Reconciled to God

[pnattmbtc]

That's what you want me to say. Again, it's the Father and the Son Who corrected John not me.

I don't understand why you think this sentence makes sense.  That is, the second one.  Once again, why would the Holy Spirit, who inspired John, need to be corrected?  You keep speaking of John being corrected, but John did not write by himself: (2 Pet. 1:21).

So once again I would ask, do you think John and 1 John were inspired?  And if so, why would the Holy Spirit inspire John to write something that would need to be corrected?  Please answer this.

That he needed correction is evident when he wrote no man has seen God at anytime because the prophet Isaiah himself said he has seen God with his own eyes. But you keep mum in this regard because you have nowhere to go. 

Why are you bringing up Isaiah?  You keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.  It sounds like your idea is this:

1.This isn't the only place where John made mistakes.  In addition to John 1:12, John also made a mistake in John 1:18, because he contradicts what Isaiah wrote.  So John makes mistakes all over the place.

If this isn't your point, I don't know what is.  But once again, we come back to the fact that John was inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Or do you not believe this?  If John *was* inspired by the Holy Spirit, then don't you think there should be some explanation to contradictions that Samie thinks he sees other than that the Scripture writer needs to be corrected?  Why doesn't Samie see that it is Samie, and not John, that needs correction?

Do you think the HS inspired John to write against what the HS inspired the prophet Isaiah to write centuries ahead of John?

No, I think you're not understanding Scripture both here, and in the other place where you think John needs to be corrected.  I think anyplace where you see that an inspired writer needs to be corrected you should ask the Lord if you are missing something, and if *you* need to be corrected.  Once again, I think you are taking a dangerous position.  How do you want God to reach you, if not through Scripture?  If you see that a position of yours doesn't agree with Scripture, and you respond by arguing that Scripture needs to be corrected, I think this may be a dangerous position to take.  I'd certainly want to be careful.

I won't be surprised if you continue holding your peace in this again.

Holding my peace on what? 

[Samie]

I don't understand why you think this sentence makes sense.  That is, the second one.  Once again, why would the Holy Spirit, who inspired John, need to be corrected?  You keep speaking of John being corrected, but John did not write by himself: (2 Pet. 1:21).

So once again I would ask, do you think John and 1 John were inspired?  And if so, why would the Holy Spirit inspire John to write something that would need to be corrected?  Please answer this.

Why are you bringing up Isaiah?  You keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.  It sounds like your idea is this:

1.This isn't the only place where John made mistakes.  In addition to John 1:12, John also made a mistake in John 1:18, because he contradicts what Isaiah wrote.  So John makes mistakes all over the place.

If this isn't your point, I don't know what is.  But once again, we come back to the fact that John was inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Or do you not believe this?  If John *was* inspired by the Holy Spirit, then don't you think there should be some explanation to contradictions that Samie thinks he sees other than that the Scripture writer needs to be corrected?  Why doesn't Samie see that it is Samie, and not John, that needs correction?

No, I think you're not understanding Scripture both here, and in the other place where you think John needs to be corrected.  I think anyplace where you see that an inspired writer needs to be corrected you should ask the Lord if you are missing something, and if *you* need to be corrected.  Once again, I think you are taking a dangerous position.  How do you want God to reach you, if not through Scripture?  If you see that a position of yours doesn't agree with Scripture, and you respond by arguing that Scripture needs to be corrected, I think this may be a dangerous position to take.  I'd certainly want to be careful.

Holding my peace on what? 

About the fact whether the Holy Spirit inspired Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

[pnattmbtc]

About the fact whether the Holy Spirit inspired Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

Why are you bringing this up?  What does this have to do with anything?  Why should I answer your question?  Just because you ask me a question, I should answer it, even if it has nothing to do with the discussion?

[pnattmbtc]

If you want to discuss an unrelated question, which has nothing to do with the discussion of the thread, start a new thread to discuss that question!  Otherwise, explain why you are asking a question which looks to have nothing to do with what the thread is about.

[Samie]

If you want to discuss an unrelated question, which has nothing to do with the discussion of the thread, start a new thread to discuss that question!  Otherwise, explain why you are asking a question which looks to have nothing to do with what the thread is about.

For me, it is a question related to the issue at hand. And I have explained why. You are good at playing games, brother. But I leave game-playing to the kids.  Your choice: be a grown-up OR remain a kid.

Again: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

[pnattmbtc]

For me, it is a question related to the issue at hand. And I have explained why. You are good at playing games, brother. But I leave game-playing to the kids.  Your choice: be a grown-up OR remain a kid.

Again: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

Yes, I can answer this.  You could figure this out yourself with a little effort.  But please, explain to me why you are bringing up Isaiah?  What does this have to do anything?

The only possible reason I can think of is that you are reasoning like this:

1.1 John 1:9 and John 1:12 are texts which which are incorrect, and this isn't the only place where John is incorrect.

2.Another text that is incorrect in John is John 1:18, as it contradicts Isaiah.

3.Therefore, in general, John cannot be trusted (except for Revelation).

Now there is nothing "kid" like in these questions.  These are completely fair questions.  Why are you bringing Isaiah into this?  What does it have to do with the subject?  Is your reason for bringing Isaiah into question what I have surmised (point 1 to 3)?  Or is it something else?

These are important and fair questions because they deal with how you are dealing with inspiration.  I want to know why you think it's OK for you to just dismiss John or 1 John when you disagree with what it says, given that John was an inspired writer.  Would you do the same thing with Paul?  Or some other inspired writer?  Or only John?

[Samie]

Yes, I can answer this.  You could figure this out yourself with a little effort.  But please, explain to me why you are bringing up Isaiah?  What does this have to do anything?

The only possible reason I can think of is that you are reasoning like this:

1.1 John 1:9 and John 1:12 are texts which which are incorrect, and this isn't the only place where John is incorrect.

2.Another text that is incorrect in John is John 1:18, as it contradicts Isaiah.

3.Therefore, in general, John cannot be trusted (except for Revelation).

Now there is nothing "kid" like in these questions.  These are completely fair questions.  Why are you bringing Isaiah into this?  What does it have to do with the subject?  Is your reason for bringing Isaiah into question what I have surmised (point 1 to 3)?  Or is it something else?

These are important and fair questions because they deal with how you are dealing with inspiration.  I want to know why you think it's OK for you to just dismiss John or 1 John when you disagree with what it says, given that John was an inspired writer.  Would you do the same thing with Paul?  Or some other inspired writer?  Or only John?

Your great learning has brought you everywhere, Pnatt, my brother. Yes, everywhere, except to answering my question.

Again, and for the 6th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

[pnattmbtc]

Your great learning has brought you everywhere, Pnatt, my brother. Yes, everywhere, except to answering my question.

Again, and for the 6th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

I told you I will answer it tomorrow.  Why won't you tell me why you are asking it?  You are asking a question out of left field for which I see no reason, without explaining why.  Why do you feel it's OK for you not to answer my questions, but insist I answer yours, without any explanation as to why, when as far as I can tell, your question is irrelevant?

[Samie]

I told you I will answer it tomorrow.

Good, I'll wait for that.

Why won't you tell me why you are asking it?

I already told you in another thread. It has something to do with inspiration, an issue you yourself brought up.

Why do you feel it's OK for you not to answer my questions, but insist I answer yours, without any explanation as to why, when as far as I can tell, your question is irrelevant?

 Yet I have answered your questions, but you could not have read them yet.

[pnattmbtc]

Why won't you tell me why you are asking it?

Samie: I already told you in another thread. It has something to do with inspiration, an issue you yourself brought up.

I don't recall reading this.  What issue?  Why are you so insistent I answer this question about Isaiah?  What does this have to do with 1 John 1:9?

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 

or John 1:12

12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 

[pnattmbtc]

Jesus said the following:

 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. (John 6:46)

So John was correct in John 1:18, because he agrees with the words of Jesus Christ.

What about Isaiah?  Jesus says that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus Christ, and spoke of Him (John 12:41).

So Jesus is correct, and so is Isaiah. 

[Samie]

Jesus said the following:

So John was correct in John 1:18, because he agrees with the words of Jesus Christ.

What about Isaiah?  Jesus says that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus Christ, and spoke of Him (John 12:41).

So Jesus is correct, and so is Isaiah. 

You are answering a different question?

Here again, and for the 9th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

[pnattmbtc]

You are answering a different question?

Here again, and for the 9th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

How am I answering a different question?  You cut out what I wrote again without ellipsis.   That's dishonest.  I wish you would quite doing that.

What question do you think I answered?

What's your point anyway?  Please make your point.  What does Isaiah have to do with this?  John wrote:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Anyone can understand this.  You say John needed to be corrected.  You disagree with the Scripture, rather than think you could be wrong.  Why do you think this is OK?  Is there something in Isaiah that makes it OK for you to disagree with 1 John 1:9?  Is your idea that God inspired Isaiah to say that he saw God, whereas Jesus says that no one has seen God at anytime, therefore John is not to be trusted?  If you are not trying to discredit John, what are you trying to do?

[Samie]

 

How am I answering a different question?  You cut out what I wrote again without ellipsis.   That's dishonest.  I wish you would quite doing that.

What question do you think I answered?

What's your point anyway?  Please make your point.  What does Isaiah have to do with this?  John wrote:

Anyone can understand this.  You say John needed to be corrected.  You disagree with the Scripture, rather than think you could be wrong.  Why do you think this is OK?  Is there something in Isaiah that makes it OK for you to disagree with 1 John 1:9?  Is your idea that God inspired Isaiah to say that he saw God, whereas Jesus says that no one has seen God at anytime, therefore John is not to be trusted?  If you are not trying to discredit John, what are you trying to do?

Again, and for the 10th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

[pnattmbtc]

Again, and for the 10th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

No. (I mean my answer is no).

[Samie]

Samie: Again, and for the 10th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

Pnatt: No. (I mean my answer is no).

OHHH, at last, your answer came. Thank you, my brother.

But I need to be sure whether I am understanding you correctly with your "No" answer. Do I understand you correctly that you mean the Holy Spirit inspired the prophet Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes but did NOT inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime?

If that is not what you mean, then what exactly do you mean?

[pnattmbtc]

OHHH, at last, your answer came. Thank you, my brother.

But I need to be sure whether I am understanding you correctly with your "No" answer. Do I understand you correctly that you mean the Holy Spirit inspired the prophet Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes but did NOT inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime?

If that is not what you mean, then what exactly do you mean?

I tried to answer your question by answering what I thought you were asking.  Then it appeared you wanted only a one word answer, so I gave that.  Now you're asking me more questions about my answer to your question, but you still haven't explained why you are asking these questions.

Please answer my question now.  What does this have to do with anything?  In particular, why would you think John would need to be corrected?  What sort of understanding of inspiration is this?

The whole time you've been arguing "the Scriptures say this," yet when presented with something the Scriptures clearly teach, namely:

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

you assert not that you are wrong, but that Scripture is wrong! 

[Samie]

Samie:

OHHH, at last, your answer came. Thank you, my brother.

But I need to be sure whether I am understanding you correctly with your "No" answer. Do I understand you correctly that you mean the Holy Spirit inspired the prophet Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes but did NOT inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime?

If that is not what you mean, then what exactly do you mean?

Pnatt:

I tried to answer your question by answering what I thought you were asking.  Then it appeared you wanted only a one word answer, so I gave that.  Now you're asking me more questions about my answer to your question, but you still haven't explained why you are asking these questions.

Please answer my question now.  What does this have to do with anything?  In particular, why would you think John would need to be corrected?  What sort of understanding of inspiration is this?

The whole time you've been arguing "the Scriptures say this," yet when presented with something the Scriptures clearly teach, namely:

you assert not that you are wrong, but that Scripture is wrong! 

Since you don't object to what I thought you really meant by your "No" answer, I will take your non-objection as saying "Yes" when I asked: "Do I understand you correctly that you mean the Holy Spirit inspired the prophet Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes but did NOT inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime?"

Then your "Yes" explains why I presented what prophet Isaiah has written. By default, you are saying, the Holy Spirit did not inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. And since his confession requirement is not at par with what was revealed to Him in Revelation, that confession statement is at par with his "no man has seen God at anytime" statement. But that does not mean all he has written are not at par with the totality of Scriptures.

Just like Peter when he wrote of Christ preaching to disobedient spirits in prison in the days of Noah. That does not make all that Peter wrote to be not at par with the totality of Scriptures.

[pnattmbtc]

Since you don't object to what I thought you really meant by your "No" answer, I will take your non-objection as saying "Yes" when I asked: "Do I understand you correctly that you mean the Holy Spirit inspired the prophet Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes but did NOT inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime?"

This is ridiculous.  I've stated many times I believe John was an inspired author.  Why should you think I would need to answer this question?

Then your "Yes" explains why I presented what prophet Isaiah has written. By default, you are saying, the Holy Spirit did not inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime.

 

I have no issues with John!  You are the one who said John needed to be corrected.  I've said all along that John was inspired.

And since his confession requirement is not at par with what was revealed to Him in Revelation, that confession statement is at par with his "no man has seen God at anytime" statement.

 

Try saying this some other way.  I don't think this is an intelligible sentence.

But that does not mean all he has written are not at par with the totality of Scriptures.Just like Peter when he wrote of Christ preaching to disobedient spirits in prison in the days of Noah. That does not make all that Peter wrote to be not at par with the totality of Scriptures. 

Ok, now maybe we're getting somewhere.  I'm inferring from what you wrote here that you believe there are different levels of Scriptures.  There is what Peter wrote, which you apparently find as lesser than other parts of Scripture, and you see John in the same way, or certain parts of John like this at least.

Which parts of Scripture are which?  That is, which parts of Scripture are like the Peter passage?  How do you determine which Scripture is on a part with the totality of Scriptures, and which isn't?

 

[Samie]

Now, after all has been said, John was allowed to write what he sincerely believed was true. Yet that does not mean John is infallible. True the Holy Spirit that inspired him is infallible.  But the inspiration is on the man, not on the words the man used.  Same case applies to each of us. Who inspires us? It is the Holy Spirit. But are we infallible? No.  Our saying or writing something that is wrong is not to be taken against the Holy Spirit.

You could argue that what we write are not Scriptures. Yes, that's true. And what John wrote are in Scriptures. But do we have the manuscript of John? Into how many hands of scribes did what John originally wrote pass through for copying into other copies until the final copy used for translation into languages we now have? How sure are we that those who manually copied from a copy that was copied from another copy copied from another copy that was copied from the original did not make any error of ommission or addition, deliberately or otherwise? And I pointed out this fact early in our discussion.

Sadly our discussion had to come down lower when you pressed me into Scriptural basis of why John wrote the confession requirement and I don't believe it.  I had no recourse but to go to what the prophet Isaiah has written.  And everything else is history.

[Samie]

This is ridiculous.  I've stated many times I believe John was an inspired author.  Why should you think I would need to answer this question?

I have no issues with John!  You are the one who said John needed to be corrected.  I've said all along that John was inspired.

Try saying this some other way.  I don't think this is an intelligible sentence.

Ok, now maybe we're getting somewhere.  I'm inferring from what you wrote here that you believe there are different levels of Scriptures.  There is what Peter wrote, which you apparently find as lesser than other parts of Scripture, and you see John in the same way, or certain parts of John like this at least.

Which parts of Scripture are which?  That is, which parts of Scripture are like the Peter passage?  How do you determine which Scripture is on a part with the totality of Scriptures, and which isn't?

We are guided by the Holy Spirit. You will know which when you encounter one. So far I have only come across those which I have pointed out.

[pnattmbtc]

Now, after all has been said, John was allowed to write what he sincerely believed was true. Yet that does not mean John is infallible. True the Holy Spirit that inspired him is infallible.  But the inspiration is on the man, not on the words the man used.  Same case applies to each of us. Who inspires us? It is the Holy Spirit. But are we infallible? No.  Our saying or writing something that is wrong is not to be taken against the Holy Spirit.

You could argue that what we write are not Scriptures. Yes, that's true. And what John wrote are in Scriptures. But do we have the manuscript of John? Into how many hands of scribes did what John originally wrote pass through for copying into other copies until the final copy used for translation into languages we now have? How sure are we that those who manually copied from a copy that was copied from another copy copied from another copy that was copied from the original did not make any error of ommission or addition, deliberately or otherwise? And I pointed out this fact early in our discussion.

Sadly our discussion had to come down lower when you pressed me into Scriptural basis of why John wrote the confession requirement and I don't believe it.  I had no recourse but to go to what the prophet Isaiah has written.  And everything else is history.

Ok, I understand most of this.

Regarding Isaiah, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be of the impression that Isaiah and John contradict each other.  They don't.  I tried to explain this to you in the previous posts where I quoted from John.  If you want to discuss this in more detail, you could start a thread on it.

However, this is incidental to the point you are making here.  I agree with what you write about inspiration, that the Bible writers are not infallible.  However, it's really hard to understand your whole approach to things.  You latch on certain verse, and make them your "bible," and take them in a certain fixed way, and twist everything else to match that.  Why do you think that makes sense?  For example:

 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

You read this in a certain way, an odd way, which requires that people are forgiven when they don't exist.  And when you come across a verse like this:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  

you want to set this aside to agree with your interpretation of the other.  But this is backwards!  Why is this backwards?  Because even a child can understand 1 John 1:9.  There's no argument as to what this means.  Look at 100 commentaries, and they'll all say the same thing.  People from different denominations can read this, and agree.  It's so clear, there's practically no way to misunderstand it.  I suppose it's possible, but one would have to work at it.

On the other hand, the Pauline passage is more difficult to understand.  Everyone would agree to that.  So why would you make *that* the text that take as the fixed point?  It should be the *other* text that you hold to, the one easy to understand!

I see this mistake made all the time, and there are all sorts of weird ideas and whole denominations which come from preferring controverted texts over ones which are not controverted.  But it's an established principle of hermeneutics that uncontroverted texts should be preferred over controverted ones.  And this doesn't just apply to the Scriptures, but one should take this approach when analyzing any author.

[pnattmbtc]

We are guided by the Holy Spirit. You will know which when you encounter one. So far I have only come across those which I have pointed out.

Really?  So far you have only come across the one in Peter, and three texts from John?  So if you come across something you don't understand, you relegate it to a lower level of inspiration, that needs to be corrected.  That's extraordinary! 

[pnattmbtc]

Now, after all has been said, John was allowed to write what he sincerely believed was true. Yet that does not mean John is infallible. True the Holy Spirit that inspired him is infallible.  But the inspiration is on the man, not on the words the man used.  Same case applies to each of us. Who inspires us? It is the Holy Spirit.

We are guided by the Holy Spirit. You will know which when you encounter one. So far I have only come across those which I have pointed out. 

I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly.  What has happened is you have a view of things, taken from verses from Paul mostly, Ephesians, Colossians, Romans, and have come up with an idea which you see contradicts what John wrote, and because of this contradiction, you believe that John, though sincere, and though inspired, was wrong.  And you believe that the Holy Spirit is leading you to know this.  I'm reading you correctly? 

[Samie]

Ok, I understand most of this.

Regarding Isaiah, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be of the impression that Isaiah and John contradict each other.  They don't.  I tried to explain this to you in the previous posts where I quoted from John.  If you want to discuss this in more detail, you could start a thread on it.

However, this is incidental to the point you are making here.  I agree with what you write about inspiration, that the Bible writers are not infallible.  However, it's really hard to understand your whole approach to things.  You latch on certain verse, and make them your "bible," and take them in a certain fixed way, and twist everything else to match that.  Why do you think that makes sense?  For example:

You read this in a certain way, an odd way, which requires that people are forgiven when they don't exist.  And when you come across a verse like this:

you want to set this aside to agree with your interpretation of the other.  But this is backwards!  Why is this backwards?  Because even a child can understand 1 John 1:9.  There's no argument as to what this means.  Look at 100 commentaries, and they'll all say the same thing.  People from different denominations can read this, and agree.  It's so clear, there's practically no way to misunderstand it.  I suppose it's possible, but one would have to work at it.

On the other hand, the Pauline passage is more difficult to understand.  Everyone would agree to that.  So why would you make *that* the text that take as the fixed point?  It should be the *other* text that you hold to, the one easy to understand!

I see this mistake made all the time, and there are all sorts of weird ideas and whole denominations which come from preferring controverted texts over ones which are not controverted.  But it's an established principle of hermeneutics that uncontroverted texts should be preferred over controverted ones.  And this doesn't just apply to the Scriptures, but one should take this approach when analyzing any author.

When an adult tells a child the sun goes around the earth the child easily understands because he sees the sun rising and setting. But when you tell him the earth revolves around the sun then its another story.

And Copernicus got the scare of his life because of this.