Peter McKenzie

A few comments: There is no hope that an atheist can come to faith unless the person gives up their atheism Not sure why this needs to be said – as it is a trivial point. It is not different than saying “no one can read the Bible unless they read the Bible”. Your doing this sidesteps my question of how your view deals with atheism. If Jesus had meant just a particular setting that He had come from heaven for only this time and this place and this people, then He would have said The Father gave you bread from heaven. But again the ongoing action of Jesus is a life-giving Spirit frames the action as ongoing, not static. You are framing this in a way that helps your case but still leaves you in error. I am not sure if it because I am not explaining it properly – or if you are being stubborn. I basically explained this before – but here is another try. Since the words here are quotes of what He said, it is entirely valid to have him speak in the present continuous tense – and yet have those words NOT necessarily represent continuous action forever. The action can be non-static within a time frame – and yet have an end date. We talked about this. Simply by saying that Jesus is a life-giving Spirit is not enough – if the context rules it out. I mentioned before that verse 38 is a book end to the statement of verse 37 and 38 (you misunderstood what I said when you berated me for saying that “for” is the bookend. “For” connects the previous verses and locates the setting as His time on earth. His time on earth and His ministry was that He would lose none of those the Father GAVE him. Jesus is not talking about a physical seeing, but spiritually perceiving….I say it is a spiritual hearing The context would weigh in against you here then, Because only a few verses prior, Jesus tells them that they have seen him and yet DO NOT believe (verse 36). Surely He can’t be saying there that they spiritually perceived Him and yet do not believe – unless you are saying that spiritually perceiving and believing are not the same thing. Verse 30 also provides a contrast that seems to indicate a physical type of seeing. “What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you”? In trying to determine if words are to be taken at face value or symbolically, a good rule is to assume the plain reading should be accepted – unless the genre states otherwise. There is no good reason to reject a physical meaning of seeing in this text. Unless you assert it 🙂 Either way, this is not significant to my case. I will remain steadfast on the contextual evidence for a unique giving of the Father – and the lack of anything else in Scripture that supports what you are saying. Despite your claim that the grammar is on your side, I simply say that you are refusing to look at the other aspects that limit the setting and, at the same time, do no injustice to the grammar. I think I need, at this point, to restate my understanding of the giving. The ones that were given to Jesus throughout His time on earth (as per 17:6) in an ongoing way as he travelled about in an action sense while He lived – were the Jews who believed what the OT scriptures and Moses said about Him. Contextually, the thing that he said about Moses “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for all he wrote about me” – can be taken as good reason to believe that these believing Jews believed in Jesus when He told them who He was. Contrary to what you stated before, they were believers in a coming Messiah as per Moses, and when they heard Jesus they put their faith in Him. This group did not include Paul or the Roman centurion. They came to faith despite not being part of the given group. I still haven’t heard a good answer from you re your seeming contradiction about Paul not being given to Jesus by the Father. Are you saying that some are given to Jesus by the Father – but not all? And Paul is in the “not all” group? Are you serious? Verse 40 has meaning to the crowd, but Jesus doesn’t say that the “everyone” is ONLY the crowd that stands before him. If you are going to limit this to the crowd in front of Jesus, you are going to have a big problem with verse 40 in being meaningless.</blockquote. I am not limiting the outcome to only the crowd. I am simply stating that the words have application to them as a first exercise. You don't seem to get this. I don't think you like exegesis. By stating that they are the first hearers does not carry an inherent claim that future believers cannot benefit from these words. But He is talking to them First. He is not talking to you and me. Who is the “him” that Jesus would raise up? Which one of the crowd would be raised up? Surely they see this as an inclusive statement, not exclusive so that only one person is raised up. The inclusivity of language would not be meaningless to the crowd. Those who would be raised up amongst the group he is talking to (the ones we should be most concerned about as a first priority of reading the passage) are the ones who see him and believe Him – so the “him” is another way of saying “whoever fits the bill” or “him who believes”. Its not that difficult. Again, this is what the passage says. You are wanting me to make it inclusive of these ones only. But I am not saying that the truth of the passage is exclusive to these ones – I am just stating what it says. Apparently you don’t like that. Peter you seem to have a limited view of the continued gift of Jesus in this world Not so. But by you saying this shows that you are not grasping much of what I have said. Your objections are at the interpretation level. As usual, I will simply say that I am dealing with the reading of the text and not trying to prematurely interpret it. We discern what Jesus meant by the words and grammar that He used. We do not discern by our feelings or by limiting the statement when no limitation is given. The basic understanding should be that Jesus included the crowd but did not limit it to them unless there is clear inspired words to make such a conclusion. There is a limitation given. It is in verse 39 and 40. The giving to Jesus was for the duration of his ministry. John 17 clearly has him providing the wrap up in the past tense. “He lost none of them – except one”. You like to give alternatives – so here’s one: He doesn’t say in chapter 17 that he is “lost none of these – and he is not going to be losing any future ones either”. So the continuous action that you are trumpeting is not there. Will you acknowledge that I presented a clear example of the limitation? Please? No feelings. Just observation and solid reading technique done without being governed by any pre-suppositon. Finally, despite the fact that I have presented a sound case with good reason to allow the text to speak for itself, you insist that the giving must continue today. And yet, the notion of your type of giving is nowhere mentioned anywhere in the Bible. These 2 chapters are the only places it is mentioned. And you have not ever countered my points about the awkwardness of where your view takes you. For example, it seems that your view requires someone today to be familiar with and believe the writings of Moses first – before they can come to Jesus. Do you seriously believe that?