From: dalmatia@eburg.com
Date: Wed Apr 22 1998 - 09:54:14 EDT
Message-ID: <353DF18E.8C0C74E4@eburg.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 06:33:02 -0700
From: dalmatia@eburg.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Paul S. Dixon" <dixonps@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Jn 21:15-17
References: <9804201336.AB02711@ns1>
<19980420.145822.7023.9.dixonps@juno.com> <19980421.115152.7023.3.dixonps@juno.com>
<353CF316.329F7241@eburg.com> <19980421.221637.6799.0.dixonps@juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Paul S. Dixon wrote:
> > 'Are you
> >loving me' and the response is not an imperative, but simply the
> >factual 'You are feeding...' Peter does not need to be told to do the
> >feeding, he needs to know WHEN he IS DOING it.
>
> I'm sorry, but you are mistaken on this. BOSKE and POIMAINE are not
> indicatives; they are present imperatives.
Paul ~
I'm a DAAAH!!
It LOOKED like an imperative to me, but my Zhodiates Parallel listed
it as a "pim", which I mistakenly took to mean 'present indicative
middle'. I am still struggling with getting back up to speed on
forms. Thank-you.
The translation in the ongoing present, however, remains critical to
this passage. "Be feeding my sheep", not "Feed my sheep." The reason
is that this whole event is occurring, and can only occur, in the
ongoingness of the present, the ARCH, the origin of time. It recalls
the statement by Christ "Where I am going, you are not able to
follow', and here Peter is following Christ where the Pharisees could
not. This event, in real ongoing time, takes place within the origin
of that time, which is the dimensionless ongoingness of it, the ARCH.
Only the 'present imperfect' CAN do this, and from this understanding
the forge welding of eternal with temporal time in Peter comes to
light.
It takes three 'blows' from the 'hammer'. [Ever do a forge weld?] The
first results in 'feeding the lambs', [which is temporally prior, as
they are the young] the third in 'feeding the [adult] sheep'[which is
temporally later], while the second, in the middle, is the activity
that includes the 1st and 3rd, the 'shepherding' of the sheep, which
includes the feeding [and the whole activity of 'tending'] of both
young and adult sheep.
It proceeds from the simple question ~ AGAPAS ME? and the answer NAI
KURIE. That activity tends the flock, and so Peter is charged with
doing. AGAPAS ME [in the middle] between AGAPAS and FILEIS is the
'central' blow of the 'hammer' that completes the 'weld' of eternal
with temporal, the origin [AGAPAS] with its ongoing present in human
time [FILEIS].
The debate that has been ongoing about FILEIS being said three times
when it wasn't, [obviously], becomes moot when it is understood that
Peter was grieved because he was asked ON THE THIRD QUESTION ...
FILEIS ME? Peter is struggling here, and continues to struggle when he
notices Lazarus following and asks KURIE hOUTOS DE TI? There is never
such a struggle in Lazarus ~ He has been 'following' since Christ
raised him.
Thanks again, Paul, for helping me get straight on the imperative
issue. The passage can make sense either way, but IS written with the
imperatives!!
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:32 EDT