Instigator / Pro
0
1492
rating
333
debates
40.69%
won
Topic
#2698
In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 25,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description
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.
Round 1
Pro
#1
To start with, we'll look at two scriptures.
The scriptures say the first shall be last , the last shall be first so I'll move in sort of a likewise spirit here starting first with the last book.
Starting with the last book , that is the book of Revelation, chapter 13 and to get to the point, verse 8.
"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."
Key things to take note of here are the following: "life", "slain from the foundation of the world".
We tie this language to another passage with similar language and context.
That is in the book of Ephesians , chapter 1, verse 4:
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love"
Both passages have to do with prior to the creation or just right at the start of it, a plan had already been established. An elect of some kind as the texts mention " chosen" and those not chosen to be "written in the book of life".
So now we've developed a "not all" understanding.
Checkpoint list
1. "Not all"
Remember the key words "life", "slain", "foundation of the world".
We looked over the "foundation of the world" verbiage and see this mentioned in these two different passages of contexts.
The next keys we can look at in unison are "life" and "slain".
In Ephesians same chapter, verse 13:
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation"
Now the gospel of your salvation or the good news of you being saved, question is, what have you been saved with?
Reading further down starting with verse 19 and 20 for context :
"19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places"
Here we see about the death of Christ all in the context of this chapter earlier on about a selection and reading on about what it means to be chosen in Christ.
So far we see "death" and being saved.
Go over to Ephesians the next chapter, starting at verse 5 - 7
"5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus."
The context continues about Christ, being raised and saved.
Have the chosen in Christ been saved with the resurrection of Christ from death? Is he the one slain from the beginning that has those made alive with their names in the book of life mentioned in Revelation 13?
Checkpoint list
1."Not all"
2. The tie of Christ's death for those that have their names in the book of life.
I'll leave it there with those main two segments. That's pretty much the basis as to keep the capacity condensed and clear.
Although I do want to add these additional scriptures for further confirmation.
1 conrinthians 15 , pretty much the whole chapter.
Romans 8:33-34
33 Who will bring any charge(A) against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns?(B) No one. Christ Jesus who died(C)—more than that, who was raised to life(D)—is at the right hand of God(E) and is also interceding for us.(F)
Colossians 2:13-15
13 When you were dead in your sins(A) and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[a] alive(B) with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,(C) 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness,(D) which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.(E) 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities,(F) he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them(G) by the cross.[b]
Again, all this just further backs up the main scriptures given.
Now before I end this round, please keep this in mind in that, whatever you say, it has to harmonize with Ephesians and Revelation.
Throwing scripture for scripture like blow for blow isn't the nature of this.
You'll read in 2 Timothy 3 about all scripture being good for teaching, so we're not dropping one scripture, leaving out another so to counter with the next.
Everything is good to use so why leave one for another after another?
You harmonize things and to do so , you go by what it says in 1 conrinthians 2 on comparing spiritual things.
We make the comparison by finding the similarities hence getting the harmony.
Con
#2
Pro resolution: “In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.”
I Introduction
I.a I thank Mall for proposing this debate subject. By the description, if I read it correctly, my BoP that Jesus did die for everyone is limited to references from the Holy Bible. Normally, I would use the KJV, and may find it useful in this context. That is the translation version with which I am most familiar, having read the entire volume on three separate occasions, in addition to volumes in French, Italian, and Greek. I will make some reference to the Greek [Septuagint LXX] version as this is understood to be the language in which the Old Testament was rendered from the earliest known Hebrew texts circa 12thcentury BCE, and then the New Testament from roughly 300 CE,[1] and expecting that from antiquity to today, Greek as with all languages, has changed. However, I will also use different versions than KJV. I will also use the English Standard Version [ESV], and New International Version [NIV], and will note accordingly.
I.a.1 However, I may include additional non-biblical scripture sources for purposes of argument, but will not depend on them for voting, though I would not attempt to deter voters from considering what they will as voting justification, in spite of Pro’s attempted restriction of sourcing. I will also offer other, non-biblical sources of Holy Writ. I do this because I have no guarantee from Pro that he will restrict his sourcing to the Holy Bible, therefore, I claim privilege to cite from non-biblical sources should they serve my purpose. In addition, though unusual for typical Christianity, I recognize that the concept of God speaking to one people of the Earth, and subsequently retiring from revelation to man is a claim of supreme anthropogenic limitation, to which I reply, quoting from a favored author, Richard Bach, “The greatest sin is to limit God. Don’t.”[2]
II Rebuttal: “The last shall be first…”[3]
II.a Pro refers to the above phrase to begin his argument. It has several references, none of which Pro cites, but that’s another issue. So, there I will begin, reminding Pro that, after him, it is Con who shall have, ultimately, the last word in this debate, as in each of its rounds, so I caution Pro to remember he only opens the door. Legitimately, I may choose to ignore, walk through, or, in fact, close the door.
II.b So, the door opened, let us recall who determined that The Book of Revelation was the last book of the Holy Bible. It was not John, but one of the ecumenical councils, which determined the order of the scriptural records we have today as the various interpretations of the scrolls comprising the books of the Holy Bible. Those councils extended from the fourth century CE to the eleventh century CE, so lets not get too chronologically wrapped in the cloak of infallible Holy Writ.[4]
II.b.1 In point of fact, we see no where in the volume recognized by Christendom the presence of the word, “infallible” referring to itself, as in “the infallible Word of God.” That others have so referenced it, so be it, but I challenge Pro, as though I were an agnostic, but really just the old devil’s advocate, to prove it the volume is infallible by more than just saying it is so.
II.c Therefore, I must conclude, in rebuttal to Pro’s final claim that my BoP must align as follows: “Now before I end this round, please keep this in mind in that, whatever you [I presume Pro refers to Con] say, it has to harmonize with Ephesians and Revelation.” I would offer a specific reference in Pro’s R1 to guide you to that particular charge, but Pro does not offer you an easy reference to his arguments as you see me have. It makes citation so much easier to reference, you see, but many on this site find citation unnecessary. So be it. I do, therefore, I provide easy reference to my arguments. Make of that as you will. [I do not refer to Pro]
II.c.1 My rebuttal, then: Pro assumes that he can shape my BoP to his will. That argument, you will see, is fraught with error, for Pro has already defined the parameters of his BoP, and mine, in the Resolution and Description introducing, and preceding this debate, as is Pro’s charge as Instigator. As neither describe a restriction such as “…it has to harmonize with Ephesians and Revelation,” but, rather, that I make use of “… the Bible, chapter and verse…” I will, therefore, make use of the entire volume, thank you. After all, Pro does as you will note, later. Let Pro sing his harmony; I shall sing mine, thank you very much. However, refer to my Introduction, above, referring to the use of several interpretations of said Bible. “Harmony,” did someone say? Is marching to a different drummer necessarily discord?
II.d Infallibility. A curious word. Refer to my argument II.b.1, above. As the volume in question makes no such claim, not even within any book, referring only to that “original” scroll [whatever that is], is that claim made for that book, alone. What do we conclude? As no book in our current collection makes the claim of itself, how do we, now, add it to the book to make the claim? I will make an argument against myself just to make the point. In the Book of Revelation,we read, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”[5]
II.d.1 To what “book” does John refer? The Holy Bible, as a whole, as many claim? No. For John did not conceive a “Bible.” He refers strictly to the “book” he is writing: “Revelation.” As noted above, II.b, the “Bible” is a volume conceived over seven centuries of ecumenical councils, long past John’s penmanship on the Isle of Patmos. In fact, the term, “Bible” does not exist within the whole text, either. I leave it to voters, should they be so curious, to research the meaning of that word. I have, but it is a non sequitur to this debate. Hint: its source is [surprise] Greek.
II.d.2 Note that I said I’ll argue against myself. Here’s how: 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.
II.d.2.A 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 Rebuttal: “Before the foundation of the world”
III.a Pro’s remarks concerning this event “before the foundation of the world” without pursuing the meaning of that reference “before…”, as well as misunderstanding the sense of the “the book of life,” which I will address in rebuttal III.a.1.C, and IV, below. So, what was “the foundation of the world,” and what occurred “before” it?
III.a.1 First, let us remark Pro’s admission, showing some sense of timing, without understanding its meaning relative to the Book of Life: “Both passages [he refers to passages in Revelation and in Ephesians] have to do with prior to the creation… a plan had already been established.” Therefore, the “Foundation of the world” is its creation. Pro acknowledges there is both a plan before the creation event in which plan we took part [therefore, we existed prior to the creation? – Yes!], and a creation of the world. But, were all who took part in that plan also born to parents on earth, or were some expelled from heaven “before the foundation of the world?”
III.a.1.A Isaiah 14: 12 – 15 [NIV]: “How are you fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: I will ascend into Heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; …I will be like the Most High. Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to be the lowest depths of the pit.”
III.a.1.B Luke 10: 17 – 18 [NIV]: “The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name. He replied, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”
III.a.1.C These verses depict the fall of Satan, and his demons, before “the foundation of the world.” This world is the realm of Satan. Thus we encountered Satan, or Lucifer, as the serpent in Eden, tempting Eve. [Genesis 3] Thus we encountered Satan in the wilderness to tempt Jesus [Matthew 4]. Thus we encounter Satan today, who attempts to dissuade us from “[letting] patience have its perfect work”[6] to have that wisdom. We shall discuss the atonement of Christ, and its infinite reach in argument, below. And thus, the understanding that those “written out” of the Book of Life include Satan and his demons “before the world was” and, therefore, are included with the “everyone” of whom the scriptures speak were those for whom Jesus Christ died, even though those who are “written out,” by refusal to take part in mortality on earth [Satan and his demons]. They made that decision “before the foundation of the world,” and it is binding on them.
IV Rebuttal: “Written in The Book of Life”
IV.a Pro claims that there are those whose names are blotted from the Book of Life of the Lamb, and concludes, therefore, that Christ did not die for everyone. Pro is, shall we say, comparing apples and oranges by not investigating just what is meant by “The Book of Life,” as sketched above. Let’s fill in the illustration: Pro assumes that only those whose names are ultimately recorded in the Book of Life earn the heavenly abode of God. As it happens, I agree with that statement, for all will not abide with God in Heaven. The wicked will abide elsewhere in a kingdom suitable for them. However, this does not imply that Jesus Christ did not die for all, and my arguments for that will follow; specifically, in argument VII.
IV.b I will offer an argument of practical nature to explain what I mean. In America, at its inception [1789] the Constitution declared citizenship of all inhabitants who would be, when the 1790 Census was organized and conducted, counted as “whole persons.” This included four separate conditions: [1] free, white males under 16, [2] free, white males 16 and older, [3] free white females of any age, [4] free Blacks of any age, and either sex.[7] This is not an argument of race, for all free Blacks were considered citizens,[8] but of voting rights, to wit, although noting the third and fourth conditions, free white females, and free Black females, as citizens, those females were NOT granted the right to vote until the Nineteenth Amendment passed in 1920. Therefore, although acknowledged as citizens of the U.S., all of its women, prior to 1920’s 19A [comparable to all who were involved in “the plan before the world was”] were denied the right to vote [comparable to all whose names appear in the Book of Life].
IV.c Therefore, Pro’s claim “So now we’ve developed a ‘not all’ understanding” misunderstands both who is involved “before the foundation of the world,” and the context of whose names are, and are not in the “Book of Life,” and what “written” or “blotted” really means in the context of our debate. This point will be further developed when my arguments begin below.
V Rebuttal: “Checkpoint list”
V.a “1” is rebutted by the above rebuttals, I – IV, as well as by the argument VII below of the infinite nature of Christ’s atonement.
V.b “2” “Christ’s death” does not, itself, comprise the atonement of Christ, but the atonement includes his suffering in Gethsemane, and being scourged by the Romans prior to the crucifixion. Let us allow credit where credit is due, in spite of the resolution considering only Christ dyingfor us on the cross. He suffered plenty for us while in the flesh, alive. I submit that no ordinary man would survive the agony suffered by Christ in Gethsemane, which, interpreted, means “olive press.” I have observed the process personally, in France, much as was done anciently, pressing olives between two great slabs of stone to render the oil. Luke 22: 44 describes the resulting agonizing pressure as “as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” Whether Luke’s blood reference was literal or figurative, the agony cannot be imagined. Further, I submit that no ordinary man would survive the scourging done to Christ by the Romans, which is summarized by a reference to the tool used; a “scourge.”[9] [See John 19: 1 [KJV] Finally, I submit that no ordinary man survived crucifixion, and even Christ succumbed by his choice to be the Lamb of God, sacrificed for all.
V.b.1 Pro referenced I Corinthians 15: [“pretty much the whole chapter”] – even though Christ’s death is described only in verses 3 and 4, and the balance of the chapter discusses his resurrection. The latter is an important point – resurrection, to wit, rising to life eternal from death. Well let’s look at “pretty much the whole chapter.”
V.b.1.a I Corinthians 15: 22 [KJV] “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” [italics added for emphasis – denying the resolution.]
V.b.1.b I Corinthians 15: 23 [KJV] “But everyman in his own order…” [italics added for emphasis – denying the resolution.]
V.b.1.c I Corinthians 15: 55 [KJV] “O death, where isthy sting? O grave, where isthy victory?” [italics added for emphasis – denying the resolution, because the question, where is…?, implies there is no more death nor grave for anyone who has lived a mortal life, nor even lack of death for anyone who never lived a mortal life, i.e., Satan and his demons.]
V.c Do these rebuttals harmonize with Ephesians and Revelation? Refer to my rebuttal II, above.
VI. Rebuttal: “Throwing scripture for scripture”
VI.a May I refer Pro, and readers take note, to his citations of Revelation 13: 8, Ephesians 1: 4, Ephesians 4: 13, 19, 20, Ephesians 5: 5 – 7, back to Revelation 13, I Corinthians 15 [“pretty much the whole chapter”], Romans 8: 33-34, Colossians 2: 13-15, II Timothy 3, I Corinthians 2…
VI.a.1 That’s quite a lot of throwing to demand that this debate’s nature is something else. What, then, is its nature? The Description advises that scriptures be cited. Are we to understand Pro is confused on this matter? His is the first word; so be it. But mine is last, as Pro has defined the parameters of this debate. So be that.
VII Argument: Jesus’ atonement is infinite
VII.a I will begin with a reference that nearly mimics Pro’s resolution: “But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”[10]
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?
VII.c Thus it is clear from this verse in Hebrews, the which was written by Paul to the Hebrews as a basic primer of understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a people to whom Christ’s coming as the Messiah was foretold to their ancestors. Chapter by chapter, Paul lays bear the simplicity of the gospel message, including this pivotal chapter explaining the atonement.
VII.d The heading of this argument, section VII, claims the atonement is infinite; that is, it has everlasting effect. That speaks not only to the fact that the atonement, “by the grace of God,” expiates, or reconciles man to God of not just man’s sins, on the condition of man’s repentance, but of all his/her innocent suffering at the hands of others, or by his/her own actions, and all sorrows, grief, and pains of mortality, for all men and women who have ever lived, are living, and will ever live.
VII.d.1 In his volume, Jesus the Christ, James E. Talmage wrote: “The effect of the atonement may be conveniently considered as twofold: [1] The universal redemption of the human race from death invoked by the fall of our first parents; and [2] Salvation, whereby means of relief from the results of individual sin are provided.”[11] Note for purposes of the debate that that atonement was accomplished for “…the universal redemption of the human race,” and no exceptions are given for that description. In other words, it was done for everyone, in opposition to this debate’s resolution.
VII.d.2 But the atonement extends further than even that. The atonement is the underlying reason that man has the ability to be reconciled with God through repentance. God recognized, by personal past experience, that mortality is fraught with mistakes made, either by volition, or ignorantly. Some mistakes are merely accidents, violation of natural law, such as accidentally falling off a roof while putting up Christmas lights. One need not repent for such mistakes. Repentance is, according to the OED, “To review one’s actions and feel contrition or regret for something one has done or omitted to do, esp. in religious context, to acknowledge the sinfulness of one’s past action or conduct by showing sincere remorse and undertaking to reform in the future.”
VII.e The atonement goes even further than that to meet the description of “infinite.” I submit that, though it may be ultimately ineffective, the atonement was performed by Jesus Christ to extend the offer even to Satan and his minions who were expelled from heaven before the Earth was prepared for our mortal habitation. As such, they have thwarted their own personal progression by denial of obtaining a physical, mortal body, the which is essential for continued progress toward perfection. These have committed the ultimate sin; to deny God even in a state of perfect knowledge of His existence and purpose. As we, in mortality, have not this perfect knowledge, but have it merely by faith [that is, according to Paul, “…the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”[12]], we are not subject to this ultimate condemnation unless we, too, are personal, physical witness of God in the flesh by his personal visitation. There is no forgiveness for this ultimate sin of denial of God in this world, or the next. I invite the reader to access the following to read further on this point. It is not relevant to this discussion, so I will not waste debate space discussing it further. Read Doctrine & Covenants 76: 22-39[13] So, the atonement is not effective for such fallen souls because they deny the Christ, and the atonement is not effective for any who so deny the Christ, yet it was still performed in perfect agony for them. Is not denial of God in this life a sin? Then so it is “before the foundation of the world.”As these who deny God after knowing of their own knowledge that he is, these who deny God remain in their sins, unredeemed because they refuse repentance, and so inherit their awful state into eternity.
VIII Argument: Other biblical reference to deny the resolution
VIII.a “John 1: 29 [ESV] “The next day, he[John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.”
VIII.b John 2: 2 [ESV] “He [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” [bold added for emphasis]
VIII.c Romans 6: 23 [ESV] “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
VIII.d Given these references, one might ask, “what is “the world?” Answer: that which was created by God for the use of all those souls who, “before the foundation of the world,” a concept with which Pro agrees is prior to the creation, and, therefore, descriptive of a body of people which was divided, ultimately, into two groups: the group with Satan who were cast out of Heaven “before the foundation of the world,” and the rest of us, who inherited mortality, the next step in our progression, after the creation of the world, to inhabit it. That implies “all” of us, in contrast to the resolution.
VIII.e Given these references, one might ask, “what is “propitiation?” Answer: [according to the O.E.D.] “The action of propitiating someone; appeasement, conciliation, atonement, expiation; an instance of this.” One might further ask, “Who, then, is ‘propitiated?’” Answer: See above, VIII.d; “all of us.”
VIII.f Given these references, one might ask, “what is death?” Answer: The separation of the physical body, that entity which is the result of our earthly parents, and the spirit, that entity which is the result of God, the Father, our Father in Heaven, and our Mother in Heaven; our heavenly parents. See, for reference, Luke 23: 46, descriptive of the death of Christ.
I make an end for round 1, and commend round 2 to Pro.
[2]Richard Bach, Illusions: the adventures of a reluctant Messiah,Dell, 1979
[3]Holy Bible [KJV], Matthew 20: 16
[5]Holy Bible [KJV], Revelation 22: 18 - 19
[6]Holy Bible, James 1: 4 [KJV]
[7]https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-20/issue-2/an-enumeration-of-the-population--a-history-of-the-census/
[8]The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 2, clause 2
Round 2
Pro
#3
You must present your case with bible, chapter and verse.
The title starts off with "In the scriptures....".
The basis should be from nowhere else unless it's because your case is not found in the scriptures.
From the description:
"Those that take the position that the topic statement is false must show from bible , chapter and verse only that that is the case."
So no question on the only source to use for this topic.
Side note : When I refer to scripture that doesn't directly relate to the title, there's no sense in trying to refute that. The focus is actually dealing with the scriptures I provided to demonstrate the topic.
Also you may refute my teaching but don't refute scripture. You have to harmonize scripture.
The basis for this is down below. Again, nothing to refute as it is not a case built to support the topic statement but just a point made about a biblical standard of the correct manner in dealing with these texts.
"You harmonize things and to do so , you go by what it says in 1 conrinthians 2 on comparing spiritual things.
We make the comparison by finding the similarities hence getting the harmony."
"V.b.1.a I Corinthians 15: 22 [KJV] “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” [italics added for emphasis – denying the resolution.]"
You didn't harmonize this with Revelation 13.
You also didn't do this with John 5 :
"28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
Shouldn't be some but all resurrection to life here according to you.
Now to harmonize 1 conrinthians 15 with Ephesians 1, all are made alive that were chosen to be before the foundation of the world.Same thing with hebrews 2 , you have to understand this with the whole bible, not just in that isolated passage.
When I said throwing scripture for scripture , I meant giving scripture to try to say this is what the bible says and the other person just giving a verse they've come up with and saying this is what the bible says.
At the end of that, the problem is we have two different denominations and beliefs. We have to harmonize everything.
"VIII.a “John 1: 29 [ESV] “The next day, he[John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.”"
Does this say Christ died for everyone of the world?
Revelations 13 and Ephesians 1 and 2 speak of the lamb being slain so that harmonizes with John 1. But those made alive through Christ as said in Ephesians, have life in the book of life. But there are those not in the book of life as said in Revelation 13.
From Ephesians 1 to 2, those that were chosen to be made alive were by grace . So being chosen to it, through Christ death, all that were chosen we're made alive. If everyone was chosen, everyone's name would be in the book of life . In Revelation 13 , it mentions those who are not.
So many irrelevant scriptures mentioned with excessive extraneous lecture like information but I'll move passed that to get to your bible , chapter and verse against the topic statement.
"VIII.b John 2: 2 [ESV] “He [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” [bold added for emphasis]"
Now how do we harmonize or understand this with Ephesians 1 to 2 and Revelation 13?
These are scriptures provided that you haven't addressed. You're throwing scriptures at me, throwing the ones I've given out.
You're attempting to throw scripture for scripture. But I won't do that. I won't come back with something else and drop what I had. I can add along the way but it will harmonize. In other words, I'm not placing and replacing, I build it up like using building blocks.
Many scripture provided from you did not say Christ died for everyone. Quite a bit about Christ and the death . The scriptures that say "die for all/the world" can't mean what many believe in and came up with a non-biblical doctrine for. The verses I mentioned appears to show a contradiction . Atheists seeing this debate will use this as a validation to discount the bible.
When everything is harmonized, we won't have contradictions as it appears to be.
Something else to unite with Ephesians to support this teaching about "not all" I will add but this is nothing additional you have to deal with.
The epicenter or crux as it where are those two main passages provided. You have to resolve that before you get to anything else. That's door number one.
Matthew 22 and at verse 1
"1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come."
You can continue to read to:
"14 For many are called, but few are chosen."
This is also ties back to Matthew 13.
The gathering up of those to come into the wedding/kingdom and gathering/collecting of wheat to go into the barn .
Con
#4
Pro resolution: “In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.”
I Rebuttal: “scriptures”
I.a Pro’s initial statement in R2: “The title starts off with "You must present your case with bible, chapter and verse. In the scriptures....". Yes, I concur. I have quoted the resolution of Pro’s composition above. “In the scriptures…” According to the OED, “scriptures” is defined as “Sacred writings and related senses; The sacred writings of a religion.” Pro continues, “The basis should be from nowhere else unless it's because your case is not found in the scriptures. From the description: "Those that take the position that the topic statement is false must show from bible, chapter and verse only that that is the case."
I.b Note the bolded word in I.a, above, repeated twice. Being lower case, Pro is not referring to a specific book, such as [officially titled, Holy Bible], as noted by the cited images.[1] As referenced by Pro, in lower case, the word is derived from Latin, biblia [books], a generic word, not the title of a Book. The Latin was taken from Greek, biblia [books], also a generic word, not the title of a Book.
I.b.1 The Greek form is traced to Gebal, a Phoenician port city originally known by that name, but became known as Byblos to the Greeks “…because it was an exporter of papyrus… linking the city with the written word.”[2] The papyrus shipped from Byblos was used for the publication of biblia, i.e., books, generic, and other manuscripts not necessarily limited to a particular collection of titled “Books,” which, in any case, when Byblos was an active port in antiquity, preceded the Ecumenical Council’s first generation of the Holy Bible, a non-generic Book of books.
I.c Therefore, given the definition of “bible” as a generic word, it does not only represent the sense of Pro’s resolution, “scriptures,” as in “In the scriptures.” It may be construed as reference to generic books, and to “the sacred writings of a religion.” Which religion? Not specified, because the word, in lower case, refers to generic religion, and not exclusively “Christian.” Therefore, my R1, I.a, I.a.1 arguments hold. Words mean things; different things in lower case and Upper Case: bible, and Holy Bible. “So,” in Pro’s words, “no question on the only source to use for this topic.” No, none at all. It’s name is legion, for it is many: and generic book, or “scriptures,” or “holy writ” of any religion. That could be, then, the Holy Bible, the Torah, the Vedahs, the Sutras, the Book of Mormon, the Agamas… as well as Moby Dick.[3]
II Rebuttal: “You have to harmonize scripture.” Selah.
II.a Harmony. Nice word. Generally pleasing. So pleasing, Pro’s first mention of it… oh. Excuse me. No, it’s not found in the resolution, is it? Not found in the Description, either. Not defined. Not found until Pro’s R1. It’s the last word. Wait! There’s a related word. Words, after all, are found in word families. Another word in the family is harmonize. But is harmonize found in the resolution? In the description? Is it defined? No, no, and no. But, it is in Pro’s R1: “Now, before I end this round, please keep in mind that, whatever you say, it has to harmonize with Ephesians and Revelation.” And, later, Pro says “You harmonize things, and to do so, you go by what it says in I Corinthians 2…”
II.b Excuse my French, but I believe that instruction on the protocol of the debate is contained within the scope of the resolution [or “topic”], or the Description, but that, once the debate is engaged, instructions are therein exclusively contained, and not within argument rounds. Otherwise, Pro or Con may, with abandon, hurl protocol at one another throughout the debate. We shall see other hurling, anyway. In effect, moving the goalposts. No, I hereby rebut the moving of goal posts. Selah.
II.c Pro charges that I did not harmonize I Corinthians 15: 22 with Revelation 13, or with John 5, or with any other chapters of those books. No, I did not, because the protocol of harmonization [another word in the family] is not in the proper scope [see II.b]. Further, John 5 is not listed as a proper harmony to use, as listed by Pro. Finally, Pro missed that I did not harmonize with Ephesians. Pro further introduces harmony with Hebrews, which is not in his list, either.
II.c.1 Pro charges, regarding my unharmonious inclusion of reference to I Corinthians 15: 22, that its reference to “all” being made alive in Christ apparently conflicts with Ephesians 1 with its apparent reference to “some,” to wit, Pro says, “Shouldn’t be some but all resurrection to life here according to you.”
II.c.2 I ask Pro to quote from Ephesians 1 the word “some,” or any variation of it. Perhaps from verse 4? “Us” means “some?” No, nor in any following verse, up to the last, verse 23, “Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.”
II.d I therefore rebut Con and redeem the fulfillment of my BoP that Christ did die for all, and that all do resurrect to life according to scripture.
III Rebuttal: Throwing scriptures
III.a Pro accuses that we throw scriptures at one another, and claims that only by harmonizing the scriptures to those which Pro listed, but only in his R1, while noting in the resolution that “In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.” Does Pro’s resolution specify specific scriptures? No. Does Pro’s Description specify specific scriptures? No. Do either Pro’s resolution, or Description, specify “harmony,” or any other derivative in that word family? No. Yet in R1, Pro begins throwing scriptures. Con followed suit in R1, per Pro’s Description that“This debate is much appropriate more for theists or people who have had serious time and investment in the scriptures.” I’ve had some 60 years of “time and investment.” Is that enough? In R2, pro declares, "You must present your case with bible,chapter and verse.” But later in R2, Pro moves the goal post to declare we apparently cannot use scriptures to achieve our BoP.
III.b Pro declares, “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?
III.c I hereby rebut Pro’s late R2 confusion as being contradiction to his own declared debate purpose and protocol. The foregoing of my R2, III.a, and b rebuttal above also stands as does the rebuke offered in my R2, II argument further above.
IV Rebuttal: The true “harmony” of Resurrection and the Book of Life
IV.a I refer back to my rebuttal in R2, II.d. Pro’s R2 discusses resurrection, citing various scriptures I offered, and the book of life, citing scriptures Pro offered, and declares these verses contradict, but only because Pro is attempting to link resurrection with the book of life, as if the two represent synonymous terms. If they do, I’m sure Pro would have shown us the definitive “bible, chapter and verse” as is Pro’s Description challenge, to demonstrate the harmony of these two terms. I will not offer Pro’s BoP on that score, because it is Pro’s claim, therefore, his BoP. And that is my challenge to Pro: show us the “bible, chapter and verse” that so links these two subjects as synonymous. Err… harmonious. Actually, they are, but not in a manner Pro proposes since he declares that not all resurrect, nor are all listed in the book of life prior to judgment.
IV.b Can’t be avoided; I will offer a Con BoP. I offer a description of resurrection from Acts 24: 14, 15 [KJV] “…so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow [that is, speaking of the law and the prophets], that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” How can Paul “believe” the contradictive nature of “the law and the prophets?” I’ll answer in a later round. Let that stew for a moment.
IV.b.1 For now, I will offer a description of resurrection and the book of life, harmoniously referenced by Revelation 20: 4-5, 12, wherein the chronology is important: “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reined with Christ a thousand years. [These “souls” just described are dead] “But the rest of the dead [those who did not die in Christ, obedient to his word] lived not again [that is, did not resurrect yet] until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [That is, the resurrection of the “just;” those who followed Christ, followed by the “until” second resurrection, that of the unjust.]
“And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.”
IV.c Therefore, both the just and unjust will resurrect to life from death, by Jesus Christ. The “just and unjust” counts all of us. The “small and the great” counts all of us. All of us face the judgment bar of God, the “great and small” and “just and unjust,” and all are judged out of the book of life. Therefore, resurrection is not restricted to only the just, but also the unjust. And all are judged out of the book of life. The wicked are those whose names are then stricken from the book of life since they are banished to hell.
V Rebuttal: The sins of the world, and other “extraneous lecture”
V.a Pro argues that the scriptural references given in my R1, VIII.a, .b, .c did not say “Christ died for everyone in the world,” as if the Con BoP must show bible references that say that direct quote. I will liken the Pro argument to the common modern argument some Christians claim that the Earth was created in six days, and God rested on the seventh day. But they also maintain that “day” is a strict period of 24 hours, and this is demonstrated by the reference that each “day” is the “evening and the morning,” thereby denoting a 24-hour period, and so were defined the first three days of evenings and mornings of Genesis I: 1 - 13.
V.a.1 However, there is a hiccup in verse 14 with a description of creating “lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night.” So, where was this division in verse 3, describing the creation of light on the first day, yet verse five describes an “evening and morning of the first day.”
V.a.2 Further, the seventh day of rest lacks a reference to “the evening and morning.” [Genesis 2: 2]. What, then was the duration of that day? I don’t mean to nitpick. What I do mean is that the Holy Bible is not as “infallible” as a word of God that Pro would like it to be; harmonious and sweet; sugar and spice. But, does that then mean that the Holy Bible is not holy writ? No, it does not mean that.
V.b Pro takes my reference to the Baptist’s baptism of Jesus, saying of him, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” and rebuts my claim that the latter refers to all of us; everyone in the world. Are not the verses of the Holy Biblereplete with references that all of us sin, that all are found wanting in the eyes of God, unless we repent?
V.b.1 Romans 3: 23 [ESV] “For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.”
V.b.2 Romans 3:10 [ESV] “As is written, ‘none is righteous, no, not one…’”
V.b.3 Isaiah 64: 6 [ESV] “We have all become as one who is unclean…”
V.c I therefore rebut that Pro’s claim of “…“Christ did not die for everyone in the world” must be refuted by my BoP only by “bible, chapter and verse” of only verses that contain these quoted words, or they are not valid rebuttal. Nonsense. A capable reader will interpret that the phrasing used in my three sample verses in R1, VIII.a, .b, .c infers that Christ died for all.
VI Argument: Harmony as a debate necessity is out of bounds
VI.a I suggest, given its late arrival to the debate, that harmonyis out of bounds, and ought to be scrapped as a necessary component in this debate, even though I have demonstrated that while there exists contradiction in the Holy Bible,it is not all contradictive; it also has harmony, which is good. It is needful that there be opposition in all things.[4]. Selah.
VII Conclusion
VII.a Final point: Pro says, “When everything is harmonized, we won’t have contradictions as it appears to be.” When is when?We obviously cannot harmonize yet because, clearly, Pro is finding his own contradictions, such as in I Corinthians 15 which he combats. So, do we ignore Corinthians? Or do I ignore Ephesians? Is that how Pro harmonizes? I knew a woman in France who tore pages from her La Sainte Bible if she encountered passages with which she disagreed, or did not understand, so that the remainder was in “harmony.” I do not personally agree with this tactic. But, this appears to be Pro’s tactic by insistence on harmony,regardless of apparent Biblical contradiction, book to book. According to Pro, only “some” books can be harmonizedwith others. Who decides which, and which books will be shelved as Apocrypha? Pro? Are we convening still another Ecumenical Council? Pro has predetermined that Con does not fit at the table. Sorry, I accept the fallible Holy Bibleas the Word of God as is, corrupted though it has been by ignorant and intentional men over millennia. How I do that is an extraneous lecture for another round.
To Pro, Round 3.
[1]https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&sxsrf=ALeKk02Kn3wS1V3-mBxlIchDNm00hGxWlw:1610563421247&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=images,+Holy+Bible&client=safari&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjz7PGkyJnuAhUabs0KHa9oDH4QjJkEegQIAxAB&biw=1665&bih=790
[3]Moby Dick,by Herman Melville, 1851
[4]Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2: 11
Round 3
Pro
#5
" But is harmonize found in the resolution? In the description? Is it defined? No, no, and no. But, it is in Pro’s R1"
First off , your case has to be found in scripture. So common sense says or as the book of 1 Corinthians says to compare spiritual things with spiritual.
So this should be known without teaching it to you. Whenever you don't harmonize something, all you have is what appears to be contradiction.
When you and I find passages that are very distinct from one another and show these to a prospective person of the bible, they won't know if the bible teaches what either one of us is talking about or not. All they'll see is the scriptures saying one thing and on the other hand saying something else.
The question they're going to have is "Well is this true in the bible or not?"
Now once everything gets on one accord, another thing I believe the scriptures teach, the prospect or student will understand as a whole what the scripture is explaining.
Saying I never used a specific word is a very weak, tactical copout on your part. It's like saying I never said the debate had to be english and then you start responding with a different language of text. Somethings are just tacitly the case.
"II.c Pro charges that I did not harmonize I Corinthians 15: 22 with Revelation 13, or with John 5, or with any other chapters of those books. No, I did not, because the protocol of harmonization [another word in the family] is not in the proper scope [see II.b]. Further, John 5 is not listed as a proper harmony to use, as listed by Pro. Finally, Pro missed that I did not harmonize with Ephesians. Pro further introduces harmony with Hebrews, which is not in his list, either. "
See this is a copout. The scriptures given to you, you know are contradicting as it appears to what you've given. So you're just going to stick to just repeating yourself. This is a dishonest move and it is abandoning your burden of proof. I've harmonized what you've given.
How are you abandoning your burden of proof? Let's say there is a beginning student of the bible before us. After hearing what we have both said before understanding it as a whole, what will that student think?
When they heard what one of us had to say , they understood one thing and they were confident of one that had the truth. Then they hear something else different from the other and are totally confused.
The student wants to be honest with not learning only part of the scriptures but all of the scriptures.
Let's say the student has already learned about 2 Timothy 3.
ALL SCRIPTURE , NOT SOME IS GOOD FOR DOCTRINE OR TEACHING OR INSTRUCTION.
"II.c.1 Pro charges, regarding my unharmonious inclusion of reference to I Corinthians 15: 22, that its reference to “all” being made alive in Christ apparently conflicts with Ephesians 1 with its apparent reference to “some,” to wit, Pro says, “Shouldn’t be some but all resurrection to life here according to you.” "
Let me tear down this weak , sorry effort use of a strawman.
Your response:
"V.b.1.a I Corinthians 15: 22 [KJV] “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” [italics added for emphasis – denying the resolution.]"
My response to this :
"You didn't harmonize this with Revelation 13.
You also didn't do this with John 5 :
"28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
Shouldn't be some but all resurrection to life here according to you. "
Didn't mention Ephesians here.
Are you actually comprehending where I cited what at?
"II.c.2 I ask Pro to quote from Ephesians 1 the word “some,” or any variation of it. Perhaps from verse 4? “Us” means “some?” No, nor in any following verse, up to the last, verse 23, “Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.” "
What a silly strawman attempt or maybe you just made a simple mistake with a misquote.
I never said the word "some" within conjunction with the book of Ephesians. I said the scripture you put forth , you didn't harmonize with the book of John and Revelation. Which throws your erroneous teaching of "all" out of the church.
"II.d I therefore rebut Con and redeem the fulfillment of my BoP that Christ did die for all, and that all do resurrect to life according to scripture."
Not according to the book of Ephesians in conjunction with Revelation. Get this false teaching of yours out of here.
"Pro listed, but only in his R1, while noting in the resolution that “In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.” Does Pro’s resolution specify specific scriptures? No. Does Pro’s Description specify specific scriptures? No. Do either Pro’s resolution, or Description, specify “harmony,” or any other derivative in that word family? No. Yet in R1, Pro begins throwing scriptures. Con followed suit in R1, per Pro’s Description that“This debate is much appropriate more for theists or people who have had serious time and investment in the scriptures.” I’ve had some 60 years of “time and investment.” Is that enough? In R2, pro declares, "You must present your case with bible,chapter and verse.” But later in R2, Pro moves the goal post to declare we apparently cannot use scriptures to achieve our BoP."
You're not being honest in this debate. The things that I've said you ignored. You clearly don't understand what I mean when I say "throw scripture for scripture". I'm not going to repeat my point on that . It's apparently worthless to you.
Now you're complaining about the debate description. Just because it didn't have arguments in it, is it supposed to or is that for the debate rounds?
Why are you being extra petty over this?
You're nitpicking stuff to death. Another thing that came to mind concerning the scripture is to put away childish things. This is a childish move on your part.
"III.b Pro declares, “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?"
Do you know what harmony is ?
It doesn't have contradictions. So all of the scriptures we're laying out would have to not be inconsistent in order to demonstrate agreement between them.
"only because Pro is attempting to link resurrection with the book of life, as if the two represent synonymous terms. If they do, I’m sure Pro would have shown us the definitive “bible, chapter and verse” as is Pro’s Description challenge, to demonstrate the harmony of these two terms. I will not offer Pro’s BoP on that score, because it is Pro’s claim, therefore, his BoP. And that is my challenge to Pro: show us the “bible, chapter and verse” that so links these two subjects as synonymous. Err… harmonious. Actually, they are, but not in a manner Pro proposes since he declares that not all resurrect, nor are all listed in the book of life prior to judgment."
Looks like you're taking issue with the resurrection of Christ and the book of life.
I'll ask you to read over and study Ephesians 1 and 2 , then compare it with Revelation 13.
I've already laid out the explanation in the previous round. Now if you're really serious about acknowledging these scriptures, come back with some questions about what you're still not understanding about these passages.
To be in the book of life, it means you have life, is that so? Are you made alive through Christ being raised up with him?
Also I declare what the book of John 5 declares. It says what it says. Don't pin this on me. You either accept what the scriptures say or you don't.
"IV.b Can’t be avoided; I will offer a Con BoP. I offer a description of resurrection from Acts 24: 14, 15 [KJV] “…so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow [that is, speaking of the law and the prophets], that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” How can Paul “believe” the contradictive nature of “the law and the prophets?” I’ll answer in a later round. Let that stew for a moment."
When will you start harmonizing these scriptures?
What was just quoted, it says resurrection.....of the dead...but resurrected to what ?
It didn't say all people are resurrected to life . That makes sense because the book of John 5 says there are those resurrected to.......life ...and....damnation. Again, Revelation 13 makes it very clear, everyone is not in the book of life of the lamb, ****of the lamb slain****. The resurrection of life of the lamb slain that was also resurrected applies to those in that book.
The details here are very important. You see the word "resurrected " and move fast with the conclusion the scripture always means back to life.
" IV.c Therefore, both the just and unjust will resurrect to life from death, by Jesus Christ. The “just and unjust” counts all of us. "
The book of John 5 doesn't agree with you.
It doesn't say all people are resurrected to life. But I understand that is what you're saying.
"Therefore, resurrection is not restricted to only the just, but also the unjust. And all are judged out of the book of life. The wicked are those whose names are then stricken from the book of life since they are banished to hell."
Now you're starting to agree with scripture. All people you can say are resurrected. But those who weren't resurrected to life, their name was not found in the book of life.
That's according to Revelation 20:15
What you have to do is get a clear distinction with the resurrection. As said in John 5 compared with Revelation 20, it is saying of those resurrected to damnation are simply resurrected to die which is the second death mentioned in Revelation 20. Those are the ones not in the book of life that have worshipped the beast that Christ was not slain for as mentioned in Revelation 13 of those that worshipped the beast whose names were not in the book.
Remember the book is called the book of life of the lamb slain. The book of life of the lamb slain would have all names in it if all were on the list of the lamb slain. The lamb's book of life contains those with life in connection to the lamb's death. Why wouldn't my name be in the book of I was connected with the death of the lamb?
Harmonizing again with Ephesians 1 and we'll start at verse 13
"And you also were included in Christ(AB) when you heard the message of truth,(AC) the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal,(AD) the promised Holy Spirit,(AE) 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance(AF) until the redemption(AG) of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.(AH)"
Harmonizing back with John 5 about being resurrected to life. The distinction is made in the resurrection as when resurrected to ***life *** versus damnation, you're restored back to life and it stays that way. A guaranteed inheritance. Those that get resurrected to die again we're not included in Christ. To be resurrected in Christ, you remain alive or as the scriptures calls it, eternal life.
You're hung up on this point about everybody being resurrected but does it mean all people were resurrected through Christ? The scripture answers that.
Looking at Revelation 20 ,
"5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."
Your interpretation : "
“But the rest of the dead [those who did not die in Christ, obedient to his word] lived not again [that is, did not resurrect yet] "
You read that into it.
It just says "But the rest of the dead....." with you adding on the " those who did not die in Christ".
Going down to verse 12, same chapter :
"12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."
No where here it mentions those being alive, they're dead. Those living with Christ have life as mentioned back in verse 4. None that have life is mentioned here in these latter verses.
To keep from being confused, read the language as it is put. Those not alive with Christ receiving judgment , the context here mentions nothing but the dead. According to what you're saying they are alive but this scripture isn't saying that.
Being made alive by grace through the resurrection, if it were all people, they wouldn't be those names not found in the book of life as mentioned in verse 15. I guess the only point of the lake of fire would be for the fallen angels.
Think about what being made alive means as the book of Ephesians says. You have life forever more. Those not in the body of Christ don't get this gift as mentioned in Romans 5 or else they would be in the body.
"IV.c Therefore, both the just and unjust will resurrect to life from death, by Jesus Christ. The “just and unjust” counts all of us. The “small and the great” counts all of us. All of us face the judgment bar of God, the “great and small” and “just and unjust,” and all are judged out of the book of life. Therefore, resurrection is not restricted to only the just, but also the unjust. And all are judged out of the book of life. The wicked are those whose names are then stricken from the book of life since they are banished to hell."
Totally non-scriptural and disregards John 5.
"“extraneous lecture”
V.a Pro argues that the scriptural references given in my R1, VIII.a, .b, .c did not say “Christ died for everyone in the world,” as if the Con BoP must show bible references that say that direct quote. "
How else can we separate from what you're saying versus the scriptures?
"V.b Pro takes my reference to the Baptist’s baptism of Jesus, saying of him, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” and rebuts my claim that the latter refers to all of us; everyone in the world. Are not the verses of the Holy Biblereplete with references that all of us sin, that all are found wanting in the eyes of God, unless we repent?"
It doesn't say Christ died for all people. You're looking at the word "world" to mean every person.
"V.c I therefore rebut that Pro’s claim of “…“Christ did not die for everyone in the world” must be refuted by my BoP only by “bible, chapter and verse” of only verses that contain these quoted words, or they are not valid rebuttal. Nonsense. A capable reader will interpret that the phrasing used in my three sample verses in R1, VIII.a, .b, .c infers that Christ died for all. "
Let's see if these scriptures say Christ died for all.
"V.b.1 Romans 3: 23 [ESV] “For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.”. "
No.
"V.b.2 Romans 3:10 [ESV] “As is written, ‘none is righteous, no, not one…’”"
No.
"V.b.3 Isaiah 64: 6 [ESV] “We have all become as one who is unclean…” "
No .
These scriptures say plainly with no private interpretation as the scriptures say, all are sinners or there is not one who is not or was not a sinner.
A capable reader can infer, interpret however they like. That's the problem with not just reading something as is. People and false prophets can come up with anything.
"VI Argument: Harmony as a debate necessity is out of bounds
VI.a I suggest, given its late arrival to the debate, that harmonyis out of bounds, and ought to be scrapped as a necessary component in this debate, even though I have demonstrated that while there exists contradiction in the Holy Bible,it is not all contradictive; it also has harmony, which is good. It is needful that there be opposition in all things.[4]. Selah."
Are you literally giving justification for not going by everything that's written in the bible or for not going by as much as we can find what is it written on a specific subject to avoid that?
You're saying there are contradictions. Are you conceding that the scriptures I provided show the topic statement true but because they appear to contradict what you understand, you just settle with them being contradictions but yet hold your view as correct biblically?
If you wish to do that, then both of us can just have our true side of the bible separated by conflict and say we're both right based on our separate sides of the fence . The problem is it has to be one or the other. A contradiction like this self negates what the actual gospel of salvation is leaving those yet to believe and understand straddling the fence that we're on opposite sides of.
That's why in lieu of settling with what is thought to be contradiction, should just be an obstacle or stepping stone we have to take, working harder, learning what the scripture is saying.
"When is when?We obviously cannot harmonize yet because, clearly, Pro is finding his own contradictions, such as in I Corinthians 15 which he combats. So, do we ignore Corinthians? Or do I ignore Ephesians?"
We shouldn't be having a debate about something that has to be proven with scripture then asking a question of which scripture to ignore. This is supposed to be your source. You don't ignore your source.
You can give up calling everything a contradiction. I choose to continue to read, study and analyze what I'm reading.
How am I combating? I've done nothing but harmonize scripture. The book of Corinthians says compare spiritual things with spiritual. The book of Proverbs 4 says of all thy getting, get understanding. It's something you're not understanding about 1 Corinthians 2:13.
Compare the things between the two passages. You don't ignore anything. Just as the book of Revelation warns about taking anything away from the book or adding on, you read just as written, you don't leave anything out that's written.
Each book and chapter has a piece of information you have to put together. The book of Genesis doesn't go over every single detail of creation. You'll find more information in the book of Revelation 14, Psalms 95, Nehemiah 9, Psalms 74, Psalms 104, Isaiah 45, Exodus 20.
This is how people declare so called contradictions and false beliefs about creation. They look at isolated text maybe unbeknownst to them that they've learned only part of the gospel but thinking the whole creation story and the details there of is only in the book of Genesis.
"Is that how Pro harmonizes? "
What are you not understanding about harmonizing scripture?
Is this why you can't or have not put everything together? You don't know exactly how to do it so you threw your hands up on it.
" I do not personally agree with this tactic. But, this appears to be Pro’s tactic by insistence on harmony,regardless of apparent Biblical contradiction, book to book. "
I didn't know you actually believed in using a source you think has conflicted information.
Let me ask, if you wanted to demonstrate a fact to somebody , would you use questionable or erratic so called evidence or would you use solid material?
Why would you even enter a debate with the belief or maybe you weren't aware that scripture existed against what you knew.
You say harmony is a tactic of mine. Are you saying nobody else would try to demonstrate evidence that is totally consistent in its source?
You're not making sense.
According to Pro, only “some” books can be harmonizedwith others. Who decides which, and which books will be shelved as Apocrypha? Pro? Are we convening still another Ecumenical Council?"
Where have I said only some books can be congruent? Is this all you have left is to strawman? I notice you're not even attempting to build your case with scripture. At this point, you're criticizing over how consistent evidence is somebody's tactic.
That's offensive to scientists abroad that also invest in factual data. The truth and the facts are always consistent or else they wouldn't be what they are.
I don't understand why someone would take a biblical topic that can't be declared correct or incorrect due its source thought of being conflicted unless you thought you had this in the bag.
"Pro has predetermined that Con does not fit at the table. Sorry, I accept the fallible Holy Bibleas the Word of God as is, corrupted though it has been by ignorant and intentional men over millennia. How I do that is an extraneous lecture for another round."
There goes the debate right here. If you deny the scriptures to be true by holding the position that they have perceived contradictions you can't resolve, it makes a topic like this futile to debate.
Con
#6
Pro resolution: “In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.”
I Rebuttal: Checkpoint: “not all”
I.a Pro’s initial R1 argument cited in Revelation 13: 8, to wit, "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." Grammatically, “all that dwell upon the earth” must include more than those whose names are not written in the book of life, because, as we witnessed in my R1, II.a.1.A - .C, the realm of Satan is on this earth, among us whose names are written in the book of life. Satan’s minions are not so recorded because they are eternally damned for denial of the plan of God “before the world was.”
I.b Further, we see in Romans 14: 11, “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue confess to God.” If Paul is speaking about every human entity on earth bowing to the Lord, that must include the minions of Satan, who also are on earth, and who will have no consequence to their confession that they, only now [rather, at that future time], recognize the Christ as the Lord God, because their names were never written in the book of life.
I.c Therefore, Pro has not proven the BoP that “Jesus did not die for everyone,” because everyone on earth shall bow down in recognition that Jesus is the Christ, even though some, Satan’s minions, shall not taste of the first or last fruits of the resurrection, whereas even the wicked who have lived mortal lives on earth will resurrect as did Jesus Christ, and acknowledge him as such. Therefore, Pro’s first checkpoint is defeated.
II Rebuttal: Harmony
II.a “Harmony” is not the subject of this debate, and Pro may crow from the rooftops, but I challenge readers to find it in the Resolution or the Description [let alone a reference of its necessity in the Holy Bible]. I’ll add that, for all Pro’s crowing “harmony,” I’ll remind that Pro’s initiation to R3 is “First off, your case must be found in scripture.” So, then, must be Pro’s case. I will, once again, use my opponent’s own argument against him:
II.a.1 Pro further cites II Timothy 3, saying “All scripture, not some, is good for doctrine or teaching or instruction.” “ALL” not “some.” I will take Pro at his word, and then ask, if [quoting Pro quoting me] “Pro charges that I did not harmonize I Corinthians 15: 22 with Revelation 13, or with John 5, or with any other chapters in those books.” II Timothy 3 says that all scripture is good for doctrine. Why, then, must I harmonize with any particular scripture defined by Pro if all of it is good for doctrine? Is Pro arguing against himself? Seems to me that is exactly what he is doing.
II.a.2 It follows that, according to Pro, all scriptures harmonize, but apparently only those that Pro selects. My selections do not count. Hmmm. Yeah, dear reader, that doesn’t track for me, either.
III Rebuttal: Hung up resurrection, the book of life, and other extraniosities
III.a My BoP is that Christdiedfor everyone. We have both argued resurrection, but I stop here, having discussed that subject enough. My BoP is as stated. The Resolution speaks to death, so, from here on, I concentrate on that point.
III.b The book of life. Pro wants to continue this argument, as well. Proceed, then, Pro; I make an end here, as well. The book of life has naught to with whether Christ died for all. I’ve made all the argument I plan to make with regard to the book of life, because our death will come for all of us, regardless of our listed names in the book of life. Life, not death. Death is our resolved subject. Again, Pro may argue on. His choice. His BoP.
Does it need my harmonization with Revelation 13 if “all scripture is good for doctrine?” I refer to I.c.1, above.
III.c On this matter, Pro completely overlooked my discussion in R2, IV.b.1, which speaks directly to Pro’s R3 commentary, “It doesn't say all people are resurrected to life. But I understand that is what you're saying.” Pro’s “It” is referring to the quote in R2 [fro, I Corinthians 15: 22], explicitly, that “in Christ shall all be made alive,” because, “As in Adam, all die…” Can that be anymore harmonious with my BoP? But Pro concludes, “But those who weren't resurrected to life, their name was not found in the book of life” and cites Revelation 20:15. But I have previously cautioned Pro about picking verses at random without reviewing context. The context of this 20thchapter is the discussion of events leading up to the final judgment, and that the first and second resurrections precede judgment, but the resurrection of the just are resurrected first, and then later, but still before judgment, the unjust. All, though once dead, and still referred to as once being dead, are alive when judged. That is, if we are, indeed, to “harmonize” with Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians, since all scriptures are good for doctrine. Or, is Pro in auto-argument mode again? How, then, can one scripture disagree with another? Answer: see the history of the Ecumenical Councils in my R2, II through II.d.1.A.
IV Rebuttal: Pro’s debate description
IV.a My opponent declares I am “complaining,” “being petty,” and “nitpicking… just because [the Description] didn’t have arguments in it.” Wrong. I’m not saying it did not have arguments; I said it lacked debate protocol, such as requiring harmonization. Yes, the Description should have debate protocols, and the Debate rounds have arguments. That seems clear in the DART Help Center.
V Rebuttal: “…you're not even attempting to build your case with scripture.”
V.a Let us review:
V.a.1 R1, II.d Holy Bible, Revelation 22: 18-19
V.a.2 R1, II.d.2 Holy Bible, James 1: 2-5
V.a.3 R1, III.a.1.A Isaiah 14: 12-15
V.a.4 R1, II.a.1.B Like 10: 17-18
V.b That’s not all in R1, but, the point is made. I also submit R2, which has its own several scriptural references. Need I list them here? Look to the cited sources; all of them, as in this R3. The point is made, and Pro’s claim is demonstrated to be false. Pro may not like these references, but he made them a demand in his Resolution and Description, and those I have cited demonstrate my BoP.
V.c Then Pro claims Romans 3: 23, Romans 3: 10, and Isaiah 64: 6 do not say “Christ died for all.”
V.c.1 Romans 3 says “all have sinned.” Romans 3 says “none are righteous.” Isaiah says “all [are] unclean.” These, contrary to Pro’s assumed failure of my citation, all discuss that all[everyone, yes?] are sinful and unworthy [but for Christ’s atonement – and, no, it doesn’t say that specifically, but what, pray tell, is the atonement for?]. Therefore, all [everyone] need Christ’s atonement, or they remain dead when they die. No, they do not speak to Christ dying for all. My argument is establishing for whom Christ died: everyone, and the scriptures above in Romans and Isaiah are harmonizing with I Corinthians 15: 22 “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” There is the ultimate scripture, so far, as demanded by the Con BoP of the Resolution, that “…Christ died for everyone.” Pro may rant and complain, he may toss other scriptures, but he cannot argue that II Timothy 3 states that all scriptures are good for doctrine and then deny that I Corinthians 15: 22 is “good for doctrine.”
VI Rebuttal: “…you're criticizing over how consistent evidence is somebody's tactic.”
VI.a Pardon my assumption that consistent evidence should be a debate tactic. Is this more instruction from Pro that belongs in the Description, that I should not offer consistent evidence as a tactic?
VI.b 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.[1]
VII Conclusion: Pro’s inconsistency & misunderstanding
VII.a Con: “I accept the fallible Holy Bible as the Word of God as is…”
VII.a.1 Pro reply: “If you deny the holy scriptures to be true…”
VII.b Con: “But, this appears to be Pro’s tactic by insistence on harmony, regardless of apparent Biblical contradiction, book to book.”
VII.b.1 Pro reply: “I don't understand why someone would take a biblical topic that can't be declared correct or incorrect due its source thought of being conflicted…”
VII.c Con: “Pro has predetermined that Con does not fit at the table. Sorry, I accept the fallible Holy Bible as the Word of God as is, corrupted though it has been by ignorant and intentional men over millennia. How I do that is an extraneous lecture for another round.” But, not yet in this round. Let patience have her perfect work.
VII.c.1 Pro reply: There goes the debate right here. If you deny the scriptures to be true by holding the position that they have perceived contradictions you can't resolve,it makes a topic like this futile to debate.”
VII.d Pro: ““All scripture, not some, is good for doctrine or teaching or instruction.”
VII.d.1 I bolded the text of Pro’s commentary from R3 because he assumes “you can’t resolve” while I never acknowledged that limitation. See as said above, concluding VII.c, regarding patience. [James 1: 4]
VII.d.2 Pro: “You didn’t harmonize this with revelation 13… You also didn’t do this with John 5.” I didn’t harmonize with Matthew 5: 48, either, but is it required? Refer to II.c, II.c.1, III.b, VII.d.
VII.e I will ask, in closing, if Pro has ever read the Holy Bible, cover to cover. All of it, OT, NT; Genesis to Revelation, every single chapter and verse; every word. I have, in four languages: English, French, Italian, and Greek. I own several versions, mostly in English, and others in the languages noted. I also own a copy of the Latin Vulgate, but I am not well versed in Latin. I have, however, also read the Egyptian Book of the Dead in the original hieroglyphs, and English, as translated by E.A. Wallace Budge, having learned Egyptian in my undergraduate days. Also, the Q’ran, the Siddhartha, the Vedas, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, [both in English and French] the Torah, the Catholic Catechism, [English and French] the Dao, The Book of Shadows, and some others. I am retired, with time to read, and I began reading such subjects as of 12 years of age, which was the age of my first Bible reading. When asked if I know scripture, I reply, “Which one?” because, unlike Pro, I consider many works to be holy writ, all written by men, not God, and not exclusively the Bible. This is not a topic I take lightly or futilely. I resent Pro’s charge and demand an apology.
I commend R4 to Pro.
[1]The statement, “The language of God is mathematics” is rendered by Fra Luca de Pacioli in his Divina Proportione,illustrated by Leonardo da Vinci. https://famous-mathematicians.com/luca-pacioli/
Round 4
Pro
#7
"I.b Further, we see in Romans 14: 11, “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue confess to God.” If Paul is speaking about every human entity on earth bowing to the Lord, that must include the minions of Satan, who also are on earth, and who will have no consequence to their confession that they, only now [rather, at that future time], recognize the Christ as the Lord God, because their names were never written in the book of life."
Notice how you continue to find new scriptures like the former ones I guess didn't help.
Well for this to help you, you say "if Paul". Is Paul talking about everyone and are you saying no names are found in the book of life?
"I.c Therefore, Pro has not proven the BoP that “Jesus did not die for everyone,” because everyone on earth shall bow down in recognition that Jesus is the Christ, even though some, Satan’s minions, shall not taste of the first or last fruits of the resurrection, whereas even the wicked who have lived mortal lives on earth will resurrect as did Jesus Christ, and acknowledge him as such. Therefore, Pro’s first checkpoint is defeated. "
I'm not getting your point. What does bowing down have to do with being saved or not?
As we read Ephesians 1-2, we understand those that Christ resurrected for are saved. If Christ resurrected for anyone , why would anyone he did that for not be saved? These scriptures don't teach that this can be done in vain. It says in God's grace and kindness, you receive the gospel of your salvation. Not possible salvation, not salvation that could go in vain.
So the point is, if all people are included in the resurrection, there wouldn't be any dead judged as stated in Revelation 13 with no names found in the book of life. There would be no one coming out of the grave to be judged as mentioned in John 5. All would be resurrected to life.
John 5 :
"24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me(T) has eternal life(U) and will not be judged(V) but has crossed over from death to life.(W) 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come(X) when the dead will hear(Y) the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life(Z) in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge(AA) because he is the Son of Man.
28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming(AB) when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.(AC) 30 By myself I can do nothing;(AD) I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just,(AE) for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.(AF) "
You have to understand that this is what it is. The gift of resurrection is not in vain. Once you receive it, you're saved from the second death. When there is no receipt of it, you have eternal damnation.
"II Timothy 3 says that all scripture is good for doctrine. Why, then, must I harmonize with any particular scripture defined by Pro if all of it is good for doctrine? Is Pro arguing against himself? Seems to me that is exactly what he is doing."
I'm not getting what you're saying. It seems like you don't understand what would be relevant and not relevant. Are you saying why should we harmonize scriptures that relate to each other and not harmonize the scriptures that don't?
It wouldn't make sense to combine unrelated topics of scripture. We combine the ones that are related and those are the ones broached in this debate. Why would you ignore the ones brought up here in this debate? Are you saying ignore my points , throwing in a red herring about choosing other scriptures ?
It just seems like you're taking something straightforward and making a red herring of it.
All scripture is good for doctrine or teaching. So all the scripture that is teaching what this debate topic is about, is that to be ignored and not taken into the lesson?
Furthermore this is a copout. Why are you reluctant to harmonize any scripture , especially from what an opponent has given you to challenge your argument? You run away from that and just chase other passages to throw at me seeing what will stick.
You say I define the scripture, are you saying the scriptures I've given don't relate to the topic?
Instead of deviating with this distraction, get in that bible and make your case.
"II.a.2 It follows that, according to Pro, all scriptures harmonize, but apparently only those that Pro selects. My selections do not count. Hmmm. Yeah, dear reader, that doesn’t track for me, either."
I never said all scriptures harmonize. You guys suck at quoting and understanding what people are saying. Don't mix up harmonizing scripture with what I said about all scripture being good to teach with. The keyword there is teaching. When the scripture teaches several different things, how does it all harmonize? Do you not have common sense of what goes with what? We're talking about all things that relate obviously.
You know this but this is a stalling tactic from you to not deal with the topic. None of this is proving that Christ died for everyone. You do know that.
How is what you provided not counted? Are you saying I didn't harmonize them with what I have? Just because I harmonize them to end up still proving the topic statement true doesn't mean I didn't harmonize them.
Were you paying attention to what I demonstrated? What didn't you understand?
"My BoP is that Christdiedfor everyone. We have both argued resurrection, but I stop here, having discussed that subject enough. My BoP is as stated. The Resolution speaks to death, so, from here on, I concentrate on that point. "
Are you attempting to separate death from resurrection here?
"The book of life. Pro wants to continue this argument, as well. Proceed, then, Pro; I make an end here, as well. The book of life has naught to with whether Christ died for all."
The book of life is what? The book of the lamb slain. Now that's the title of the book. What is contained in that book? The life of those found in it. The book connects the death of the lamb to the life contained in it.
It has every bit to do with one for the other. Do you understand that? Literally saying there are those who have life in Christ. Name in the book equals life in Christ.
" I’ve made all the argument I plan to make with regard to the book of life, because our death will come for all of us, regardless of our listed names in the book of life."
Do you know this goes against Ephesians 1?
Unless you're just referring to death of the body, those selected from creation have been selected that death will never come to them as their spirit will live on.
"Does it need my harmonization with Revelation 13 if “all scripture is good for doctrine?” I refer to I.c.1, above."
Do you need to ignore scripture or use it to prove your case? Why not try and prove what I presented from Revelation doesn't relate to this topic ?
"III.c On this matter, Pro completely overlooked my discussion in R2, IV.b.1, which speaks directly to Pro’s R3 commentary, “It doesn't say all people are resurrected to life. But I understand that is what you're saying.” Pro’s “It” is referring to the quote in R2 [fro, I Corinthians 15: 22], explicitly, that “in Christ shall all be made alive,” because, “As in Adam, all die…” Can that be anymore harmonious with my BoP? But Pro concludes, “But those who weren't resurrected to life, their name was not found in the book of life” and cites Revelation 20:15. But I have previously cautioned Pro about picking verses at random without reviewing context. The context of this 20thchapter is the discussion of events leading up to the final judgment, and that the first and second resurrections precede judgment, but the resurrection of the just are resurrected first, and then later, but still before judgment, the unjust. All, though once dead, and still referred to as once being dead, are alive when judged. That is, if we are, indeed, to “harmonize” with Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians, since all scriptures are good for doctrine. Or, is Pro in auto-argument mode again? How, then, can one scripture disagree with another? Answer: see the history of the Ecumenical Councils in my R2, II through II.d.1.A."
I responded to these things in the previous round so , we won't do circles on that.
"My opponent declares I am “complaining,” “being petty,” and “nitpicking… just because [the Description] didn’t have arguments in it.” Wrong. I’m not saying it did not have arguments; I said it lacked debate protocol, such as requiring harmonization."
So do you think that we're just going to argue from the same source that has inconsistent material?
If it's solid material but we have a mix up of puzzle pieces pulled from it, don't we have to try and put the puzzle pieces together? Isn't that what truth is? We're debating on whether something is true or not. How can we debate that if everything appears to contradict ?
A lot of this is needless to say so it wasn't said in the description. Is this not obvious to you? I didn't say you have to debate in english but it was just obvious for you to do so.
"Yes, the Description should have debate protocols, and the Debate rounds have arguments. That seems clear in the DART Help Center. "
That includes the obvious , common sense ones. Well duly noted for you in your case.
"V.b That’s not all in R1, but, the point is made. I also submit R2, which has its own several scriptural references. Need I list them here? Look to the cited sources; all of them, as in this R3. The point is made, and Pro’s claim is demonstrated to be false. Pro may not like these references, but he made them a demand in his Resolution and Description, and those I have cited demonstrate my BoP."
Does this mean you'll stop arguing about harmonization and other things that don't help you build your case?
That's right, just stick to finding scripture . Now if that scripture appears to contradict the scriptures I brought, you have to resolve that.
To say you don't have to is a fallacy. Again I go back to the student scenario. If we have what appears to be a contradiction in a certain teaching, the conclusion will be unknown if the scripture is teaching one thing or another. Do you understand all that ?
"Then Pro claims Romans 3: 23, Romans 3: 10, and Isaiah 64: 6 do not say “Christ died for all.” "
I'm being honest. I didn't read Christ died for all people in those scriptures. Do you want to read them for us ?
"V.c.1 Romans 3 says “all have sinned.” Romans 3 says “none are righteous.” Isaiah says “all [are] unclean.” "
Tell me where you see the words "Christ died for all people". Read that again please ****as is***.
"Corinthians 15: 22 “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” There is the ultimate scripture, so far, as demanded by the Con BoP of the Resolution, that “…Christ died for everyone.” Pro may rant and complain, he may toss other scriptures, but he cannot argue that II Timothy 3 states that all scriptures are good for doctrine and then deny that I Corinthians 15: 22 is “good for doctrine.” "
My friend we're going in circles. How do you explain John 5 in comparison with this?
You either deal with that or concede the debate is over with your point unproved.
".a Pardon my assumption that consistent evidence should be a debate tactic. Is this more instruction from Pro that belongs in the Description, that I should not offer consistent evidence as a tactic?"
Do you know what consistent evidence is? Do you agree that we should have it? If yes, enough with you arguing over it.
"VII.d.1 I bolded the text of Pro’s commentary from R3 because he assumes “you can’t resolve” while I never acknowledged that limitation. See as said above, concluding VII.c, regarding patience. [James 1: 4]"
Ok my friend tell us how we can decide something to be true or not based on a report that's inconclusive to tell us it's true due to contradictions?
"VII.d.2 Pro: “You didn’t harmonize this with revelation 13… You also didn’t do this with John 5.” I didn’t harmonize with Matthew 5: 48, either, but is it required? Refer to II.c, II.c.1, III.b, VII.d."
Does Matthew 5:48 have anything to do with the topic ? We tie everything together that's brought up in this debate that has to do with the teaching of Christ's death , why?
It has to do with Christ's death. This is far too elementary.
Maybe you'll understand this. Cops collect all the clues and pieces of evidence to a crime scene investigation. They don't take one piece of information and conclude while aware that there is another piece of a detail to the case that will change how they look at what they've concluded with . They have to go back to the crime scene, whateve it is and re-evaluate with new information and etc. to get a brand new conclusion.
You're trying to make the point that putting together all pieces of information to a case isn't obvious to get to truth.
"VII.e I will ask, in closing, if Pro has ever read the Holy Bible, cover to cover. All of it, OT, NT; Genesis to Revelation, every single chapter and verse; every word. "
No. Does every single word of scripture teach about Christ's death ?
No. Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant. Even in all eternity isn't enough to emphasize an irrelevant question such as this of yours.
So with one more last debate round to respond after this, why not throw in some questions about the scriptures I given even with the relevant ones you've provided, altogether , how do they teach Christ did not die for everyone?
Con
#8
Pro resolution: “In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.”
I Rebuttal: Bowing down…being saved
I.a Pro’s R4 asks [Q1] what bowing down has to do with being saved [ref. my R3 quote of Romans 14: 11]. The resolution is about death, and whether Jesus died for everyone, as if everyone who lives mortally on Earth is not “saved.” Pro also questions [Q2] whether I am saying no one is named in the book of life.
I.a.1 Pro Q1 answer: Because everyone who has or will live on Earth as a mortal entity will resurrect [I Corinthians 15: 22 – see my R1, V.b.1.A], all are “saved,” as in from the first death, which is the separation of the physical body and the spirit: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.” [James 2: 26]. That trailing phrase is often contradicted, by the way [having naught to do with this debate], by many Christians who claim “works” are not necessary once one has claimed they are “saved.” I suppose the same people claim that God retired after creation and went fishing, and, therefore, no longer speaks to man, thus Pro’s after-the-fact [post-resolution and description] command that only Bible scriptures are allowed. Sorry, I am not compelled to agree with such late orders.
I.a.1.A This is differentiated from the second death,which is a separation of the resurrected person from the presence of God: “Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.” [Revelation 20: 6].
I.a.1.B Therefore, there is a distinction between resurrected persons [which is everyone who lives mortally on Earth], and resurrected persons who do not take part in the first resurrection, which describes the unjust who are resurrected, but do not ultimately, by judgment, live with God. Refer to my R2, IV.b.1 argument about Revelation 20: 4-5, 12.
I.a.2 Pro Q2 answer: Did I say no one is named in the book of life? No. Refer to my R2, argument IV.c: “Therefore, both the just and unjust will resurrect to life from death, by Jesus Christ. The ‘just and unjust’ counts all of us. The ‘small and the great’ counts all of us. All of us face the judgment bar of God, the ‘great and small’ and ‘just and unjust,’ and all are judged out of the book of life. Therefore, resurrection is not restricted to only the just, but also the unjust. And all are judged out of the book of life. The wicked are those whose names are then stricken from the book of life since they are banished to hell.” Refer to Revelation 20: 4-5, 12]
I.a.2.A Why am I required to repeat myself? I suggest to Pro to read my arguments with comprehension [use a competent dictionary and the Holy Biblefor reference, if needed] so I do not waste word-space and time repeating myself. From here on, I will merely make reference to previous round argument/rebuttal in each case Pro fails to read.
II Rebuttal: Vanity
II.a Actually, the term Pro uses is “in vain,” but I see little distinction. People who do things “in vain,” have done so uselessly, mostly because those for whom it is done express vanity; either they deny the act being done for then as necessary, or they are ignorant of the act, and all its ramifications. Such as [Q3] “If Christ resurrected for anyone, why would anyone he did that for not be saved? These scriptures don't teach that this can be done in vain.”
II.a.1 Answer to Q3: Everyone is saved, but Pro misunderstands what “saved” means. “Saved” means overcoming the first death by resurrection, which… [refer to my answers to Q1 and Q2, above, arguments under Rebuttal I]. That is, “all” who live mortal lives on Earth are “saved.”
II.a.2 Moreover, Pro’s conclusion regarding scriptural teaching is refuted by these same Q1, Q2 answers to those questions, as well as the scriptures from which my arguments are drawn. Since the unjust, who are still saved from the first death, by resurrection, still suffer the second death by banishment from the presence of God after judgment, although they are resurrected. A resurrected body, as Jesus demonstrated to Mary Magdalene, his Apostles, to two men on the road to Emmaus, and many others [Paul, for example], is a perfected physical body [as Jesus demonstrated to those as mentioned above], and yet are banished from God’s presence. Nothing is done in vain other than by those who suffer the second death by virtue of choosing poorly in their thoughts and actions while on Earth, and those who chose poorly before the foundation of the world.
III Rebuttal: John 5: [Alphabet Soup]
III.a I’ll say, first, that Pro’s alphabet soup in quoting from John 5 makes no sense since the apparent references are not defined in the round, or in comments. Pass, as the scriptures are clear enough in their description. Pro’s quotation of verses 24, 28 do not contradict any of the scriptures I’ve noted my rebuttals above, but Pro’s follow-up statement, “The gift of resurrection is not in vain. Once you receive it, you're saved from the second death” certainly contradicts. These two sentences contradict one another, as well. The gift of resurrection is certainly notin vain, as I Cor. 15: 22 clearly indicates that everyone who has lived on Earth will resurrect due to Christ’s atonement for all.
III.a.1 The unjust, those resurrected in the second resurrection [Revelation 20: 4-5, 12] remain embodied, but are removed from the presence of God. Damnation in no wise is described scripturally, for mortals who have lived on Earth, as being disembodied. They are still physical beings, just as Christ demonstrated himself to be a physical being, but only because they first lived mortal lives on Earth. Satan and his minions will never resurrect because they will never have mortal bodies. They remain as living, damned spirits.
III.a.2 “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." [Luke 24: 39] Resurrection and damnation are not mutually exclusive terms. John 5 does not say otherwise, as Pro claims it does, since he claims that all who resurrect are saved from the second death, apparently implying that those who suffer the second death must be disembodied.
IV Rebuttal IV: Harmony
IV.a Must we continue beating this dead horse? First, I bid readers to review the resolution and find, therein, “harmony” as a topic of this debate. Q4: “Why are you reluctant to harmonize any scripture?” I refer you to my R2, arg. II, IV, and R3, arg II regarding “Harmony.” Done and done.
V Rebuttal: “All scripture is good for doctrine or teaching”
V.a Yes, as long as the scripture cited is relevant to the resolution at hand, i.e. not harmony, resurrection, judgment, the book of life, of even the Holy Grail [the latter words are not in the Holy Bible, by the way[1]. Let us stay on point: Did Jesus die for everyone, or not?
VI Rebuttal: “None of this is proving that Christ died for everyone.”
VI.a Refer to my R1, VII.a – VII.e, VIII, R2, IV.b.1, IV.c, R3, I, V.
VII Rebuttal: “Name in the book equals life in Christ.”
VII.a Refer to my rebuttal V, above, and the citation of the resolution.
VIII Rebuttal: “…this goes against Ephesians 1”
VIII.a It probably also goes against Acts 14, as well, but, refer to my V.a, above, which is all about relevance to the resolution.
IX Rebuttal: “…those selected from creation have been selected that death will never come to them as their spirit will live on.”
IX.a Curious claim, because one might, taking the verse out of context, assume this also speaks of Christ, thus saying he did not die for anyone since he, of all of us, was likely “selected.” However, as defined in my arg. I.a.1, physical death is the separation of the body and the spirit, and the spirit lives on, so the distinction as claimed by Pro is not the correct interpretation, or at least it disagrees with whatever scripture Pro references [he doesn’t], therefore, what harmony? See also my R2 reference to I Corinthians 15: 22: “all die.” Another discord, apparently.
X Rebuttal: Puzzle pieces
X.a Pro claims truth is putting puzzle pieces together. What if puzzle pieces are missing, such as reference to the Holy Grail, or the contradiction claimed by much of Christendom that God is a spirit, and yet Christ resurrected to a perfect physical body, or that little children must, of necessity, be baptized, although utterly innocent, or that we inherit the sins of Adam [yet, how are we to be forgiven of them?], or that God has finished speaking to man with the content of the Holy Bible [only “it” was canonized, not by God, but man, from scrolls dating no earlier than 800 – 1,000 BCE], but are somehow “infallible,” etc, etc. Is the complete truth determined by an incomplete count of puzzle pieces?
XI Rebuttal: “How can we debate that if everything appears to contradict?”
XI.a I will remind that this is a Pro question [Q4], not mine. I have never said I am baffled by contradiction; apparently, Pro is. Sorry, not my doing. Refer to the Ecumenical Councils. Pro asks a couple of added questions later in his R4 that are, likewise, answered by this rebuttal.
XI.a.1 Q4 Answer: Now is the time promised in my R2, VII.a, to offer an “extraneous lecture” on this apparent conundrum, because, surprise, the scriptures have an answer. I implore you to read James 1: 2 – 6 [actually, the entire chapter is wholly relevant to Pro’s Q4]. My emphasis is on verse 5, but take care to understand the preliminary work required listed in 2 – 4, and the failure to do so in 6. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.” [James 1: 5] In fact, let me offer still another scripture on the same theme: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things.”[2]
XI.a.2 That scripture should need no further explanation. It’s a simple formula: ask God, in faith. One must know what that is. See Hebrews 11 [KJV]; particularly verse 1, but the entire chapter is relevant context.
XII Rebuttal: We’re back to tossing scriptures
XII.a Pro claims, “That's right, just stick to finding scripture . Now if that scripture appears to contradict the scriptures I brought, you have to resolve that… To say you don't have to is a fallacy.” I do resolve, by logical follow-up, or preceding argument, as you will note with virtually every scriptural reference I make. However, Pro is held to the same requirement, is he not? Rather than rebuttal [an opposing argument], Pro offers questions. Will questions suffice as resolving rebuttal to opposing argument? No, not in my book.
XII.b Pro claims, quoting Con, “‘Then Pro claims Romans 3: 23, Romans 3: 10, and Isaiah 64: 6 do not say ‘Christ died for all.’” Did I say these three scriptures say “Christ died for all?” No, one need merely read the introductory paragraph to my citation if these three scriptures [See my R2, arg V.b, V.b.1, V.b.2, V.b.3] that was arguing that all of us are sinners. That is the point of the following 3 scriptures I quoted. And one need merely follow my reference in R2, V.b argument to my R1, VIII, VIII.a, VIII.b, and VIII.c argument that Christ “took away the sins of the world” [i.e., everyone], doing so by his atonement, which included his dying for us – all of us. One must recognize why I number and sub-number all my arguments/rebuttals, and refer to the round in which they occur. Thus, all arguments of argument Z, or rebuttal Z, are contained in the sub-Z paragraphs, Z.a, Z.b, etc. Is that so hard to figure out? It’s better than random paragraphs that do not even contain clear headers, such as Pro’s debating format. It is a courtesy to readers, which I assume also includes debate opponents. It is why I argue that sourcing is so essential, including using myself as a source. So, yes, I “stick to finding scriptures,” and I argue their points as relevance dictates in my own words.
XIII Rebuttal: [Q5] “How do you explain John 5 in comparison with [I Cor 15: 22]?”
XIII.a Answer to Q5: I refer to my argument above, III.a, III.a.1, III.a.2 regarding John 5 and its similarity to I Cor. 15: 22.
XIV Rebuttal: “You either deal with that or concede the debate is over with your point unproved.”
XIV.a It is my understanding that this debate is 5 rounds. As we are in the 4th, may I suggest that Pro’s suggestion that I concede unless I “deal with…” is inviting a Conduct violation. I have fully 5 rounds to “deal with” Pro’s arguments, or did someone change the rules midstream? This seems to happen with some frequency, but I do not see it in this case. Sorry, but Pro’s ‘rules’ beyond what is said in the resolution/description do not count.
XV Rebuttal: “Has Pro ever read the Holy Bible?”
XV.a “No,” Pro replies, and yet has offered a number of times, in separate rounds, no less, citing II Timothy 3, that “…all scripture is good for teaching.” I take Pro at his word, and suggest, therefore, that by denying read of all of the Holy Bible, he is denying himself the opportunity to understand, let alone teach, all that it contains. Avoiding selective understanding is also the answer to Pro’s Q4, answered in my rebuttal XI, above. I might also refer Pro to my I.a.2.A rebuttal, above.
XV.b Pro concludes by suggestion that I ask questions in my R5. May I suggest, by response, that asking questions in my R5 is superfluous, if not logically unsound, because Pro cannot reply, having already, when that occurs, shot his R5. Further, Pro suggests a self-serving question [cheeky, but I’ll resist!] “How do [the scriptures] teach Christ did not die for everyone?” I believe that is Pro’s BoP. I’ll leave that to him. Besides, why would I waste my R5 with questions? It is a round of final rebuttal and defense [although Pro did not disallow new argument]. Such will be my R5 purpose, thanks.
XVI Argument: Who among us is counted when scripture refers to “the world?”
XVI.a Pro has argued that scriptural references to “the world” does not count “everyone” as noted in the Resolution. This is patently false; demonstrated as follows:
XVI.a.1 When one searches for the world population, such as Googling “world population 2021,” the search string in quotes begins an algorithm that assumes one wants the human population. The result to the query offers an expanded first hit with the website, www.worldmeters.info, offering: 7,874,965,825[3] as of 1/22/2021, when I accessed this information. This is an accounting of the world human population; “everyone.” We have no reason to assume this accounts for everyone in the world, except for the population of ___________ [fill in the blank with a country]; all of whom may have never heard of Jesus Christ, or by whatever other parameter is wont to be uncounted.
XVI.a.2 A separate page of the same website as in I.a.1 counts births and deaths [and other statistics] with an automatic reset in real time.[4] Again, this is counting “everyone.”
XVI.a.3 Therefore, it is reasonable to determine that a reference to “the world,” even biblically, and even when we have a much more concise understanding of what “the world” consists of, by count, than they had in biblical times. It is an easy reference to “everyone in the world” at any given time, or as accurately as can be cumulatively counted, everyone who lived, lives, and even who are projected to live in the future on Earth. Therefore, scriptural accounts of “the world,” such as “…for then how shall God judge the world?”[5] are valid references to “everyone.” Or, will Pro allege that not everyone will be judged, based on his allegation that Jesus did not die for everyone? Of course, I argue that he did, and that, therefore, all will be judged.
XVI.b Again, let us review other scripture to emphasize my BoP that Christ died for everyone on earth: “And he died for all, that those who live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.”[6]
XVI.b.1 No, this singular verse does not specify that it was Christ who died for all, but this is why I suggest understanding context. Why not consider that the best context just might be the entire Holy Bible, read as a whole? Harmonize that. As it happens, the direct preceding verse 14 reveals that the subject of discussion is Jesus Christ; he died for allis understood clearly to be Jesus Christ died for all. We are not talking about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Batman. Is Pro going to argue that “all” is not synonymous with “everyone?” He might, but I appeal to an understanding of common knowledge.
I rest R4 and pass R5 to Pro, who may ask more questions as arguments. Caveat lector.[7]
[2]Book of Mormon, Moroni 10: 4, 5
[5]Holy Bible, Romans 3: 6
[6]Holy Bible, II Corinthians 5: 15
[7]Latin: “reader beware”
Round 5
Pro
#9
"I.a Pro’s R4 asks [Q1] what bowing down has to do with being saved [ref. my R3 quote of Romans 14: 11]. The resolution is about death, and whether Jesus died for everyone, as if everyone who lives mortally on Earth is not “saved.” Pro also questions [Q2] whether I am saying no one is named in the book of life."
Read where it says everybody that bows down is saved due to the death of Christ.
"I.a.1 Pro Q1 answer: Because everyone who has or will live on Earth as a mortal entity will resurrect [I Corinthians 15: 22 – see my R1, V.b.1.A], all are “saved,” as in from the first death, which is the separation of the physical body and the spirit: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.” [James 2: 26]. That trailing phrase is often contradicted, by the way [having naught to do with this debate], by many Christians who claim “works” are not necessary once one has claimed they are “saved.” I suppose the same people claim that God retired after creation and went fishing, and, therefore, no longer speaks to man, thus Pro’s after-the-fact [post-resolution and description] command that only Bible scriptures are allowed. Sorry, I am not compelled to agree with such late orders."
None of this says Christ died for everyone. We already went over 1 Corinthians 15. You don't have a rebuttal with explaining away how John 5 with Ephesians 1 tie into 1 Corinthians 15. You just repeat the same book and chapter over and over.
If I show you where it looks like something contradicts what your case is and you don't refute the discrepancy but just repeat your point, you made no rebuttal.
Lieutenant Columbo finds out there was a 2nd person involved in a murder. You find the murder weapon belongs to one person and that person entered the home of the victim just 30 seconds before the victim's death.
The lieutenant will not look at the gun owner as the only suspect. Now there is another person of interest to interview.
We have to look at all the information we know of in this matter. You can bring up the same scripture and I will ask what do we do with this passage over here that's going into the same subject but speaking to it differently.
If you wish to just settle with a presupposed contradiction then any further reading or debating is useless. Having a perceived conflict hinders us to determine what is a factual teaching of the scripture versus what is not of the particular subject.
Here again , Ephesians 1: " 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love " .
Compare this with 1 Corinthians 15 "23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits;(AO) then, when he comes,(AP) those who belong to him."
Reading Ephesians 2, talks about being made alive as 1 Corinthians 15 talks about being made alive. One passage sets the foundation of those in Christ selected, those who Christ was raised with are those who belong to him would absolutely be correct to be in him.
"I.a.1.A This is differentiated from the second death,which is a separation of the resurrected person from the presence of God: “Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.” [Revelation 20: 6]."
Revelation 20:6 perfectly harmonizes with John 5 , 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4. The dead in Christ, in Christ shall rise first . Everything and everyone has to do with them in Christ. Those not in Christ are not resurrected to life in Christ.
"I.a.1.B Therefore, there is a distinction between resurrected persons [which is everyone who lives mortally on Earth], and resurrected persons who do not take part in the first resurrection, which describes the unjust who are resurrected, but do not ultimately, by judgment, live with God. Refer to my R2, IV.b.1 argument about Revelation 20: 4-5, 12."
I can't decipher too well what you're attempting to get across. But if you're saying persons are resurrected to judgment and not alive with Christ, you're in agreement with John 5.
" “Therefore, both the just and unjust will resurrect to life from death, by Jesus Christ. "
Let's look at John 5 so we can all see it .
"24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me(T) has eternal life(U) and will not be judged(V) but has crossed over from death to life"
This is speaking of those who get life.
"28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming(AB) when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned."
Here it speaks of those rising to life and those risen to be judged. You have to pay attention to the keyword differences. Not all are rising to life.
"The ‘just and unjust’ counts all of us. The ‘small and the great’ counts all of us. All of us face the judgment bar of God, the ‘great and small’ and ‘just and unjust,’ and all are judged out of the book of life. Therefore, resurrection is not restricted to only the just, but also the unjust. And all are judged out of the book of life. The wicked are those whose names are then stricken from the book of life since they are banished to hell.” Refer to Revelation 20: 4-5, 12]"
The problem is I'm not reading this in Revelation 20. I just went over this. It doesn't say the small and great are the just and unjust folks. What you're saying is inconsistent with the book of John chapter 5. Those that get eternal life will not, will not, will not be judged as judgment is detailed in Revelation 20. In Revelation 20 it mentions nothing but the dead in that context. The dead being judged don't have eternal life. They wouldn't be dead because they were already chosen to be made alive according to Ephesians, they are to be resurrected out of the grave to life to not be judged according to John 5. So if all of these folks have been called to a resurrection of life, they wouldn't be still dead on their way to judgment according to Revelation 20.
Revelation 20 harmonizes with John 5 speaking of those rising to judgment , not life. It is only those not believing in him that was sent , not passing from death to life to escape judgment.
I'm harmonizing all of these passages and you're just reading a lot into the terms "small and great ".
"I.a.2.A Why am I required to repeat myself? I suggest to Pro to read my arguments with comprehension [use a competent dictionary and the Holy Biblefor reference, if needed] so I do not waste word-space and time repeating myself. From here on, I will merely make reference to previous round argument/rebuttal in each case Pro fails to read."
That's good, don't repeat yourself. This debate is obviously exhausted. Just like the scriptures say,when you've said what you had to say wipe the dust off your feet and go on your way. I came here, provided the scriptures to make a case. I addressed the scriptures you provided. I believe Jesus spoke of people that were given the message and either accepted it, stuck with it for a while or just rejected it. Looks like you got into the third group there rejecting the scripture only siding with the scripture in part. You can't do that with scripture. You're either for all of it or none it as Revelation speaks about taking away from the book. In your case, you're also adding to the book of Revelation. Heed to the warning on that .
"II.a.1 Answer to Q3: Everyone is saved, but Pro misunderstands what “saved” means. “Saved” means overcoming the first death by resurrection, which… [refer to my answers to Q1 and Q2, above, arguments under Rebuttal I]. That is, “all” who live mortal lives on Earth are “saved.”"
I want bible, chapter and verse that teach everyone is saved. The book of John 5 doesn't teach this. Looking at the book of Ephesians , we understand what being saved is. When we go to John 5 we understand there are two groups. One group was not included in the selection to not be judged and not be passed from death to life. Then finally to wrap it all up for the sake of this discussion, Revelation 13 and also chapter 20, those not found in the book of life we're not saved from the second death , lake of fire.
Is the book of Revelation true ? Call you're chapter and your verse against it. You dare to do that, now trying to make the book contradict itself. But you're making pseudo teachings of the bible.
"Since the unjust, who are still saved from the first death, by resurrection, still suffer the second death by banishment from the presence of God after judgment, although they are resurrected. "
This falsehood has no agreement or harmony with Ephesians and John . You're saying somebody is saved and not saved at the same time. Study Ephesians 1-2 about what it means to be saved.
John 5
"24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me(T) has eternal life(U) and will not be judged(V) but has crossed over from death to life"
You have eternal life. You get life that you don't lose.
Compare this to Ephesians 1
"13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,"
There it is again. "Hears the word " or "the word of truth". Which is the gospel of salvation. Did Jesus speak the truth, did he preach about salvation, was that in the word or in the news? It was good news for them that were saved. They were sealed with eternal life, never dying again as they remained saved.
An added bonus
John 14
"6 Jesus answered, “I am(A) the way(B) and the truth(C) and the life.(D) No one comes to the Father except through me.(E)"
Goes back to John 5 about life in the father , life in the son. Before verse 24 and after mentioned the one that sent the son. The son holds the power of judgment.
" 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,(R) 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.(S)"
Then 24 mentions believing in him that sent him, the other.
"26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life(Z) in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge(AA) because he is the Son of Man."
Those that have eternal life believe in him who sent the other to judge those not having life. Son has life mentioned here just as in John 14.
No one comes to the father but by the son in John 14 showing the connection between them both in John 5 and verse 23 mentioned above.
Christ is the way again for those from the foundation of the world in the context of Ephesians going to chapter 2 starting at verse "13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once(AC) were far away have been brought near(AD) by the blood of Christ.(AE)
14 For he himself is our peace,(AF) who has made the two groups one(AG) and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh(AH) the law with its commands and regulations.(AI) His purpose was to create in himself one(AJ) new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross,(AK) by which he put to death their hostility. "
That's how Christ is the way and he preached about peace which when it's broken down, it comes down to being of those saved no more separated, estranged, hostile and foreign to God.
Back at verse 13 in Ephesians chapter 1, those that heard the truth , the salvation by the grace of God expressed in Christ, Christ is much a part of salvation as the truth is making Christ the truth. Very TRULY I tell you, whoever hears my word which we can say based on all the scripture is just what Christ says.
Look at John 1
"14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
"A resurrected body, as Jesus demonstrated to Mary Magdalene, his Apostles, to two men on the road to Emmaus, and many others [Paul, for example], is a perfected physical body [as Jesus demonstrated to those as mentioned above], and yet are banished from God’s presence. "
I hope you understand after all the scripture that was went over, you have to look at context regarding resurrection.
"Nothing is done in vain other than by those who suffer the second death by virtue of choosing poorly in their thoughts and actions while on Earth, and those who chose poorly before the foundation of the world."
Where the goalpost is for this debate, Christ's death and resurrection was not in vain according to Ephesians and Corinthians. The predestinated plan made certainty with that and without the power in the resurrection, no body will rise to life. This thing about being raised with Christ but not actually in the book of life, no bible for it whatsoever.
When reading Galatians 2
"16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
, it ties back to Ephesians about those included in Christ that trusted and believed, emphasis on faith as evidence and assurance of their guaranteed inheritance. Also not of works to the law, but of God's handiwork, the justification with Christ.
That's the way this works. There is no free for all "up for grabs" piece of merchandise. It's a gift as put in Romans chapter 5 , chapter 6.
Ephesians 2
"8 For it is by grace(P) you have been saved,(Q) through faith(R)—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works,(S) so that no one can boast.(T) 10 For we are God’s handiwork,(U) created(V) in Christ Jesus to do good works,(W) which God prepared in advance for us to do."
It's given in kindness as Ephesians 1
"7 He is so rich in kindness and grace that he purchased our freedom with the blood of his Son and forgave our sins. 8 He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding."
Bought with a price ties to 1 Corinthian 6: 20 "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
Then further your understanding , John 15
"16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."
Ties back to Ephesians.. everything deliberate with a plan, nothing in vain. No plan of Christ dying and resurrecting for someone that never was justified before God, that didn't bear fruit.
What scripture is there that justifies being selected in Christ for salvation and then being selected to still be damned? What would be with the picking and choosing with one aspect but not the other? If the result is still the same , what kind of divisive plan is that?
"I’ll say, first, that Pro’s alphabet soup in quoting from John 5 makes no sense since the apparent references are not defined in the round, or in comments. Pass, as the scriptures are clear enough in their description. "
Wait a minute , are you rejecting scripture? Are you trying to say certain scripture are in limits and some are off limits?
This is a copout. You forfeit right here. I started with Ephesians and Revelation but I didn't say I'll end there. The title of the debate says "in scripture" not "in Ephesians and Revelation alone".
"The gift of resurrection is certainly notin vain, as I Cor. 15: 22 clearly indicates that everyone who has lived on Earth will resurrect due to Christ’s atonement for all. "
Then there shouldn't be names not in the book of life as mentioned in Revelation . But you've said, Christ atoned for all.
The bible is teaching Christ atoned for all in the book of life , not all people period. You learn this if you just harmonize your scripture.
"The unjust, those resurrected in the second resurrection [Revelation 20: 4-5, 12] remain embodied, but are removed from the presence of God. Damnation in no wise is described scripturally, for mortals who have lived on Earth, as being disembodied. They are still physical beings, just as Christ demonstrated himself to be a physical being, but only because they first lived mortal lives on Earth. Satan and his minions will never resurrect because they will never have mortal bodies. They remain as living, damned spirits. "
Already responded to this with Revelation 20.
Let's move on.
"III.a.2 “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." [Luke 24: 39] Resurrection and damnation are not mutually exclusive terms. John 5 does not say otherwise, as Pro claims it does, since he claims that all who resurrect are saved from the second death, apparently implying that those who suffer the second death must be disembodied."
The context was about what a spirit is. People didn't believe Christ resurrected. Not teaching about resurrection with damnation. We can't even read that phrase into it. Those words aren't there.
"IV.a Must we continue beating this dead horse? First, I bid readers to review the resolution and find, therein, “harmony” as a topic of this debate. Q4: “Why are you reluctant to harmonize any scripture?” I refer you to my R2, arg. II, IV, and R3, arg II regarding “Harmony.” Done and done."
Then you must be dishonest. Harmonizing Ephesians 1 and 2 with Revelation, it's not teaching all people are saved so all people Christ did not die for.
Harmonizing Ephesians 1 and 2 with Romans 5, then to Revelation , to make it agree with your position, you would have to charge the bible of contradicting itself. Which you have done if I'm not mistaken so done and done on that.
"V.a Yes, as long as the scripture cited is relevant to the resolution at hand, i.e. not harmony, resurrection, judgment, the book of life, of even the Holy Grail [the latter words are not in the Holy Bible, by the way[1]. Let us stay on point: Did Jesus die for everyone, or not?"
Preaching to the choir.
"It probably also goes against Acts 14, as well, but, refer to my V.a, above, which is all about relevance to the resolution. "
The scriptures aren't going against itself but you are.
"IX.a Curious claim, because one might, taking the verse out of context, assume this also speaks of Christ, thus saying he did not die for anyone since he, of all of us, was likely “selected.” However, as defined in my arg. I.a.1, physical death is the separation of the body and the spirit, and the spirit lives on, so the distinction as claimed by Pro is not the correct interpretation, or at least it disagrees with whatever scripture Pro references [he doesn’t], therefore, what harmony? See also my R2 reference to I Corinthians 15: 22: “all die.” Another discord, apparently."
Debate is over. Going in circles.
You can read over all of the scriptures I've presented and see how they harmonize with the revelant ones you've provided to make the topic statement so.
"Pro claims truth is putting puzzle pieces together. "
Is every word in a definition not a piece of information to truly define the word it is defining?
It seems like you're challenging everything for the sake of just being a challenger. These things are fundamental.
"What if puzzle pieces are missing, such as reference to the Holy Grail, or the contradiction claimed by much of Christendom that God is a spirit, and yet Christ resurrected to a perfect physical body, or that little children must, of necessity, be baptized, although utterly innocent, or that we inherit the sins of Adam [yet, how are we to be forgiven of them?], or that God has finished speaking to man with the content of the Holy Bible [only “it” was canonized, not by God, but man, from scrolls dating no earlier than 800 – 1,000 BCE], but are somehow “infallible,” etc, etc. Is the complete truth determined by an incomplete count of puzzle pieces?"
No you have to get all the puzzle pieces to get truth like I said. It's when you think you have them all and that's why you conclude with calling something contradicted.
You came into this thing thinking you had it all until I gave some pieces that you were missing. But I think it's like what the bible speaks of. Your heart is hardened and nobody can tell you anything. At least not to accept as the case.
"XI.a I will remind that this is a Pro question [Q4], not mine. I have never said I am baffled by contradiction; apparently, Pro is. Sorry, not my doing. Refer to the Ecumenical Councils. Pro asks a couple of added questions later in his R4 that are, likewise, answered by this rebuttal."
What a twist. Well if you want to answer the question , you can do it for your own benefit. That probably won't help just like everything else hasn't.
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. This is where you're supposed to explained why all names are not in the book of life but yet all people are saved because Christ died for them all . Instead, you just say see a rebuttal or response made in which if you successfully made one, I wouldn't be requesting a rebuttal so hence this is just circular.
Now I'll respond to this last line even though I already touched on it .
"Is Pro going to argue that “all” is not synonymous with “everyone?” He might, but I appeal to an understanding of common knowledge."
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?
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.
All are not in the book of life so all are not made alive. So that leaves the correct way to understand it which is all made alive that are in the book. One book is broad, another is specific which cements the conclusion in context.
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.
So the scriptures you brought , they are scriptures from the bible that are teaching about Christ's death or supposed to be in order to declare your position true.
I brought scriptures from the bible teaching about the same subject. The subject of Christ's death. Now both of our sides oppose using the same material dealing with the same subject. 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.
Who did Christ died for ? What is was for has to do with who it was for. Just think about that. What the death was for relates to who it was for .
This is how we understand that the death was for salvation which in turn does bring about reconciliation and in that no separation from God. So if that what the death was for and it was for everyone, absolutely nobody should be unlisted in the lamb's book of life.
Let's see if this holds up, let me show you.
In Romans 5 as mentioned earlier and we pick it up at verse 1
"Therefore, since we have been justified(A) through faith,(B) we[a] have peace(C) with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,(D) 2 through whom we have gained access(E) by faith into this grace in which we now stand.(F) And we[b] boast in the hope(G) of the glory of God. "
Ties to Ephesians 2 and Galatians as broached above.
Now we get to who Christ died for .
Same book and chapter.
"6 You see, at just the right time,(M) when we were still powerless,(N) Christ died for the ungodly."
Christ died for the ungodly but it doesn't say all of the ungodly. Good reason for that because if it was for all of them and the purpose of the death was for what it was for, that would cancel out judgment period.
Again in John 5 , the judgment is not for those justified but those that are judged to take the second death.
So dying for the sake of the ungodly, what does it do for them? The answer already is found back in Ephesians 2 and connects the context to Romans 5.
Romans chapter 5 , verse 9 "Since we have now been justified(Q) by his blood,(R) how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath(S) through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies,(T) we were reconciled(U) to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!(V) 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."
CHRIST died for the ungodly to be reconnected with God hence no more separation. The second death a sure way to be separated forever. Christ didn't die for the ungodly and that was all. The result is more than just a sacrifice for someone else. The death was for the people to be basically godly like it says in Ephesians , chosen to be holy and blameless. Scripture teaches be holy for I am holy.
So to say Christ died and that's it for only some people that you call unjust, you're tailoring the whole cause here unsupported by scripture.
If they're not in the book of life of the lamb slain, they're not connected with the book as they were not connected with the slaying of the lamb.
Con
#10
Resolution: “In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.”
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 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.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Vote bump.
Not to be considered part of the debate by voters, but with divergent reading of the Bible in several languages, the attached sound file [from Wiki] is an approximation of how I perceive the "harmony" of the Holy Bible. When the file is opened, scroll down to the section, "Interference and consonance," and push <play> https://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/beats.htm#introduction
Yes sir.
Also, not what that means, it could mean a variety of things.
1) Nobody has the time/desire to debate this argument
2) Nobody considers this debate as worth their time/effort
3) Nobody wants to debate you specifically regarding this debate
4) Everyone agrees with this topic
Notice that none of the above conditions mean that the topic is necessarily true.
Yes there are no takers. The topic statement is indeed true .