Jesus didn't want to save everyone?

[Mountain Man]

I sure hope you realize that there is a huge difference between being angry and being blind. You are comparing states that do not compare.

You talk about people who reject God's words while the text talks about people who are unable to see, hear and understand. That is, they are not even able to reject it because they are unable to understand or percieve it. So, again, the situation you describe is not the situation described in the text but a different situation. If the text is a description of what was happening like you claim then why does it say "Make the heart..." instead of "They are making their hearts...."? Why are those you claim are acting on free will described as completely passive agents. Look at the text again:

"He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,"

I find it ironic that believers are the ones who are most eager at rejecting what the actual words in the Bible.

We're not rejecting the words of the Bible. We're rejecting your ignorant interpretation of those words. In this passage, God commands Isaiah to tell the people that they are dull and slow-witted. It's a warning:

[Charles]

We're not rejecting the words of the Bible. We're rejecting your ignorant interpretation of those words. In this passage, God commands Isaiah to tell the people that they are dull and slow-witted. It's a warning.

A warning? "He has blinded their eyes" is a warning that they should not blind their eyes? Can you please explain, plain and simple, why the agents are being described as completely passive while "He" is the only active part. Who is acting in the text? Can you explain that please because what you have been saying so far is not in line with what the text says.

[Mountain Man]

A warning? "He has blinded their eyes" is a warning that they should not blind their eyes? Can you please explain, plain and simple, why the agents are being described as completely passive while "He" is the only active part. Who is acting in the text? Can you explain that please because what you have been saying so far is not in line with what the text says.

I already told you, skippy, metaphorical language. "My brother made my friend angry!" Why is my friend described as a passive agent? Did my brother override his freewill? Did Isaiah override the freewill of the Israelite people with his warning and force them to have dull hearts, heavy ears, and blinded eyes?

The real irony here is that you are the exact sort of person being described in this passage.

[Charles]

We're not rejecting the words of the Bible. We're rejecting your ignorant interpretation of those words. In this passage, God commands Isaiah to tell the people that they are dull and slow-witted. It's a warning:

You should read what the Bible also says:

That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

John, 12, 38 - 40

So they could not believe because their eyes had been blinded, their hearts had been hardened and so on... Read the book.

[Charles]

I already told you, skippy, metaphorical language. "My brother made my friend angry!" Why is my friend described as a passive agent? Did my brother override his freewill? Did Isaiah override the freewill of the Israelite people with his warning and force them to have dull hearts, heavy ears, and blinded eyes?

The real irony here is that you are the exact sort of person being described in this passage.

I already adressed that point. You are comparing situations that do not compare. There is a rather obvious difference between being "made angry" and being "made blind". Read again and please adress the points: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post512369

[Charles]

The real irony here is that you are the exact sort of person being described in this passage.

The real irony is that you have so far completely failed to give any credible explanation of the text. You want it to say something it does not say. I think it is rather obvious who is turning their blind eye to the text.

[Mountain Man]

You should read what the Bible also says:

So they could not believe because their eyes had been blinded, their hearts had been hardened and so on... Read the book.

Context, Chuckles... we keep telling you to look at the context. If you back up one verse in John, it says:

"37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, 38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled..."

In other words, the evidence was right there in front of their faces, but they refused to believe. That's on them, bro.

[Charles]

Context, Chuckles... we keep telling you to look at the context. If you back up one verse in John, it says:

"37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, 38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled..."

In other words, the evidence was right there in front of their faces, but they refused to believe. That's on them, bro.

The text does not say they refused to believe. Read the text. It clearly says they could not believe. And the reason given is certainly not that they refused, the reason given is:

"Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."

So, once again, you have tried to make the text say something it clearly does not say and we are none the wiser. Your talk about "context" is completely misunderstood in this situation since it does nothing to change what I pointed to.

[Sparko]

The text does not say they refused to believe. Read the text. It clearly says they could not believe. And the reason given is certainly not that they refused, the reason given is:

"Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."

So, once again, you have tried to make the text say something it clearly does not say and we are none the wiser. Your talk about "context" is completely misunderstood in this situation since it does nothing to change what I pointed to.

And then in

42 Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him.

How did they believe in him if God made them so they could not believe? Hmm?

[Charles]

And then in

42 Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him.

How did they believe in him if God made them so they could not believe? Hmm?

Yeah, that seems rather strange. If we look at the text again:

"Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."

Either verse 42 contradicts this or perhaps it only goes for some of them that they are unable to believe? Hard to say. Anyway the text clearly says "they could not believe" and the reason given is "because that Esaias said..."

[Mountain Man]

The text does not say they refused to believe. Read the text. It clearly says they could not believe.

Wrong again, Chuckles. Verse 37 says they did not, not that they could not. It was active refusal on their part. We can infer from verse 39, then, that the fact they couldn't believe was a consequence of their active refusal to accept the evidence that was right in front of them: "Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him..."

[Charles]

Wrong again, Chuckles. Verse 37 says they did not, not that they could not. It was active refusal on their part. We can infer from verse 39, then, that the fact they couldn't believe was a consequence of their active refusal to accept the evidence that was right in front of them: "Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him..."

Of course I am not wrong. You are just referring to a different part of the text that does not say what you want it to say and certianly does not contradict what I pointed to. I pointed to this part: "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again," How hard is it to see it says "they could not"?

The part you point to says they "did not". It says nothing about refusal. Absolutely nothing at all. There could be many reasons they did not believe. And reading on we see what the reason is. The reason is they could not. Again, this is actually what the Bible says. You cannot infer active refusal by the sheer fact that they did not believe. The blind man did not see the bird. That is not because he refused to see it. See the point? It seems you are the one who refuses to see what the Bible says.

[lee_merrill]

I pointed to this part: "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again," How hard is it to see it says "they could not"?

The text is very plain, indeed, they could not believe, free will was not at work.

The part you point to says they "did not". It says nothing about refusal. Absolutely nothing at all. There could be many reasons they did not believe. And reading on we see what the reason is. The reason is they could not. Again, this is actually what the Bible says.

Yes.

Blessings,
Lee

[Mountain Man]

You are just referring to a different part of the text...

Yes, Chuckles, it's called CONTEXT.

[Mountain Man]

The text is very plain, indeed, they could not believe, free will was not at work.

False, because the Bible says that many did, in fact, believe. The ones who didn't refused in spite of the evidence. THAT'S what is very plain in the text.