The drawing of God.

False! "him" does not mean "anyone who comes" but only the particular and singular "man" that is drawn and this same "him" is the grammatical antecedent for the second "him" in the second clause. Him that is drawn is him that is raised - pure and simple as there is no other grammatical antecedent for "him" being raised then "him" which is drawn.

No it is not! The context of the passage is therefore "him that is drawn" as no man can come but "him that is drawn" and no man will be raised but "him that is drawn" - pure and simple.

There is no "everyone" in this verse. The "man" drawn is "him" and the man raised up is "him" that is drawn.

No, "him" who is drawn is "him" that is raised up as there are no other subjects in the passage. The "man" who cannot come is the same man characterized under the "except" clause which is "him" that is drawn - that man does come because he is drawn and that "him" is raised up. The "all" in verse 45 first clause is "the least to the greatest" who have been taught by God (Isa. 54:13; Jer.31:33-34; Heb. 8:10-12). All taught equals all drawn and all taught equals "have heard" and "have learned" or else they never have been taught as there is no teaching apart both hearing and learning and "all" such do come.

All the "given" are all the drawn and the final phrase "and I will raise him up at the last day" links them as the same subjects (vv. 39, 44). No one else believes or comes to him in faith but those who are "given" and "of all" given all come - they are the ones who will be raised up and it is with all who are drawn as "him" that is drawn is "him" that is raised up.

Furthermore, John 6:36 and 64-65 repudiate your whole system of interpretation as these were never given or drawn by the Father and the context makes that explicitly clear:

36 But I said to you, That you also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father gives me shall come to me; and him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out.

They saw and did not come but all the Father gives do come therefore they were not given by the Father

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I to you, that no man can come to me, except it were given to him of my Father.

These disciples never came to Christ in genuine faith (v. 64). Why? Jesus explicitly tells you why because "no man can come EXCEPT IT WERE GIVEN to him by the Father" What is given" The ability to come to him in saving faith which was absent in those disciples in verse 64 - so simple and so clear, unless you have a bias you are trying to defend when coming to the text.

 

Just another tactic to avoid dealing with the evidence as was your first response. Anyone who thinks that responding to an article by saying it is eisegesis is a "personal" attack has no business on this forum. Anyone who thinks that responding to a black and white article by saying it is a "nice piece of mental gymnastic" is "personal" attack has no business on this forum as neither is addressed at the person writing but at the material being written. If you cannot distinguish between your material and yourself you will be offended all day long.

Now, that is my personal opinion when I say "eisgesis" for sure and you don't have to share that opinion but it is certainly no attack on your own person. It is my personal opinion that the article is "mental gynastics" but that is no attack on your person.

However, you are simply causing a distraction because you cannot provide a response - that is the real truth here and most people reading this discussion can easily see that.

 

Now here is a personal attack on me. Note the word "you" and then accusation "poisoned the well". Note the total distortion presented in a negative "to date no evidence has been presented" when in fact everyone on this particular forum knows that is simply not factual as the evidence has been repeatedly presented point by point.

 

deleted by writer

 

No! I am saying "him" refers grammatically to the word "man" in the first phrase as it is this "man" when the exception is put in to effect. That "man" cannot come "Except" that man be drawn. "man" and "him" are one and the same person as the grammatical antecedent for "him" is "man" and there is no other grammatical antecedent but this singular "man."

My response above should answer this question.

The problem that I see in your arguments and in your responses is that you substitute other terms for the Biblical language. Use the Biblical language and your error will be obvious to all including to you. Let me reword your argument above but place it in the biblical language "I agree that him which is drawn is him which is raised up." However, you won't use the biblical language ("him" instead of "the man") because you don't agree with that statement when the Biblical langauge is used do you?

Let us now look at your second response - "What it does not say is if YOU are drawn YOU will come." You are right! It does not say that. What it does say that the "man" without drawing cannot come but the same man ("him" has "man" as its nearest grammatical antecendent) when drawn does come and it is "him" (the same "man") drawn that will be raised up as there is no other "him" in the context.

 

Again, lets not depart from the biblical language. It says "no man can come to me unless the Father draw him (meaning that "man" who cannot come to me on any other basis than being drawn).

It does not need to say that because coming is dependent upon first being drawn or else there is no coming at all in the Biblical sense. Therefore, those who have not been drawn cannot and do not come in the biblical sense. In verses 64-65 it does say that those professing "disciples" who really never believed did not come because it was not "given to" them by the Father to come.

First they must be "given" as that is the contextual cause/reason for them coming in verse 37. This cause is reaffirmed in verses 38-39. In verse 38 the Son came into the world in order to do this explicit will of the Father which was to save "of all" given, which means they had to have been "given" to the son before He came into the world or his words in verse 38-39b are complete nonsense. Moreover, "given" is found in the Aorist tense proving being given preceded His coming and their coming to him by faith. Verse 40 simply identifies those who were first given "all of" which will be saved as those who believe in him as the same final phrase in verse 39 is also attached as the final phrase in verse 40 identifying them as one and the same. Just as this same final phrase is attached to verse 44 proving he is still speaking about "all" who had been given and in this text he describes the reason that "of all" given shall come to Christ - due to drawing.

Those in verse 36 did not come to Christ in faith BECAUSE they were never "given" by the Father as "of all" who are given come (vv. 37-39) and thus all who come are believers (v. 40). Those in verse 36 are not part "of all" and therefore they are not part of "beleivers" in verse 40.[/QUOTE]

 

Aw, come on man. You are being childish. There has been a mountain-load of evidence and you you haven't been able to deal wthi it but to stammer "But, but, you're wrong. You just have to be." You are out of your league. You can't muster an argument using the text. You are just spouting your traditionalism.

You have no argument --so you lash out.

LOL!

 

I first use the Biblical language and grammar to formulate my argument and then I present my interpretation. In contrast, you insert your own language when formulating your argument and ignore the grammar. Just reread what I said as it is obvious to all what I said.

No it does not say that in either the English text or the Greek text. There is no "and" in this text.

I am sorry but there is not a thing in this text about believing in the Father. The text is about what the Father must do that fallen man can believe in the Son. As a result of believing in the Son they believe also in the Father.

 

The issue of this text is not belief in the Father. The issue of this text is that without the drawing work by the Father no man can come to the Son in faith.

You are attempting to take other texts and force it upon this text (vv. 44-45) when this text has NOTHING to do with coming to faith in the Father. Other related texts may take up that issue but not this text.

that is precisely what you are doing.

Yes it is! The "him" drawn is the same "him" that comes and NNE ELSE is mentioned or included in this text. Absolute proof that he is still speaking about "of all" who have been given to come to the son is the attached phrase "and I will raise him up" which was introduced to affirm that "of all" which the Father gave that Christ "SHALL LOSE NOTHING." Same people in view. This text simply explains how it is certain they do come. Those in verses 64-65 were not drawn, the ability to come was not "given" to them by the father.

no such subject is found in John 6:44-45.

 

The biblical text uses the language "man" and "him". It does not use the language "anyone". The grammar demands that "him" in the first clause refers to "man" as its grammatical antecedent. The only difference between "man" and "him" is without the exception or act by the father this "man" cannot come, however, by this exception or act of the Father this same "man" can come. it is the same man. "him" in the second clause finds it nearest grammatical antecedent in "him" and then "man" in the first clause as there is no other grammatical antedent. So this text is all about the SAME MAN. The man who cannot come apart from drawing is the same man "him" who can come due to drawing, which is the same "him" that is raised up as the final clause demonstrates he is speaking still of only "all" those given in John 6:39 where this final clause is first introduced.

I never said that was the biblical language used in the text. I said when the Biblical language is used and the grammar is used that is precisely what it means. Him drawn is him raised.

First, verses 41-46 is not the greater context as the final clause in verse 44 proves. The greater context is verses 29-46. However, you want to deny the obvious connective in verse 44b with verse 39b. That is why you restrict the greater context to begin in verse 41 when the final phrase in verse 44 proves you are wrong about the greater context and where it should begin.

 

Everyone knows what you are trying to do. You are running from the text and issue in question to a broader topic and broader context because you cannot deal with the specifics of this text. Basically, you are attempting to pit YOUR INTEPRETATION of the overall context against the grammar and specifics of the text in view BECAUSE YOUR INTERPETATION of the text in view cannot be defended.

 

You asked a question and I answered it. YOU drew the line where the overall context began ("41-46") instead of where the text in question demands it must include (v. 39) by the phrase first applied in verse 39. You claimed it had to do with the bread of life which does not begin in verse 41 but in verses 33-36.

You cant respond so you start another distraction.