance with present tense participles regardless of the nature of the action described by the participle must be consequential to the new birth as no one arguers that overcoming the world, overcoming sin, loving God and doing righteousness can hardly be defended as causal to the new birth. The only reason he departs from this consistencey (which he admits) is not due to any grammatical difference but only because of his own soteriological bias.

 

Don't you ever get tired of misrepresenting others??? I did not merely charge him with misrepresenting the texts he used, BUT I PROVIDE THE CONTEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT CHARGE which you nor anyone else has even attempted to refute. Therefore, if my reasons are valid then my charge is also valid. Since none of you have even attempted to challenge my evidences then you have no right to talk until you can and do show they are wrong with equal contextual and grammatical based evidence.

According to your logic no one has a valid claim to accuse anyone of ignorance or lying or misrepresentation, because you refuse to even examine any evidence that it may be true. I presented the evidence to back what I said, and you refuse to examine it and prove what I said is wrong - so it stands until someone can prove the evidence I presented is wrong!

I await for anyone to address the evidence that I presented many times now, and show me where I was wrong based upon the evidence I presented!!!

No, all you can do is continue to wallow in personal attacks WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE all of which is based upon lies and distortions which I have addressed and presented to you.

 

You provide a lot more personal derogatory assertions but NO SUBSTANCE to back your assertions - NONE!

1. This text does not teach or say that the nature of God is changed from truthfulness to deceit.

2. This text refers to the state of the unbelievers mind not to the actual nature of God.

3. Hence, the perfect tense condition or state of mind is one that makes God a liar only in the mind of the unbeliever.

4. It is that perfect tense state of mind where God is made a liar that is causal for unbelief. No one that makes God a liar in his mind will believe in God and therefore it is the cause of his unbelief. So simple!

 

You are missing the most important point! The argument is over the grammar of 1 Jn 5:1. He admits that the same grammar in regard to "born" of God is consistently used just as we claim in every single instance prior to 1 Jn 5:10 which is the last instance. He admits that in every previous case it is and must be causal.

Therefore, what basis does he have to deny in 1 Jn. 5:1 what he admits to in every single instance previous to 1 Jn. 5:1 in regard to "born" of God?

ANSWER: NOTHING! Instead, he goes to texts where the perfect tense "born" is not found in the first epistle and to a text not even found in first John and in both cases makes obvious errors that any reader can easily see, even though they have no Greek background.

In John 3:18 he omits "condemned already" as that would shoot down his attempted perversion of the perfect tense "not condemned" as the lost man was in a perfect state of condemnation prior to faith. He omits the negative particle which changes the whole scenario and denies it is parallel to 1 Jn 5:1 where no such negative particle is found. The negative particle "not" negates the perfect tense state at the point of belief. Remove it and you would have a parallel between John 3;18 and 1 John 5:1 but it is present and must be recognized and considered in the exegesis which HE DOES NOT DO.

In 1 Jn. 5:10 I have already spelled his error out in the previous post.