Could not believe

[Hammster]

The claim is quite in error. I've already explained WHY one must go to Isaiah. In order to learn what was originally written, since John was quoting Isaiah.

RT believes that God directly causes people to be blind to truth, to oppose Him, and even to sin, apparently. Yet there are no Scriptures to back up those claims.

God sent Isaiah to the people with a message, that they would not listen to. They "closed their eyes". Who closed their eyes? God?? No, the people themselves closed their own eyes. But that doesn't actually sit well with RT, so it must focus ONLY on John's account as if that's all that was what was said.

And when they "closed their eyes", their hearts were "rendered insensitive".

But none of that fits the RT narrative.

Why do you need to go to Isaiah to make your point? It seems the point you want to make isn't in John, so not only do you have to go to Isaiah, you have to quote back farther than John. Why is that?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Where do you see that in John's quote?

I went to the source. John only paraphrased.

Isaiah 6:8
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

Isaiah 6:9
He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;
Keep on looking, but do not understand.’

Isaiah 6:10
“Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
Their ears dull,
And their eyes dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed.”

It's always a good idea to check the source.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Why do you need to go to Isaiah to make your point? It seems the point you want to make isn't in John, so not only do you have to go to Isaiah, you have to quote back farther than John. Why is that?

LOL!! I'm not "quoting back farther than John". I'm quoting Isaiah himself, whom John cited, which you seem to have a problem with.

Why is that? Is it that what Isaiah actually wrote somewhat uncomfortable for you?

God is the "cause" of the people being hardened only in the sense that He sent Isaiah with a message to the people, which they wouldn't listen to.

I think your discomfort with Isaiah is that his account properly places the cause of the people's "insensitivity" to their own choice.

That doesn't sit well for RT.

 

[Hammster]

I went to the source. John only paraphrased.

Isaiah 6:8
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

Isaiah 6:9
He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;
Keep on looking, but do not understand.’

Isaiah 6:10
“Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
Their ears dull,
And their eyes dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed.”

It's always a good idea to check the source.

Where did John paraphrase Isaiah 6:8?

 

[Hammster]

LOL!! I'm not "quoting back farther than John". I'm quoting Isaiah himself, whom John cited, which you seem to have a problem with.

John did not quote verses 8 or 9, nor all of 10. You have, however.

Why is that? Is it that what Isaiah actually wrote somewhat uncomfortable for you?

Not at all. It's good to learn how God dealt with His people in the OT.

God is the "cause" of the people being hardened only in the sense that He sent Isaiah with a message to the people, which they wouldn't listen to.

That's God dealing with the Israelites. That's not relevant to this thread.

I think your discomfort with Isaiah is that his account properly places the cause of the people's "insensitivity" to their own choice.

I have no discomfort with Isaiah. I don't even have discomfort with your mishandling of it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Where did John paraphrase Isaiah 6:8?

He didn't.

 

[FreeGrace2]

John did not quote verses 8 or 9, nor all of 10. You have, however.
Not at all. It's good to learn how God dealt with His people in the OT.
That's God dealing with the Israelites. That's not relevant to this thread.
I have no discomfort with Isaiah. I don't even have discomfort with your mishandling of it.

If no discomfort, then why all the resistance to going to Isaiah for the original source from which John quoted?

And you cannot prove any of your claims, such as I have "mishandled it".

 

[Hammster]

He didn't.

Then it shouldn't be included in any sort of comparison in the first place. If John wasn't inspired to quote it or reference it, you shouldn't either.

 

[Hammster]

If no discomfort, then why all the resistance to going to Isaiah for the original source from which John quoted?

And you cannot prove any of your claims, such as I have "mishandled it".

I have no problem with John's use of Isaiah. It's sufficient to the point he was making. Your the one who feels the need to go outside of the text.

If you were a first century Gentile with no access to Isaiah, what would you think John's point was in the passage in question?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Then it shouldn't be included in any sort of comparison in the first place. If John wasn't inspired to quote it or reference it, you shouldn't either.

LOL

The FACT is that John WAS inspired to quote from Isaiah.

John 12:39
For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,

btw, in v.40,who do you think "He" refers to? I suppose God Himself. However, that would be incoreect, if you do.

John 12:40
“He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.”

Notice the quote marks. The sentence begins with "He" and ends with "I heal them".

If God is the "He", then who is the "I"? Clearly, the "He" is Isaiah, who was sent by God with a message to the people, which they refused to listen to.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I have no problem with John's use of Isaiah. It's sufficient to the point he was making. Your the one who feels the need to go outside of the text.

Another fallacy. Since John quoted from Isaiah, it is perfectly right to go there for the full quote.

If you were a first century Gentile with no access to Isaiah, what would you think John's point was in the passage in question?

What I pointed out in my previous post; that the "he" in v.40 refers to Isaiah and the "I" refers to God Himself.

 

[Hammster]

LOL

The FACT is that John WAS inspired to quote from Isaiah.

All? All of 6? Or just a verse?

John 12:39
For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,

btw, in v.40,who do you think "He" refers to? I suppose God Himself. However, that would be incoreect, if you do.

John 12:40
“He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.”

Notice the quote marks. The sentence begins with "He" and ends with "I heal them".

If God is the "He", then who is the "I"? Clearly, the "He" is Isaiah, who was sent by God with a message to the people, which they refused to listen to.

You are in a minority, then. Even the translators think it's God. Notice the capitalization of "He". And there is a Trinity. So it's easy to see that there's a differentiation between the Father and Son.

 

[Hammster]

Another fallacy. Since John quoted from Isaiah, it is perfectly right to go there for the full quote.

And I suppose you are so inspired as to use more of Isaiah than John? We know that you already do this sort of thing with 3:14.

I'll stick with John and focus in what he focused on.

 

[Hammster]

What I pointed out in my previous post; that the "he" in v.40 refers to Isaiah and the "I" refers to God Himself.

If it was as if Isaiah was speaking, wouldn't the blinding be by God, and the healing by Isaiah? Why would Isaiah refer to himself as He, and God as I?

 

[FreeGrace2]

All? All of 6? Or just a verse?

How about just reading the source quote, and then the citation from John and from Paul in Acts.

You are in a minority, then. Even the translators think it's God. Notice the capitalization of "He".

How odd. Why would anyone capitalize the first word in a sentence?

And there is a Trinity.

Of course there is. But what does that have to do with anything?

So it's easy to see that there's a differentiation between the Father and Son.

John wasn't noting any such differentiation. Actually, what John wrote wasn't what Isaiah "says elsewhere", per 12:39.

Recalling that the Koine Greek didn't use punctuation marks, even though our Bibles has a colon following "elsewhere" and quote marks around v.40, they do not exist in the original. It is way more than likely that John was describing what Isaiah did: making their hearts insensitive.

Regardless of being in the minority, doesn't matter. Only truth matters, not what the masses think.

When ever has God been quoted as referring to either Himself or any of the other members of the Trinity in the 3rd person? That doesn't even make sense.

Isaiah wrote about what he was told to do and what he did do: take God's message to the people. God told Isaiah in 6:10 to "render the hearts of the people insensitive". That's what he did, by preaching a message they refused to listen to.

John was accurate in what he wrote, punctuation marks notwithstanding.

I'm really surprised that anyone would read Jn 6:40 and think both the "he" and the "I" are referring to God.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If it was as if Isaiah was speaking, wouldn't the blinding be by God, and the healing by Isaiah? Why would Isaiah refer to himself as He, and God as I?

Just explained it all in my previous post. It wasn't as if Isaiah was speaking. It was John describing what Isaiah was writing about. iow, John didn't quote Isaiah, but he described what Isaiah did.

 

[Hammster]

Just explained it all in my previous post. It wasn't as if Isaiah was speaking. It was John describing what Isaiah was writing about. iow, John didn't quote Isaiah, but he described what Isaiah did.

Pure speculation on your part. No internal evidence. I think I'll just stick with what John said.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Pure speculation on your part.

Hardly.

No internal evidence.

Plenty.

I think I'll just stick with what John said.

You are free to do so.

 

[Hammster]

You are free to do so.

And you are invited to.

 

[Hammster]

Can anyone explain the text as John wrote it? Pretend you are a first century Gentile. How would you understand it?