Lord Jesus, are there few that be saved? (resurrection, eternal, Corinthians)

[Jerwade]

Originally Posted by Jerwade

In other words, "I wish all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth."
Rather than, 'I will have all to be saved and come to the full knowledge of the truth.'

θέλω means to hold to something with a fixed resolve, not a wishful thought!

By the way Strong's and Wallace are not my mentors!

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Or desire or similar words that reflect the meaning.

And no the word does not necessarily in all cases mean that. You are prejudicing it because your are prejudice and bias. I linked you to the subject at hand.

In fact you can read some of the ambiguity in this link under number 4. Strong's Greek: 2309. ???? (theló) -- to will, wish You will see that it is not so cut and dry without context and that scholars debate this crap forever.

Go and read the whole thing and see how scholars are divided on the word precisely because it is used synonymously, with the opposite of 'fixed resolve', in all Greek Literature. Thus the grammar that I presented to you particularly with the infinitive following the Indicative demonstrates that you are wrong not to mention the context that other passages provide.

'As respects the distinction between βούλομαι and θέλω, the former seems to designate the will which follows deliberation, the latter the will which proceeds from inclination.'

'At the same time it must be confessed that scholars are far from harmonious on the subject. Many agree with Prof. Grimm that θέλω gives prominence to the emotive element, βούλομαι emphasizes the rational and volitive; that θέλω signifies the choice, while βούλομαι marks the choice as deliberate and intelligent; yet they acknowledge that the words are sometimes used indiscriminately, and especially that θέλω as the less sharply-defined term is put where βούλομαι would be proper...;'

And by the way you just telling me it is so is not good enough. You have been corrected and shown why. If you want to deny it by all means be my guest but don't act like you know what it is you are talking about just because you deny and assert.

You haven't corrected squat, and have even confessed that scholars continue to debate this, so why don't you take your self-righteousness down the road and I will stay with my thirty-eight years of studying the languages. Unlike you - I do not need someone to interpret things for me.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Your premise that I have to have a predetermined view of the nature of Christ is bogus. The nature of Christ CAN be discerned from how He is presented in the texts separately from the dogma that is presented. It is not remotely difficult to then discern inconsistencies and contradictions between the presented nature of Christ and the presented dogma. It is obvious where they conflict. I choose to go with the presented nature of Christ over the inconsistent or contradictory presented dogma.

So let's break this down:

1) You have the presented nature of Christ in the Bible.

2) You have the presented nature of Christ as interpreted by people reading the Bible.

Awesome!

How are you then discerning, deciding, etc. that #2 is not correct with #1?

How is it obvious that they are?

I asked you about two texts in the Bible (#1), I did not interpret them (#2), I asked if those two verses represented the composite of Christ you hold too. You seemed to deny that they were? If so how did you arrive at that conclusion? If they are part of the composite of Christ it seems that those verses contradict the teaching that all will be saved - something you were giving a for with other posters.

I have argued that my exegesis of such passages are not my mere bias or feelings - I could not care less what it is since I'm an atheist - it matter not to me. But the text says what it says and unless you can exegete the passage better, and present the grammatical evidence, then I don't want your mere feelings or spidy-sense.

Originally Posted by Jerwade

You haven't corrected squat, and have even confessed that scholars continue to debate this, so why don't you take your self-righteousness down the road and I will stay with my thirty-eight years of studying the languages. Unlike you - I do not need someone to interpret things for me.

Scholars do indeed debate the inherent meaning of the word precisely because it is so flexible given the context and grammar associated with it. So you just admitted that scholars disagree with you that it always means what you said it did. And thus I'm correct! It has varied meanings depending on the context and grammar.

And I showed you exactly how the meaning is used given these grammatical and contextual points and it is not your meaning.

Thus I corrected your errors and assumption about this word and in general a good lesson for your future attempts to define things in a narrow biased fashion.

One other thing I have noticed is that when so-called spiritual people can't deal with facts or correction they rely on BS mockery and accusations of the persons handing them their ass.

Good Day Sir!

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

So let's break this down:
1) You have the presented nature of Christ in the Bible.
2) You have the presented nature of Christ as interpreted by people reading the Bible.

Awesome!

How are you then discerning, deciding, etc. that #2 is not correct with #1?

How is it obvious that they are?

Seriously? You have to be trying NOT to comprehend. Number 2 is NOT about the "presented nature of Christ." It is about the supposed presented teachings of Christ (dogma) which in many cases contradict or are inconsistent with the presented nature of Christ. What about that do you NOT comprehend????

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Seriously? You have to be trying NOT to comprehend. Number 2 is NOT about the "presented nature of Christ." It is about the supposed presented teachings of Christ (dogma) which in many cases contradict or are inconsistent with the presented nature of Christ. What about that do you NOT comprehend????

You might start with the basics and clearly state to him what you believe the Bible is and isn't.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Seriously? You have to be trying NOT to comprehend. Number 2 is NOT about the "presented nature of Christ." It is about the supposed presented teachings of Christ (dogma) which in many cases contradict or are inconsistent with the presented nature of Christ. What about that do you NOT comprehend????

The Bible does mention the nature of Christ not just the teachings. I was going off of what you said:

The nature of Christ CAN be discerned from how He is presented in the texts separately from the dogma that is presented.

What did you mean by 'the dogma that is presented' if not the interpretation of these texts?

[Rose2Luv]

Originally Posted by Matthew 4:4

Yes, wishing is different than all will be saved ( delivered / rescued )
No doubt that is why Matthew 20:28 says Jesus' ransom covers MANY and does Not say all.

Yup, Matthew, it does not say all/pas. The word would be λύτρον/lytron. But I want to assure you, the Master declares when He is lifted up "I will draw all mankind unto Me". Would you be interested in what "draw" means in koine? And, assuming you know the radical meaning of pas, you will never guess what our Lord and Saviour of all mankind declares in this passage under consideration...

"When I am lifted up, I will draw all/pas mankind unto Me."

[Jerwade]

Originally Posted by Jerwade

You haven't corrected squat, and have even confessed that scholars continue to debate this, so why don't you take your self-righteousness down the road and I will stay with my thirty-eight years of studying the languages. Unlike you - I do not need someone to interpret things for me.

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Scholars do indeed debate the inherent meaning of the word precisely because it is so flexible given the context and grammar associated with it. So you just admitted that scholars disagree with you that it always means what you said it did. And thus I'm correct! It has varied meanings depending on the context and grammar.

And I showed you exactly how the meaning is used given these grammatical and contextual points and it is not your meaning.

Thus I corrected your errors and assumption about this word and in general a good lesson for your future attempts to define things in a narrow biased fashion.

One other thing I have noticed is that when so-called spiritual people can't deal with facts or correction they rely on BS mockery and accusations of the persons handing them their ass.

Good Day Sir!

It was you that stated scholars debate it, for me it isn't even a question. And for some reason you have grouped me in with others who call themselves Christian or use that label, which just goes to show that you have no idea what I personally believe; and are merely stigmatizing me with a group of people with whom you disagree with, while hiding behind that blanket of claiming to be an atheist. And contrary to your opinion of thinking you are above others, you were given the correct meaning but refuse to believe it due to your own bias and prejudice views. You are a fundamentalist at heart but I wish you well in your endeavors. For some reason you need to feel superior, but in actuality you're just arrogant. Which is the norm for fundamentalists.

Originally Posted by Jerwade

It was you that stated scholars debate it, for me it isn't even a question. And for some reason you have grouped me in with others who call themselves Christian or use that label, which just goes to show that you have no idea what I personally believe; and are merely stigmatizing me with a group of people with whom you disagree with, while hiding behind that blanket of claiming to be an atheist. And contrary to your opinion of thinking you are above others, you were given the correct meaning but refuse to believe it due to your own bias and prejudice views. You are a fundamentalist at heart but I wish you well in your endeavors. For some reason you need to feel superior, but in actuality you're just arrogant.

You quoted a Christian universalist passage in defense of 'all being saved' and are arguing over it.

And maybe you are the one who should humble yourself and respect scholars on the issue instead of just asserting it. And you think I'm bias. I was not given the correct meaning I was given your asserted meaning which you have not backed up.

The irony of you calling me, an atheist, a fundamentalists who recognizes that the meaning of a word is not inherently fundamental but changes due the context and grammar is funny!

And the irony of you calling me arrogant, bias, prejudice, and accusing me feeling superior is also ironic. You are the king of irony.

[Rose2Luv]

Originally Posted by Rose2Luv

Yup, Matthew, it does not say all/pas. The word would be λύτρον/lytron. But I want to assure you, the Master declares when He is lifted up "I will draw all mankind unto Me". Would you be interested in what "draw" means in koine? And, assuming you know the radical meaning of pas, you will never guess what our Lord and Saviour of all mankind declares in this passage under consideration...

"When I am lifted up, I will draw all/pas mankind unto Me."

Where are you Matthew? So the Master of reconciliation declares in no uncertain terms "I will draw all mankind unto me". And, my friend, let's have a wee boo at what "draw" means shall we?

I will draw all mankind unto Me" =

To draw, drag off, to draw by inward power, to lead, to impel.

"I will draw by inward power, I will drag off, I will lead, I will impel all mankind unto Me."