In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
This debate is much appropriate more for theists or people who have had serious time and investment in the scriptures.
Many denominations have many doctrines and this being one as the topic says is not true but it's contrary to many.
Those that take the position that the topic statement is false must show from bible , chapter and verse only that that is the case.
For questions and advice , message and comment.
I Rebuttal: Pro “Everybody that bows down…”
I.a Pro advises that I read where the Holy Bible says as quoted above, forgetting that I have read the entire Bible several times, in four languages, and Pro has yet to read it entirely even once on any language. Sorry to say, in no verse of the Holy Bible does it say, “Every knee thatbows…” which implies that there are some knees that will not bow. Nope. There are multiple verses, OT and NT with a similar phrasing, but none limit by inference that some will not bow. We are looking specifically to what I quoted in my R3, I.b: Romans 14: 11. Rather, it states [KJV & ESV] “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bowto me, and every tongue confessto God.” Every knee, every tongue. All of them, everybody, just or unjust, shall ultimately confess to God. Pro seems to have a problem accepting what “all” and “everyone” really means.
I.b No, nothing here in just this verse, or even in its 14thchapter context, does it say that Jesus died for everyone. No, it doesn’t harmonize in that fashion, yet Pro continues to insist on his harmony. Tell me how one harmonizes when one has not yet met all the instruments and their players in the orchestra? Tough to harmonize when all one can play is a G major, only the one note, and only in the string section. Who knew that G, A, B, D, E, and F# is the G major chord. And that the strings, woodwinds, brass, and even some drums can play that chord together. But Pro cannot because he has not read the musical score, and cannot play all the instruments in the orchestra. Argue for you limitations; they’re yours.
I.b.1 Pro argued that II Timothy 3 teaches us that all scripture is good for doctrine. But pro then argues that all scripture is not good for doctrine if they cannot be harmonized. I trust Timothy knew what he was talking about. I also trust Pro is misguided by discounting some scripture when he has never read all of the Holy Bible, let alone other Holy writ I have acknowledged in my debate [and which, to date, Pro has not specifically discounted by any argument. If there is no harmony, according to Pro, there is no “good for doctrine” according to Pro. It’s a self-defeating argument in my book.
I.b.2 I will repeat an argument I offered in my R3, VI.b, which “Pro concludes that my analysis of Revelation 20: 4-5, 12 “disregards John 5,” but insists that II Timothy 3 says “all scripture is good for doctrine.” Mathematically, Pro says thus: IIT3 = J5 = R20 ∴ R20 ≠ J5. Is R20 also not equal to IIT3? No, it doesn’t make sense even when given in God’s native language.” Mathematics, that is.
I.c I also repeat argument from my R1, VII.a.1 and VII.b: “VII.a.1 I invite the comparison of Pro’s resolution, quoted above, and this verse from the N.T., [NIV] Hebrews 2: 9. In particular, compare the resolution to the last phrase, “…he [Jesus] might taste death for everyone.” Sounds familiar? It should.” “VII.b Let’s look at this last, operative phrase in Greek [LXX]: “… ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου.” [hyper pantos geusētai thanatou, or, for everyonehe might taste death] The operative word, everyone, translates to Greek as παντὸς [pantos], which translates back to English as “everyone,” or “all,” or “anything.” So, what was the common language in Tarsus, where Paul [né Saul] was born? Greek, anyone?”
I.c.1 Pro made an attempt to rebut this passage in Hebrews 2, claiming it did not harmonize, that, “…you have to understand this with the whole bible.” A cheeky claim in Pro’s R4 when he later admitt3ed to having never read the “whole bible.”
I.c.2 Pro’s Resolution charges that, “In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.” I challenge readers to apparently agree with Pro that Hebrews is not a book of scripture in the Holy Bible. Therefore, Pro fails to meet his resolution.
II Rebuttal: “None of this says that Christ died for everyone.”
II.a Pro alleges: “Does the word "all" innately mean" all people"? Are you just adding the word "people" to the word "all"? You think questions aren't sound or whatever your opposition is but the whole debate is centered around a question. Do the scriptures teach that Christ died for everyone?”
II.a.1 Curious that Pro wants to harmonize all his scriptures, but does not understand the harmony of Christ dying for all because all will then resurrect, both the just and the unjust, some to life eternal, and some to condemnation. No scripture tells us that some will resurrect, and then die again by condemnation. They will not inherit life with God, but they still remain resurrected in life, but elsewhere, separated from God. We live right now outside of God’s presence. What’s the difference if we live in mortality, or in immortality, but that some with live with God, because of their faith and works in this mortal life, and some will not live in God’s presence because they sinned and refused to repent. Therefore, since all will resurrect, all were benefitted by Christ dying for them all.
II.b Pro is correct, as for the one verse 22 of I Cor. 15, about which Pro argues. But, contrary to Pro’s allegation, we have not been all over I Cor. We have been all over verse 22, and pro’s R5 quoted 23, but that is not all, either. Have I not previously said that a single verse lifted from its context does not tell all? Therefore, I will waste rebuttal space of my own words to quote 26 verses of the chapter of Paul’s I Corinthians 15, verses to give us context. They refute all of Pro’s arguments that Christ did not die for everyone.
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephus, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
II.b.1 Therefore, Christ did die for everyone, contrary to Pro’s Resolution, and Pro’s BoP fails.
III Rebuttal: “We could say its saying…” and further grammatical quibble
III.a Pro then argues, “It just says the word "all". We could say it's saying all that are saved, all that are chosen, all that are born again, but just leave it as simply how it is written. When you go too far with the audacity requiring it to say everybody, the other books will make a fool out of you.” Can readers follow this alleged logic? All is not everyone? We’ve been here before.
III.a.1 Pro’s first quote of his R12 argument: "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." [Revelation 13: 8] Seems all means everyone, “all who dwell upon the earth,” yet Pro later denies it. Pro argues against himself, a turn of logic. Pro’s BoP fails.
III.b Pro then argues, “Everything you said from the last quote of yours I put is simply futile. It's circular and you're running from the scriptures I've offered understandably so as they go against your position.”
III.b.1 Do they? Like the quote above from Revelation 14; Pro’s own citation goes against my position? Pro’s BoP fails.
III.c Pro then argues, “1 Corinthians 15 says all will be made alive. The question is , all what? You're adding the word "people". It doesn't say all people so don't run with this assumption of all people. Let's say your right in thinking it is all people. You would be right until you look at Revelation, not to mention other books.”
III.c.1 But we have just looked in Revelation 14, above in my arg. III.b, III.b.1. Am I still right, after all? Then Pro’s BoP fails.
III.d Pro then argues, “It has to be one or the other. Christ can't die for all people and not for all of them at the same time. One negates the other making a statement recanting it after it was said.”
III.d.1 Shall we re-visit, once again, my argument that there are contradictions in the Holy Bible; may argument in my R1, II.d.2, II.d.2.A: “I consider the Holy Bible to be the Word of God, however, I accept it only as such, not because it is infallible, for the contradictions in it are many, and not because seven centuries of argument over this and that “chapter and verse” to which Pro refers the thrust of my BoP should be considered as literal and unchangeable from the original texts from which, over centuries, we have the alleged infallible work of fallible men, including, by the way, the original authors, but because we can, today, still read, interpret, and then ask God if we have understood correctly. I will challenge the reader to read James 1: 2-5 and conclude anything different than what I’ve just written: that we can ask God for wisdom. James uses that very word. So, go do it, every one of you.
“If we are to do otherwise, deny this advice from James and draw only our own conclusions, then I challenge Pro, specifically, to justify why we have so many versions of the Holy Bible. I am sourcing from three different versions myself: the KJV, the ESV, the NIV. If the Word of God [the Holy Bible] is infallible, why do we have different versions of it, even just in English? My argument is not that the Bible might as well be tossed because it is not infallible, but that given what we have, it is still valuable enough from which to plant a seed of faith and reap a harvest of value to our souls. That is accomplished, for the curious, and the sincere, by the advice given by James.”
III.d.2 I will advise readers to refer to my argument in R2, I.c regarding the definition of “bible.”
III.d.3 Pro, himself, acknowledge biblical contradictions, so he cannot now say “It’s one or the other,” to wit, from his R2: “The verses I mentioned appears to show a contradiction. Atheists seeing this debate will use this as a validation to discount the bible.” I take Pro at his own words that the scriptures appear to contradict themselves, therefore, what harmony? And if those specific scriptures, the Holy Bible, are infallible, how, then do we interpret harmony? I hereby rebut Pro’s late R2 confusion, extending to R5, as being contradiction to his own declared debate purpose and protocol. Therefore, Pro’s BoP fails.
III.e Pro goers on to make other arguments, repeating arguments from previous rounds, all which exhibit the same results of the examples I demonstrated above. “Yes, we could say it’s saying…” but, since there are contradictions in the Holy Bible, because although the word of God, it was never written by God, but by fallible men, transliterated and translated by fallible men, and Pro acknowledges there are contradictions, and expresses a doleful wish that there were no contradictions: “When everything is harmonized, we won't have contradictions as it appears to be,” [Pro’s R2], but wants everything harmonized right now.
III.e.1 Regardless, Pro did not qualify his Resolution: “In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone” with any mention of harmonizing. Nor was it required in his Description. I have cited from scripture, as requested, to prove my BoP that Christ died for everyone. Pro disagrees, but, in the process, he has argued that “all” does not mean “everyone” [absurd], offered contradictions [there are], reversed his arguments [he did, even on the matter of contradictions], and has offered gibberish logic [“we could say it’s saying…”]. Pro’s BoP fails.
III.e.2 Perhaps Pro would have been better off adding definition for some of these words, but he chose to never mention that term until his 5thround. No wonder we quibble over “all” and “everyone,” but if anyone else is confused on the matter and you agree with Pro, so be it.
Jesus Christ died and lives for all who have lived on earth, as all who have lived on earth will die and live again; the just and even the unjust. I so testify by scripture and by my own personal witness that this is true.
Thank pro for the debate, thank you readers for your indulgence; please vote for Con.