John 6:44 and John 12:32

nobdysfool · #31 30th August 2009, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by archierieus

The verse does not say that. You have changed the wording.

Jesus said, "No man can come to me unless the Father draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." Who is Jesus talking about here? The one whom the Father draws. Who does the Father draw this person to? To Jesus, is that not so? And Jesus categorically states that the person whom the Father draws, Jesus will raise on the last day. Consequently, those whom the Father draws, are drawn to Jesus, and will be raised on the last day, by Jesus. That is precisely and exactly what the verse states.

Originally Posted by archierieus

But you have reversed it. Jesus says no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him. He is speaking of those who come to Him. You are speaking of those whom the Father draws. Two different sets, which as it reads intersect but are not, as it reads, identical.

How are they not essentially identical? Jesus spoke about those whom the Father draws, and it is only they who will come to Jesus. Nowhere is there a hint that the Father draws some who then do not come to Jesus. It just isn't there. You accuse me of reading into the text something that is not there, and yet you are doing the same exact thing. I have supported my understanding, and all you've said is "you're wrong", but have not shown why.

Originally Posted by archierieus

The verse does not speak of 'choosing.' You have added that. Nor does it rule out the option of a person desiring or choosing to come to Jesus, but needing the Father's intervention.

The underlying assumption being floated from your side here is that man has the innate ability to choose to come to Christ of his own free will. Do not bother to deny it, because it is as plain as day. It's the very essence of the anti-Calvinist position.

Originally Posted by archierieus

That would appear to be an accurate restatement of the verse.

Well, thank you for that, although you are still hedging, by using the word "appear". Is it really that hard to agree with a Calvinist?

Originally Posted by archierieus

I agree with that from my understanding, although it is based on other Scriptures, not so stated here, since 'choice' is not mentioned here.

Again with the qualifier....

Originally Posted by archierieus

Here you have interjected human reasoning which goes beyond the verse as it reads, into the basis for understanding the meaning of the verse. 'It stands to reason,' 'The Father would not draw someone,' It is critically important to stick with the verse exactly as it reads, and not add to it.

Critically important for what reason? God gave us a brain, and the ability to reason. I do believe he expects us to use it. What seems to be happening here is that this passage actually creates a problem for your theology, so you are trying very hard to find some way to blunt what it so obviously says, which i have detailed. So, there is this straining at gnats over words, and trying to attach major significance to the absence of a word or phrase at a given point, as though that totally changed the meaning, when it doesn't.

Jesus told us that no man can come to him unless the Father draws them. Jesus also told us that all that the Father gives to Him shall come to Him, and Jesus will not cast any of them away, but raise them up on the last day. It is no stretch to see that those whom the Father draws, and those whom the Father gives to Jesus, are the same. The Father draws them, and gives them to Jesus. If that is so (and it is), then there is no warrant to see the 'drawn' and the 'given' as separate groups of people, which may overlap, but are not identical. Scripture does not make that distinction.

Originally Posted by archierieus

'It can be seen here' based on your own reasoning--A (Scripture) + B (your reasoning) = X rather than A (Scripture) + B (Scripture) = C.

A classic statement of your opinion, based on your chosen biases. you have not given adequate reasons to back up your contention that I am not correct, other than 'because you say so'. What reasons you have given, are based on your own reasoning, and not on scripture.

Originally Posted by archierieus

That is not so stated. What WOULD be an accurate statement is that any choice ascribed to man is the result of the Father's prior work, as you mentioned above.

It flows naturally and logically from what you have grudgingly admitted is essentially correct, even with your hedging. As I said, God gave me a brain, and expects me to use it. if I cannot use that brain power to read scripture, and understand what it says, then that brain power is a waste of bandwidth. If only that which is word for word in scripture can be read and acted upon, then to be consistent, you'd have to divest yourself of all modern trappings of existence, and all the teaching and knowledge of rational, logical thought. You are essentially saying that we cannot, nay, dare not reason about scripture. If that is so, then all those wonderful references and resources you have, and upon which you so often rely in these debates should be burned and expunged from your library, computer, and life, as they cannot be used, or useful in understanding scripture.

Originally Posted by archierieus

That is not a statement of Scripture, but of your own assertion or philosophy.

As is your statement here. And as such, it means nothing. It is not a rebuttal, nor is it proof of anything other than your own bias.

Originally Posted by archierieus

It is not logically and semantically correct to say so based on the verse. You have added your own reasoning and philosophy which goes BEYOND the verse as it reads, into the mix as an essential component, in order to reach the conclusion.

No, it is logically and semantically correct, and I have shown why. You have yet to provide a credible rebuttal.

moonbeam · #32 30th August 2009, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by nobdysfool

:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

Inherent in this statement of Jesus is the assurance that the ones the Father draws, will be raised up on the last day. Jesus is qualifying those who come to Him as those whom the Father draws, and only those whom the Father draws. This statement shoots down the idea that man can choose to come to Jesus of his own accord, by his own choice. Unless the Father draws them, they CANNOT come. Any choice they exhibit in coming to Jesus is a result of the Father's prior work in them, specifically.

:37 "All that the Father gives me will come to me"

It stands to reason that those who are drawn, and those who are given, are the same people. The Father would not draw someone, then fail to give that person to Christ to be saved. It can be seen here that if the Father draws them, the Father gives them to Christ, and they come to Christ to be saved. Therefore, the real choice in this whole scenario resides with the Father, and ONLY with the Father. He chooses who will come to Christ, draws them to Him, and gives them to Christ, who states that He will save every one of them, lose none of them, and will raise them up on the last day. Any choice ascribed to man is the result of the Father's prior choice, and comes about directly because of the Father's choice. The Father causes those whom He has chosen to choose Christ, without fail.

Hence, since all who the Father gives to Christ will come, and no one can come unless the Father draws them, it is logically and semantically accurate to say that all that the Father draws will come. It doesn't matter that the exact words are not stated in exactly that way. Linguistically, logically, and reasonably, it is an accurate understanding of what Jesus said, and what He meant.

Correct and accurate interpretation of the scriptures concerned.

Something we have yet to see from archierieus....and probably won't.

The fact that someone is actually in Christ....in reality....is the evidence they have actually been taught and have heard of the Father.

Actually arriving at the station....is the only evidence....you were actually on the train.

archierieus · #33 30th August 2009, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by nobdysfool

Jesus said, "No man can come to me unless the Father draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." Who is Jesus talking about here? The one whom the Father draws.

Jesus is talking about those who COME to the Father. The sentence is: No man can COME to me unless the Father draws him. The sentence says that all who come are drawn by the Father. It does not say, as it reads, that all who are drawn come to the Father.

And Jesus categorically states that the person whom the Father draws, Jesus will raise on the last day.

No, Jesus said, as it reads, that all who COME to Him He will raise up on the last day.

Consequently, those whom the Father draws, are drawn to Jesus, and will be raised on the last day, by Jesus. That is precisely and exactly what the verse states.

Incorrect, you have changed the word from COME to DRAW.

[quote]
Jesus spoke about those whom the Father draws, and it is only they who will come to Jesus. [?quote]

Agreed.

is there a hint that the Father draws some who then do not come to Jesus. It just isn't there.

It is neither stated nor hinted either way in this verse.

The underlying assumption being floated from your side here is that man has the innate ability to choose to come to Christ of his own free will.

You may be making an assumption here. That is not what I have said, in fact I have said just the opposite. See the Ephesians 2:8 thread.

It's the very essence of the anti-Calvinist position.

Whatever position you may be referring to, holding a different understanding does not make one 'anti.'

Well, thank you for that, although you are still hedging, by using the word "appear".

Accuracy. It prima facie appears, have not researched in-depth.

Critically important for what reason?

I a person is taking the position that his or her beliefs are the Bible and the Bible only, then it will be important to stick with Scripture as it reads.

God gave us a brain, and the ability to reason. I do believe he expects us to use it.

But always within the parameters of His revealed will as recorded in Scripture.

What seems to be happening here is that this passage actually creates a problem for your theology, so you are trying very hard to find some way to blunt what it so obviously says, which i have detailed.

Of course, you would be making an assumption about someone else's intent. As for the merits, you are way wrong here. There is no problem for the theology I believe in, it is cleary stated as it reads.

So, there is this straining at gnats over words, and trying to attach major significance to the absence of a word or phrase at a given point, as though that totally changed the meaning, when it doesn't.

The Bible and the Bible only, without addition, deletion or changes.

Jesus told us that no man can come to him unless the Father draws them. Jesus also told us that all that the Father gives to Him shall come to Him, and Jesus will not cast any of them away, but raise them up on the last day.

Agreed.

It is no stretch to see that those whom the Father draws, and those whom the Father gives to Jesus, are the same.

Of course it is a stretch, because it is not what the verse or passage says.

The Father draws them, and gives them to Jesus.

You have combined portions of two different verses here. v. 37 says that all the Father gives Jesus will come to Him. v. 44 says no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. Neither verse says that all the Father draws, will either come to Jesus or that He will give to Jesus all the ones He draws. You have changed Scripture here.

If that is so (and it is), then there is no warrant to see the 'drawn' and the 'given' as separate groups of people, which may overlap, but are not identical.

No such statement is made in the passage. All those given to Jesus are drawn, but it nowhere says the reverse, that all who are drawn are given to Jesus.

Scripture does not make that distinction.

Scripture does not say that all the Father draws will come to Jesus. That is YOUR conclusion, based on, as you acknowledge, your own reasoning and assumptions, which are NOT so stated in the passage.

you have not given adequate reasons to back up your contention that I am not correct, other than 'because you say so'.

Incorrect. I am taking the passage exactly as it reads. You have added your own reasoning and assumptions, as you acknowledge above.

What reasons you have given, are based on your own reasoning, and not on scripture.

Incorrect. I am sticking with Scripture exactly as it reads. You admit in your post that you are using your own reasoning and assumptions, and you defend doing so. By contrast, I have consistently, and do here, urge sticking with Scripture as it reads. The Bible,nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

It flows naturally and logically from what you have grudgingly admitted is essentially correct, even with your hedging. As I said, God gave me a brain, and expects me to use it. if I cannot use that brain power to read scripture, and understand what it says, then that brain power is a waste of bandwidth.

So you here acknowledge that your conclusions go BEYOND what Scripture reads.

If only that which is word for word in scripture can be read and acted upon, then to be consistent, you'd have to divest yourself of all modern trappings of existence, and all the teaching and knowledge of rational, logical thought. You are essentially saying that we cannot, nay, dare not reason about scripture.

The foundation of one's faith should be the Bible and the Bible only. You have added your own ideas which, your own admission, go beyond what the Bible says. Scripture only, pls.

If that is so, then all those wonderful references and resources you have, and upon which you so often rely in these debates should be burned and expunged from your library, computer, and life, as they cannot be used, or useful in understanding scripture.

'Understanding Scripture' is the key, not adding to or going beyond it.

As is your statement here. And as such, it means nothing. It is not a rebuttal, nor is it proof of anything other than your own bias.

No, it is logically and semantically correct, and I have shown why. You have yet to provide a credible rebuttal.

You yourself have already provided any needed rebuttal. You acknowledge that you have gone beyond Scripture, and in fact, your assertions do go beyond what this passage says. In addition, elsewhere in the same book, the same writer quotes the same speaker, Jesus, as directly saying how many are drawn to Himself.

archierieus · #34 30th August 2009, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by moonbeam

Correct and accurate interpretation of the scriptures concerned.

If you believe that to be the case, show it exegetically.

moonbeam · #35 31st August 2009, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by archierieus

If you believe that to be the case, show it exegetically.

My brother in Christ nobdysfool has done an excellent job....I am in full agreement with his interpretation.

To bad you disagree with us...which leads me into some other thoughts.

Do you think the Holy Spirit who "will guide you into all truth" is hindered in His ability to discharge this solemn duty in accordance with the Fathers wishes...by the English language....or any other language ?

Do you acknowledge the fact that the Holy Spirit is eminently capable of fulfilling His duty to guide us into all truth....using an English Bible ie KJV ?

Can you give any reason why the Holy Spirit would be hindered from fulfilling his duty to guide us into all truth using a English Bible ie KJV ?

PS .... Still WAITING for you to substantiate your statement on the "Free Will" thread....Is your word worth anything ?

nobdysfool · #36 31st August 2009, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by archierieus

Jesus is talking about those who COME to the Father. The sentence is: No man can COME to me unless the Father draws him. The sentence says that all who come are drawn by the Father. It does not say, as it reads, that all who are drawn come to the Father.

Originally Posted by NBF

Jesus said, "No man can come to me unless the Father draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." Who is Jesus talking about here? The one whom the Father draws.

Let's stop this game of trying to make it appear that I said something I did not, when it is clear that I didn't say what you accuse. My own words prove it. Those who come are those whom the Father draws. It cannot be any clearer.

Originally Posted by NBF

And Jesus categorically states that the person whom the Father draws, Jesus will raise on the last day.

Originally Posted by arch

No, Jesus said, as it reads, that all who COME to Him He will raise up on the last day.

Not exactly. "No man can come to Me except the Father draws him, and I will raise him (the one whom the Father draws, and who comes to Me) on the last day." The ones that come are the ones the Father draws, because they cannot come unless the Father draws them. This verse makes that crystal. That is precisely what the verse says.

Originally Posted by arch

Incorrect, you have changed the word from COME to DRAW.

Originally Posted by NBF

Consequently, those whom the Father draws, are drawn to Jesus, and will be raised on the last day, by Jesus. That is precisely and exactly what the verse states.

Who else would the Father draw them to? Implicit in Jesus' statement is that the Father draws them so that they come to Him (Jesus). That is the purpose for which they are drawn by the Father. And since Jesus Himself says that no man can come to Him UNLESS drawn by the Father, there is no one who comes to Jesus who has not been drawn by the Father.

These are not great leaps of logic, or conjecture. These are logical statements drawn from the very words of Jesus himself.

Originally Posted by NBF

Jesus spoke about those whom the Father draws, and it is only they who will come to Jesus.

Originally Posted by arch

Agreed.

Originally Posted by arch

Originally Posted by NBF

Nowhere is there a hint that the Father draws some who then do not come to Jesus. It just isn't there.

It is neither stated nor hinted either way in this verse.

Ignoring the fact that you quoted only part of my statement, I have quoted the sentence in its entirety to clarify my point, and your response. Why would anyone think that the Father would draw someone to Christ, only to see them reject Him and walk away? Especially in the light of Jesus' statement that if they come to Him (caused by the Father's drawing) the he will raise them up on the last day? Implicit in that statement is the fact that those who come to Jesus do NOT reject Him, as shown by His statement concerning their final destiny. So, even though it doesn't say so in so many words, the evidence suggests that those who come to Jesus (drawn by the Father for that purpose), do not then reject Him, and fail to be raised up on the last day.

Originally Posted by arch

Originally Posted by NBF

The underlying assumption being floated from your side here is that man has the innate ability to choose to come to Christ of his own free will.

You may be making an assumption here. That is not what I have said, in fact I have said just the opposite. See the Ephesians 2:8 thread.

If you are not saying that, then I say, "Great!" We have a point of agreement. However, many do say just that, in spite of scriptures such as these, which clearly state the contrary. For whom the shoe fits, let them wear it.

Originally Posted by arch

Whatever position you may be referring to, holding a different understanding does not make one 'anti.'

Not on its face, no. But there are those here whose words, actions and tactics definitely fit the definition of "anti-". I use the term in a general sense, and I apologize it you are offended by it.

Originally Posted by arch

Accuracy. It prima facie appears, have not researched in-depth.

Well, i don't know how much research you would have to do to verify my own words. They ARE my words, after all....

Originally Posted by arch

I a person is taking the position that his or her beliefs are the Bible and the Bible only, then it will be important to stick with Scripture as it reads.

Agreed. And despite what you apparently think, that is what I am attempting to do!

Originally Posted by arch

But always within the parameters of His revealed will as recorded in Scripture.

We are told to meditate on His Word, which involves thought, and the discovery of meaning that may not be readily apparent on just a cursory read.

Originally Posted by arch

Of course, you would be making an assumption about someone else's intent. As for the merits, you are way wrong here. There is no problem for the theology I believe in, it is cleary stated as it reads.

OK, I'll accept that you don't believe it does present a problem.

Originally Posted by arch

The Bible and the Bible only, without addition, deletion or changes.

Fine with me.

Originally Posted by arch

Originally Posted by NBF

Jesus told us that no man can come to him unless the Father draws them. Jesus also told us that all that the Father gives to Him shall come to Him, and Jesus will not cast any of them away, but raise them up on the last day.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by arch

Originally Posted by NBF

It is no stretch to see that those whom the Father draws, and those whom the Father gives to Jesus, are the same.

Of course it is a stretch, because it is not what the verse or passage says.

What is the purpose of the Father drawing people? To come to Jesus, right? Does the Father give some people to Jesus that He doesn't first draw to Him? What scripture states that? Logically, those whom the Father draws, He gives to Jesus, and Jesus states He will raise them up on the last day. Just because there is not one specific verse which states that in so many words, doesn't mean that this is not the understanding of Jesus' statements concerning those who come to Him, and how they come, and why they come. Jesus didn't speak in verses. He spoke what the Holy Spirit gave Him to say, as the Father willed.

Originally Posted by arch

You have combined portions of two different verses here. v. 37 says that all the Father gives Jesus will come to Him. v. 44 says no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. Neither verse says that all the Father draws, will either come to Jesus or that He will give to Jesus all the ones He draws. You have changed Scripture here.

Making a serious accusation without warrant here, friend. It is not changing scripture to look at the totality of what Jesus said in this passage, and to see how it connects. Jesus did not speak in verses, and taking verses as stand-alone theological statements, each self-contained and whole, is not good exegesis. Changing scripture would be saying that despite clear words, it does not mean what it says, and says something totally different than what it clearly says. I have not done that here. If you think I have, show us how, and in what way I "changed scripture". Something more than just the accusation.

Originally Posted by arch

No such statement is made in the passage. All those given to Jesus are drawn, but it nowhere says the reverse, that all who are drawn are given to Jesus.

Arguments from silence are poor arguments. For what other purpose would the Father draw people to Christ (which is clearly what He does), if He did not intend to give them to Christ? What scripture would you cite to show that the Father would draw some people, and yet not give them to Christ. Pray tell, what would He do with them?

Originally Posted by arch

Scripture does not say that all the Father draws will come to Jesus. That is YOUR conclusion, based on, as you acknowledge, your own reasoning and assumptions, which are NOT so stated in the passage.

I believe you are trying a little too hard to tar me with the tar brush here, Arch. My reasoning is based on the scriptures themselves.

Originally Posted by arch

Incorrect. I am taking the passage exactly as it reads. You have added your own reasoning and assumptions, as you acknowledge above.

It looks more like you're refusing to connect the dots, IMHO.

Originally Posted by arch

Incorrect. I am sticking with Scripture exactly as it reads. You admit in your post that you are using your own reasoning and assumptions, and you defend doing so. By contrast, I have consistently, and do here, urge sticking with Scripture as it reads. The Bible,nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

And, again you try to position yourself as the defender of truth and me as the twister and distorter of scripture. You wish us to believe that each verse must be taken as it is, by itself, and cannot be impacted or expanded by any other verse, even from the same discourse, by the same person, the Lord of Glory Himself.

Originally Posted by arch

So you here acknowledge that your conclusions go BEYOND what Scripture reads.

No, they are based on the scriptures themselves, taken as a whole, and the discourse seen as a whole. Not as disjointed, disconnected verses.

Originally Posted by arch

The foundation of one's faith should be the Bible and the Bible only. You have added your own ideas which, your own admission, go beyond what the Bible says. Scripture only, pls.

That's all I have been addressing, scripture, and attempting to defend myself against some rather serious accusations by you.

Originally Posted by arch

'Understanding Scripture' is the key, not adding to or going beyond it.

And I have no problem with that, despite accusations to the contrary.

Originally Posted by arch

You yourself have already provided any needed rebuttal. You acknowledge that you have gone beyond Scripture, and in fact, your assertions do go beyond what this passage says. In addition, elsewhere in the same book, the same writer quotes the same speaker, Jesus, as directly saying how many are drawn to Himself.

Totally untrue, your accusations here. Let the readers decide.

archierieus · #37 1st September 2009, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by nobdysfool

Those who come are those whom the Father draws. It cannot be any clearer.

But as I pointed out, "The sentence says that all who come are drawn by the Father. It does not say, as it reads, that all who are drawn come to the Father." That is an important distinction.

Not exactly. "No man can come to Me except the Father draws him, and I will raise him (the one whom the Father draws, and who comes to Me) on the last day." The ones that come are the ones the Father draws, because they cannot come unless the Father draws them. This verse makes that crystal. That is precisely what the verse says.

Yes, but it does not say that all whom the Father draws come. The emphasis is on those who DO come, and indeed "they cannot come unless the Father draws them."

Who else would the Father draw them to? Implicit in Jesus' statement is that the Father draws them so that they come to Him (Jesus). That is the purpose for which they are drawn by the Father. And since Jesus Himself says that no man can come to Him UNLESS drawn by the Father, there is no one who comes to Jesus who has not been drawn by the Father.

Agreed.

Why would anyone think that the Father would draw someone to Christ, only to see them reject Him and walk away?

And there it is. This is EXACTLY the type of thing I was referring to. This is EXACTLY where you are parting company with the text as it reads, and introducing your own reasoning or views AS A LINK in the chain of truth. It is not merely using reasoning abilities to understand Scripture as it reads, it is INSERTING another component. Thus it is not Scripture as it reads.

So, even though it doesn't say so in so many words, the evidence suggests that those who come to Jesus (drawn by the Father for that purpose), do not then reject Him, and fail to be raised up on the last day.

More than implicit. Those who come to Jesus He WILL raise up, therefore they do not reject Him. But that describes those who come to Jesus, NOT all who are drawn to Jesus. It would be different if the verse said, 'All whom the Father draws will come to Me, and I will raise them up . . .' But it does not say that.

Well, i don't know how much research you would have to do to verify my own words. They ARE my words, after all....

My reference was to determining what the Scripture said or meant, which you referred to.

Agreed. And despite what you apparently think, that is what I am attempting to do!

I will accept your statement of intent at face value. And if that is your intent, then someone wanting to do that has no Scriptural warrant to go even one millimeter beyond what the words say. It is critically important to developing an accurate understanding of Scripture, to stick with it exactly as it reads.

We are told to meditate on His Word, which involves thought, and the discovery of meaning that may not be readily apparent on just a cursory read.

True, within limits, always being wary of such things as allegorizing, as Origen did so much of.

What is the purpose of the Father drawing people? To come to Jesus, right? Does the Father give some people to Jesus that He doesn't first draw to Him?

Definitely not.

Logically, those whom the Father draws, He gives to Jesus,

This is where you have added a link, making a leap beyond what the Scripture says. It does NOT say that those whom the Father draws, He gives to Jesus. Those who are given to Jesus have been drawn by the Father, but it does not say that all who are drawn are given to Jesus. There is a HUGE difference.

Just because there is not one specific verse which states that in so many words, doesn't mean that this is not the understanding of Jesus' statements concerning those who come to Him, and how they come, and why they come. Jesus didn't speak in verses. He spoke what the Holy Spirit gave Him to say, as the Father willed.

When one goes beyond what is said 'in so many words, ' then one is introducing other elements than Scripture, thus going beyond Scripture. As for Jesus, indeed He did not speak in verses, and this student has advocating taking the whole Jn. 6 passage rather than isolating one verse.

Changing scripture would be saying that despite clear words, it does not mean what it says, and says something totally different than what it clearly says. I have not done that here. If you think I have, show us how, and in what way I "changed scripture". Something more than just the accusation.

Regardless of intent--and I would assume good intent--when the passage does not say that everyone drawn by the Father actually DOES come to Jesus, but someone else says that everyone drawn by the Father does indeed come to Jesus, that is a change.

Arguments from silence are poor arguments.

Where a Scripture passage is silent about something, then we have no right to extrapolate or make assumptions about it.

For what other purpose would the Father draw people to Christ (which is clearly what He does), if He did not intend to give them to Christ?

Here again, reasoning and assumptions introduced into the framework of Scripture. The first effort of the kind, regardless of good intent, marks a dangerous innovation upon the purity of Scripture.

What scripture would you cite to show that the Father would draw some people, and yet not give them to Christ.

Drawing is not the same as coming. The Father draws, but the person comes. The passage describes those who do come to Jesus, see v. 45 for example.

Pray tell, what would He do with them?

He would want to save them, but, as Jesus said of His chosen people, 'ye would not.'

I believe you are trying a little too hard to tar me with the tar brush here, Arch. My reasoning is based on the scriptures themselves.

Scriptures plus assumptions, as noted above.

It looks more like you're refusing to connect the dots, IMHO.

I would not go a millimeter, no, not a nanometer beyond the dots as they read. Instead, I would look for other Scriptures which connect the dots, in this case, for example, Jn. 12:32 among others. There are many things in the Bible as to which it is impossible to connect the dots, for example the date of Christ's return. The way to accurately connect the dots is to compare Scripture and discover SCRIPTURES which connect the dots, rather than relying on our own reasoning.

You wish us to believe that each verse must be taken as it is, by itself, and cannot be impacted or expanded by any other verse, even from the same discourse, by the same person, the Lord of Glory Himself.

Quite the opposite. Look at what I have posted about Jn. 6, for example, there were no verse breaks in the original. Thus, v. 45 is not separated from v. 44, and should be understood as part and parcel.

No, they are based on the scriptures themselves, taken as a whole, and the discourse seen as a whole. Not as disjointed, disconnected verses.

Scriptures plus assumptions and ideas, as detailed above.

[quote]
That's all I have been addressing, scripture, [quote]

That may well have been your intent, but the fact is that you have gone beyond Scripture in the process of doing so.