I have to say that your responce is very "subjective" and tells me that your answers are based more on what YOU persoannly want to do concerning Sign Gifts as compared to what the Greek will allow.
First of all, We do not need "Knowledge" about how a man gets to God when God has told exactly how to do that.
Secondly, Jesus Christ CAN NOT be the Perfect in 1 Corinthians as the original Greek Grammar does not allow such a translation.
Third and most importantly, the Greek word here, teleon is in the "neuter case." Based on that Greek gramatical fact, the
“the perfect” cannot refer to Jesus Christ.
What a bizarre strawman argument. Is your argument that to teleios in Greek would have to agree with Christ's name in gender or something like that? Think of 'to teleios' as a noun phrase. It is a concept. It doesn't have to agree in gender with some other word that it conceptually refers to, if that is your angle. I get the impression that I am reading someone who doesn't know how Greek language works (or how human language works if it isn't in English) who pretends to know a lot more than he does.
I was just reading today that first year Greek students should know that tios followed by a participle modifies the participle, as in 'these signs shall follow them that believe'. Another case would be John 11:25, "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:" The article/pronoun translated 'he' in 'he that believeth in me' does not refer to Jesus either.
Some posters are aware of this but use KJV terminology to refer to phrases in well-known passages, reading into them a broader understanding of the words in the passage. Paul writes about believers being 'perfect', even himself, in some passages. One sense of the word has to do with being 'perfect' in the resurrection. I Corinthians also leads up to a discussion of the believer and the state of the believer in the resurrection at the return of Christ. Let us consider that, and also verse 1:7 'So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And also Paul's use of 'perfect' here:
11 If by any means I might attain
unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already
perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Now, how could Paul be referring to The Perfect as "coming" when James referred to the Perfect in the "present" if they are both referring to the same ... The Word? Consider the example of a train that has 66 cars.
James writes about the revealed Word of God using the very same word "TELEOIS" in
James 1:4,
James 1:25; and
James 1:17.
What you write is wrong and the verses you site show that. Verse 4 is about patience having its perfect work and the readers being perfect and entire. Verse 17 mentions a perfect gift.
Verse 25 mentions the 'perfect law of liberty.' James is likely a very early epistle. James already called the 'law of liberty' perfect. The Bible was still being written when Jude wrote Jude, but he said that the faith was 'once delivered to the saints.' Where does the Bible ever indicate that we are waiting for the word to become perfect?
The cars that are already arrived at the platform. Paul writes about the time when all 66 cars will be available to Believers once the train has totally arrived at the platform. Paul can still be referring to the same train with his adjectival noun use of Perfect. In God's eyes His train has always had 66 cars. ;-)
As much as a fundy as I am about the Bible, you are eisegeting a particular stream of Protestant thought into the passage. There is no indication in I Corinthians 13 that Paul has the Bible in mind. The Bible did not turn Paul's speech, thoughts, and understanding from that of a child to that of an adults. It certainly did not make your understanding of spiritual things, or mine, light years beyond Paul's when he wrote the epistle. Most of us learn from Paul's writings the more we study them-- things that Paul clearly understood.
The "New Testament" Anachronism:
Dave Miller, Ph.D, Apologetics Press : "... the exegete is forced to conclude that Paul’s use of “perfect” referred to the completed revelation or totally revealed New Testament Scriptures."
What this proves is that some commentaries contain poor reasoning in places. The idea that 'that which is perfect' would occur before the eschaton is probably a Montanist idea, developed my Montanists who thought prophesying ceased with Montanus and the two women who worked with him. Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History records Miltiades challenge to Montanism written 14 years after Montanists death. He argued that the gift of prophecy was still with the church, since the apostle said that the gift would continue until the Lord returned. This was probably the early church interpretation of I Corinthians 1:7 and/or chapter 13 that he was referring to. He challenged Montanists to produce someone with the gift. This would have been third century.
And of course Irenaeus wrote about brethren prophesying, speaking in tongues, healing, having foreknowledge, casting out demons and raising the dead in his own day. He was late 2nd early 3rd century. The
Martin-Lloyd Jones made a really good point about your interpretation of I Corinthians 13.
"What the apostle is, of course, dealing with in I Corinthians 13 is the contrast between the highest and the best that the Christian can ever know in this world and in this life and what he will know in the glory everlasting. The ‘now’ and the ‘then’ are not the time before and after the Scriptures were given, because that, as I have said, puts us in a position entirely superior to the apostles and prophets who are the foundation of the church and on whose very work we have to rely. It is inconsistent and contradictory—indeed there is only one word to describe such a view, it is nonsense." - Lloyd-Jones, Martin, Prove All Things, Banner of Truth Trust, London, p. 26.
John Calvin's commentary on I Corinthians 13 classifies your interpretation as 'stupid'... or 'foolish' depending on the translation.
To say “that which is perfect is come” is a person, is to support strange and awkward grammar. Do you actually think that Jesus Christ would be called “that which is perfect?”
Do you actually think that Paul did not know who Jesus was and would call Him something in ONE Scriptures that he did not use anywhere else in all of his writings???? Does that make any logical sense at alll???
It is quite clear that this phrase when used in the Greek is referring to an inanimate object, not a person.
Maybe someone thinks that 'that which is perfect' refers to Christ, rather than the coming of Christ or the resurrection, or the age He brings. But who exactly is this?
And where do you get that to teleion refers to an 'inanimate object.' Are you reading a substantive 'that'... as in a physical object.. into 'THAT which is perfect' in the KJV? It translates 'to teleion' as that whole phrase.
Is 'the good' in Romans 2:10 an inanimate object? The verse uses τὸ ἀγαθόν, which translates in a hyperliteral way as 'the good.'
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Do you think that means God renders to those who work 'the good'-- like a physical object? Surely it is a more abstract concept than that. You are arguing for something that cannot be supported by the words in the passage.
The phrase “that which is perfect is come” of 1 Corinthians 10:13 does not and CAN not refer to Jesus Christ or His return.
It refers to perfection, literally translated 'the perfect.' When the perfect comes, the in part shall be done away.
You seem to be trying to find some other word in Greek that matches in terms of gender. Maybe you studied Greek grammar, but I do not think you know how the language works together with the grammar and do not really grasp semantics. It's good if you have studied some Greek grammar, but do not pretend to know more than you do. The word of God is holy, and teaching error based on knowing just enough Greek to be dangerous is not good for other believers.