Stephen Hughes wrote:David Lim wrote:it is misleading to call it a "logical step" when it is really a state
"Logical" in the sense that you would need to cogitate logically to get to an understanding of it. Perhaps you have a different understanding of "logical" that left you misled. If you feel unhappy about some word(s), don't get stuck on the word(s), try to deduce the sense of the words from the wider context.
Frankly I really found your phrasing confusing. Okay if you meant a logical step on the part of the reader then I'm okay with what you describe, except that the "logical step" may no longer be true.
Stephen Hughes wrote:David Lim wrote:"in the state of having gone up into the heaven"
Also, since this is a natural outcome of the (normal) intrinsic meaning of the perfect, it doesn't need any special consideration.
This what you have written in un-natural English doesn't mean Jesus is there now. In fact, unless one is very patient with such a construction, is doesn't clearly mean much at all. "I am in the state of havinig gone to Siam Reap", but now I am in Benalla. I was impressed by the city of Siam Reap, and its people and I thought that the main tourist attraction there was a remarkable feat of human industry, I'm a (slightly) changed person but I'm not there now. [...] "I δε-drive-κα to Benalla" is another more expressive and meaningful way of saying "I am in Benalla" (I realise that drive would probably have a vowel gradation, but I can't remember enough IE comparative linguistics to make a sensible guess).
Honestly I didn't realize this is what you were getting it. So you are saying that the perfect here denotes that Jesus is (at the time of writing) in the heaven? I would have to disagree with that, because the perfect often does not mean anything beyond the state of having completed the verb. In the examples you mention, if the perfect is used, whether "you are still in Siam Reap" depends entirely on the context. The perfect merely calls attention to the state, but does not imply anything about whether the logical result of the verb still remains the same.
Here are some examples where the implied "logical step" is no longer true from the writer's viewpoint or is not intended to remain true:
[Matt 13:19] παντος ακουοντος τον λογον της βασιλειας και μη συνιεντος ερχεται ο πονηρος και αρπαζει
το εσπαρμενον εν τη καρδια αυτου ουτος εστιν ο παρα την οδον σπαρεις (it had been sown, but was taken away)
[Matt 13:35] οπως πληρωθη το ρηθεν δια του προφητου λεγοντος ανοιξω εν παραβολαις το στομα μου ερευξομαι
κεκρυμμενα απο καταβολης κοσμου (things had been hidden, but were revealed by Jesus)
[Matt 13:44] παλιν ομοια εστιν η βασιλεια των ουρανων
θησαυρω κεκρυμμενω εν τω αγρω ον ευρων ανθρωπος εκρυψεν και απο της χαρας αυτου υπαγει και παντα οσα εχει πωλει και αγοραζει τον αγρον εκεινον (it had been hidden, but was found by someone)
[Matt 27:52] και τα μνημεια ανεωχθησαν και πολλα σωματα
των κεκοιμημενων αγιων ηγερθη (they had died, but were raised)
[Matt 28:5] αποκριθεις δε ο αγγελος ειπεν ταις γυναιξιν μη φοβεισθε υμεις οιδα γαρ οτι ιησουν τον εσταυρωμενον ζητειτε (he has been crucified, but is no longer on the cross)
[Mark 3:1-2] και εισηλθεν παλιν εις την συναγωγην και ην εκει ανθρωπος
εξηραμμενην εχων την χειρα και λεγει
τω ανθρωπω τω εξηραμμενην εχοντι την χειρα εγειραι εις το μεσον (his hand had been withered, but was healed by Jesus)
[Mark 5:4] δια το αυτον πολλακις
πεδαις και αλυσεσιν δεδεσθαι και
διεσπασθαι υπ αυτου τας αλυσεις και
τας πεδας συντετριφθαι και ουδεις αυτον ισχυεν δαμασαι (he had often been bound, but had broken out of them)
[Mark 5:15] και ερχονται προς τον ιησουν και θεωρουσιν τον δαιμονιζομενον καθημενον και ιματισμενον και σωφρονουντα
τον εσχηκοτα τον λεγεωνα και εφοβηθησαν (he had the legion, but no longer)
[Mark 11:2] και λεγει αυτοις υπαγετε εις την κωμην την κατεναντι υμων και ευθεως εισπορευομενοι εις αυτην ευρησετε πωλον δεδεμενον
εφ ον ουδεις ανθρωπων κεκαθικεν λυσαντες αυτον αγαγετε (no man had sat on it, but Jesus would sit on it)
[Mark 11:4] απηλθον δε και ευρον
[τον] πωλον δεδεμενον προς την θυραν εξω επι του αμφοδου και λυουσιν αυτον (it had been bound to the door outside, but they loosed it)
[Mark 15:7] ην δε ο λεγομενος βαραββας
μετα των συστασιαστων δεδεμενος οιτινες εν τη στασει φονον πεποιηκεισαν (he had been bound, but would be released)
[Acts 25:7] παραγενομενου δε αυτου περιεστησαν
οι απο ιεροσολυμων καταβεβηκοτες ιουδαιοι πολλα και βαρεα αιτιωματα φεροντες κατα του παυλου α ουκ ισχυον αποδειξαι (they had come down from Jerusalem, but their being there is only valid within the context and not relevant anymore after that)
As you can see, Matt 28:5 shows that "εσταυρωσθαι" does not imply "to be dead" but merely "to have died" ("to be in a state of having died").
And Acts 25:7 shows that you can say "καταβεβηκα εις σιεμ ριπ εις το ιδειν την πολιν" ("I have gone to Siam Reap to ...") even if you are not there now. Naturally, though, since the perfect calls attention to the state, it causes one to conceive of the point at which the state is attained and thus may result in an assumption of the continued relevance of that point unless the context wraps it up somehow. So if you say just "καταβεβηκα εις σιεμ ριπ" and stop there, the hearer might of course get the impression that you are there now. But that meaning is not intrinsic to the perfect, and arises from the context.
Stephen Hughes wrote:What I am saying is that Jesus is in heaven, and that is expressed by using a perfect of the verb by which He got there.
Well, as I said before, whether Jesus is supposed to be in heaven doesn't determine what the verse means. Both I and Iver have given two related ways of interpreting the verse which we think are more natural than to assume that it refers to Jesus' ascension after his death, and therefore you cannot draw your conclusion without eliminating our interpretations or giving reasons why they are unlikely first.