Greg Logan wrote:You don't know Greek do you...

You should have all the space you need to enlighten me, Greg. But non-answers like the one above lead me to believe you might not be sure how to do so...

Hi Greg, I've been busy the past few days, please forgive the delay. The present equative is implicit and grammatically necessary in the construction. So in other words, there is actually nothing in this verse itself that is explicitly present tense. Do you see how this sort of takes the air out of ...

Hi Greg,

OK, so you admit that you aren't using the standard definition of "man" when you say that 'Jesus is a man right now'.

Now, where do you see a present-tense verb in the Greek text of 1 Timothy 2:5?

Back to reality - when you are ready to work with the sandard meaning of words - the simple clear texts of scriptures - without foolish controversies - I would love to plunge in./ In other words, I must accept your contradictory conclusions without question for this discussion to be acceptable in y...

Hi Greg, So rather than deal head on with my valid points above, you instead retreat again to your pet verse of 1 Timothy 2:5 which I have dealt with previously (and you also ignored previously). If you would read the scripture - it speaks of the MAN Christ Jesus in the PRESENT tense - both in I Cor...

Hello Greg, Thanks for your response. That is simply a timing issue. It is not simply "a timing issue"! You are saying that a person that exists right now with a completely different ontological nature (or state of existence) is still a man in "the simple standard meaning" of the term. Timing has no...

Hi Greg, Welcome back! I see that you were working hard to avoid the simple standard meaning of words, e.g. "man" means "man". You keep saying this, but the truth is quite the opposite. I am the one using "the simple standard meaning" of the word "man", you are using a very non-standard meaning of t...

Hello Greg,

Are you done with our discussion?

Hi Greg, ontological reality - man or divine being This didn't answer my question, specifically the last part: Could you please define how you are using "ontological reality"? Is it not the state or nature of one's existence? You are effectively arguing that "man" can exist in two different 'ontolog...

Hi Greg, Sorry TJ - but that is the answer - and really the whole point - the fundamental distinction between man - regardless of the stage of their body - some kind of divine being. I don't know what you're saying here, especially with that last part. Could you please define how you are using "onto...