John 1: verse 12...alone? or does 1:13 explain it?

[Iconoclast]

JonC

What's with you and the "funny" rating, @SovereignGrace ?

Is this how you "engage" other people who disagree with you?

The red x or any emoji that showed disapproval was discarded by the politically correct on here.
If you do not have time to post a full answer, you should be able to post your rejection of a post, as well as a like, or winner. There is no dislike or loser emoji.
I have seen boards that have a beating a dead horse, crickets chirping, a tumbleweed, a puzzled face emoji that work quite well.

 

[Iconoclast]

MB,

The sheep in this case are the Jews and David their Shepard. He tends the sheep feeding them and taking care of all of them. Actually the Good shepherd in this case is David.

Let's look at ezk 34 more carefully MB-

Then why did you say to keep in mind that Jesus is the shepherd, When it clearly says David is?

EZK34:
11 For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out.

12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.

David is not the Lord God, is he? Does David save the sheep or does Jesus. This language is applied directly to Jesus, by Jesus Himself speaking of saving the seed of Abraham.in Luke 19:
9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.

10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Scripture is absolutely true, How ever The only link to Jesus I see is that His ancestor is David. The owner of the flock is God Himself, not the Shepherd. Jesus is not the Shepherd in this case even though he might be in your belief.
MB

yes in my belief He is. David does not seek and save Me, Jesus does however.

 

[percho]

Ezekiel 34

Ezekiel 34:2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?
Ezekiel 34:30 Thus shall they know that I the LORD their God am with them, and that they, even the house of Israel, are my people, saith the Lord GOD.

Written sometime between 593–571 BC

Written prior to 721 BC

Hosea 1:4 And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
5 And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.
6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.
7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.

9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.

The house of Israel. However in other passages, God had promised to re-gather them Israel, the house of Israel along with Judah, the house of Judah.

Again Ezekiel 34:30 Thus shall they know that I the LORD their God am with them, and that they, even the house of Israel, are my people, saith the Lord GOD.
Hosea 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel (Both houses) shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

Verse 11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

One head, One shepherd, David Acts 2:30,31 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. Rev 3:21 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Acts 2:34,35 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Acts 3:21

Acts 3:21 And he (God, LORD) shall send Jesus Christ, (Lord) which before was preached unto you:
Acts 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:


Might want to consider, After this; After what? I will return.

 

[agedman]

jn1:10-13
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

It is a wonderful thing when a sinner receives or "welcomes The Lord Jesus Christ"
Many are eager to offer up Jn1:12 with an explanation that is directly contradicted by verse 13 saying the sinner in and of himself accepts or receives Jesus all by himself by an act of his will as if verse 13 does not exist...BUT IT DOES
When asked about it the person goes silent and moves along to another passage and does not comment on how the verses are connected. Chapter and verse divisions were added later, and these verses are clearly linked. Could you offer your explanation on why you do not connect these two verses as scripture does?

IMO, John is not to be taken but at the most specific in his writing.

He is constantly using contrasts and one does become most accurate in using the comparing and contrasting writing technique.

 

[InTheLight]

I have seen boards that have a beating a dead horse, crickets chirping, a tumbleweed, a puzzled face emoji that work quite well.

Maybe you should go back to those boards that allow you to express yourself with dead horses, crickets, tumbleweeds, and emoijs. Clearly, they are superior to BB. You might even be able to get more people to engage you on your constant Calvinism threads.

 

[JonC]

JonC



The red x or any emoji that showed disapproval was discarded by the politically correct on here.
If you do not have time to post a full answer, you should be able to post your rejection of a post, as well as a like, or winner. There is no dislike or loser emoji.
I have seen boards that have a beating a dead horse, crickets chirping, a tumbleweed, a puzzled face emoji that work quite well.

I think you missed the point. One line of thinking was that people were abusing some of the "ratings" (obviously removing them did not temper the abuse). What was seen was "thugish" behavior by people disliking or disagreeing with any post presented by the "opposing view". In short, some believed members were acting childishly and hoped removing the "spitballs" would help the situation.

Others (myself included) saw people disagreeing without voicing a disagreement. In a discussion or debate this amounts to stupidity (to an "I disagree" without the "because..."). It was unproductive. Better an adult voice the disagreement and the kids agree with the grown up reply than simply hit an "x", "dislike", "prayers", or "disagree".

Personally I was hoping some would learn to address issues rather than waive their tribal flag. I think the only way to move dialogue forward is to dialogue.

 

[InTheLight]

I think you missed the point. One line of thinking was that people were abusing some of the "ratings" (obviously removing them did not temper the abuse). What was seen was "thugish" behavior by people disliking or disagreeing with any post presented by the "opposing view". In short, some believed members were acting childishly and hoped removing the "spitballs" would help the situation.

Others (myself included) saw people disagreeing without voicing a disagreement. In a discussion or debate this amounts to stupidity (to an "I disagree" without the "because..."). It was unproductive. Better an adult voice the disagreement and the kids agree with the grown up reply than simply hit an "x", "dislike", "prayers", or "disagree".

Personally I was hoping some would learn to address issues rather than waive their tribal flag. I think the only way to move dialogue forward is to dialogue.

Ironic that Iconoclast complains about so-called "drive by posts" and then rates a post with a prayer or funny emoji and nothing else...