The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

[Tong2020]

This isn't about what you want to do. The claim is made that the cross, somehow, purchased disciples.

And that is figurative language, is it not?

Tong
R4842

 

[Tong2020]

Oh sorry man. It is God who enstates that. Not me.

Where in scriptures did God enstate that?

Tong
R4843

 

[MatthewG]

The Bible brother. You have one my friend. Seek for God not from the answers from me.

With love,
Matthew G

 

[farouk]

Oh sorry man. It is God who enstates that. Not me.

@MatthewG The OT sacrifices done in faith pointed forward to the Cross; now we look back at a finished work, Hebrews chapters 9 & 10. (Not all who claim to believe are actually in the good of what was done at the Cross.)

 

[Tong2020]

The Bible brother. You have one my friend. Seek for God not from the answers from me.

With love,
Matthew G

It was you who said “Everybody went to hell before Jesus Christ died on the Cross and rose again. Then everyone after that all were justified.” Those were your words, right?

Since I believe you said that as per your reading of the Bible, that I asked of who among the apostles taught you that. Because, in my reading of the Bible, I find no apostle teaching that, nor did Jesus.

I am surprised that you kind of find the question hard to answer. But no problem. I just have to take it as an “I don’t know” answer then.

Thanks.

Tong
R4844

 

[MatthewG]

Okay. I did say all of that yes.

I believe all people have justified because of the death, of Jesus also his burial and resurrection.

(Their sin debt was paid). All people.

That means people like hitler has their sins paid for. But did Hitler believe on Jesus in this life?

That is the only sin that keeps people out of the Kingdom of Heaven. Having not faith, or believing that has a change of heart on the person in where they now are transformed from the natural way to living by the spirit having faith and love.

Now you may not believe that I don’t know what you believe anyway.

God through his son Jesus Christ reconciled the world back unto himself.

So I don’t know what is misunderstood.

There are only two destinations. Inside of the Kingdom or outside of the Kingdom. From my point of view. Many suggested to me say that Revelation 22 is no count, but it’s between them and God.

Also everyone did go to Sheol, because sin had not be paid for yet. Now everyone goes to the heavenly realm to be judged by God: it’s either having faith on the Lord and his death, burial, and resurrection or not which ends up a person outside the kingdom.

Hope this helps you understand my position @Tong2020. You may not agree with so will others too not agree with it either.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The Greek word is ἐδουλώθητε
(edoulōthēte, Strong's #1402 douloó: to enslave, bring under subjection) in Romans 6:18 in the English phrase "slave of righteousness".

According to biblehub.com/greek/1402.htm, the definition for Strong's 1402 is:

Cognate: 1402 doulóō – enslave(passive, "become enslaved"), focusing on the status of being a bond-slave. In contrast to the other verb-form of the same root (1398/douleúō), 1402 (doulóō) stresses the results (effects) of enslavement. That is, what automatically goes with belonging to another. See 1401(doulos).
​

YOU LIE ABOUT THE PASSAGE IN ROMANS BEING "SERVANT" INSTEAD OF "SLAVE".

I did not lie. Many words have both a literal meaning and a figurative meaning. When an author employs a word for figurative use, the author (in this case Paul) alerts the reader that he is using a literal reality as an example in order to make a point. Literally speaking, a "doulos" is a person made a slave by another person. Used figuratively, a "doulos" is someone who made themselves a slave, speaking about someone who leads a slavish life. In this way Paul argues,

"Do you not know that if you present yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or obedience resulting in righteousness?" Romans 6:16

In the sentence above, Paul alerts the reader that he is using "doulos" in a figurative sense, basing his argument on the realities of a "bondservant", who presents himself as an obedient slave to another man. Logically then, "you are slaves of the one you obey." Even if a man claims to serve God, in light of his slavish lifestyle, it is clear that he actually serves sin. (Jesus warned the Pharisees about this. John 8:34)

Here we clearly see that Paul has employed the term "douloo" in the figurative sense, i.e. voluntarily offering to serve one thing or another. In this case, one has either voluntarily agreed to obey sinful lusts etc. or one has voluntarily agreed to obey righteousness. Figuratively speaking, a person is a "slave" of sin if that person continues to obey his lusts. It was said of that person He lives a slavish life.

Paul is not focused on one's social status, i.e. slave or free; he is focused on one's lifestyle, i.e. slavishly obeying lusts, or dedicated to uprightness, wholesomeness, and goodness. The question is, as a believer, shall we continue in sin or not? The answer is, those who follow Jesus have committed themselves to a life of uprightness, wholesomeness, and goodness because, according to the gospel, Jesus has promise to set them free of sin. Therefore, the answer is NO, we shall not sin in order that grace might increase.

Where, @CadyandZoe, is it that "Paul argues elsewhere that we are no longer slaves, but sons, adopted into God's household" (your words)?

Review and study Paul's argument in Galatians 4.

You won't find nor produce Paul arguing that we, who are bought by Christ's precious Blood, are no longer slaves of righteousness.

Of course not. But neither will you find a passage of the New Testament, which indicates that Christ bought slaves. You have yet to understand the concept of redemption. To redeem a slave is to set him free, not to take him as your own. Until you understand the concept, you won't understand the purpose and meaning of the cross.

Paul wrote "you have been bought with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20) about us disciples.

"Redemption" is the "payment for ransom", and a "payment" for something is to "buy" ("bought" past tense) that something.

Paul isn't talking about the purchase of slaves; he is talking about the purchase of "freedom" for those individuals who want to be set free on his terms. You seem to misunderstand the exchange that takes place when a man "redeems" another man. When a man decides to redeem another man, he doesn't steel the slave or take him by force. No. Rather, he first must pay the slave merchant a fair price for the slave; then he sets the slave free.

"The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" says Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 20:28).

Again, the ransom is payment for "freedom." A ransom is given in exchange for another person's freedom, not in payment for a slave.

Christ's Blood shed on the cross is payment for the ransom that leads to Christ's disciples being bought unto slaves of Righteousness; moreover, the payment for the ransom is redemption of Christ's disciples.

But that isn't ALL it is. The Bible uses many metaphors to describe what took place on the cross. The New Testament also describes the cross in terms of a lamb, slain at the temple. It also describes the cross in terms of the atoning sacrifice, made once a year for the sins of the people. Additionally, it describes the cross as the terms of reconciliation. Each of these ideas is different one from another, but they all serve to describe the meaning and significance of the cross. We can't understand the true meaning of the cross, until we take all these examples into account.

When you wrote "Jesus didn't buy disciples", then, in effect, @CadyandZoe, you excluded yourself from the ransom that Jesus paid!

Yes, I am responding indirectly to the incorrect underlying assumption in this tread that Christ died in the place of his disciples, i.e. the "substitutionary atonement" theory of the cross. The argument goes something like this.

1. The Father accepted the death of his son as the means to absolve people of guilt.
2. The Father does not absolve the entire world of guilt.
3. Therefore, Jesus didn't die for everyone in the world.

My argument is this (based on Paul's argument in his epistle to the Romans, chapters 2 and 3.)

1. The Father "passed over sins" to allow time for people to repent. Romans 2:4, Romans 3:25
2. At the appropriate time in history, the cross served both as a public demonstration of God's righteousness, and a propitiation of his wrath.
3. Therefore, the purpose of the cross was not the expiation of sins, which God was already passing over, but a way for the world to be reconciled to God. He was NOT counting their sins against them when he made the overture to reconcile. 2 Corinthians 5:19. If God was not counting their sins against them, having already decided to pass them over, then there was NO need for Christ to die in their place.

If one begins with the substitution theory of the cross, one can not conclude that Christ died for each and every person in the world. But if one rejects the substitution theory of the cross, one is free to understand the actual reason why Christ had to die.

 

[CadyandZoe]

And that is figurative language, is it not?

Tong
R4842

What do you mean?

 

[MatthewG]

I did not lie. Many words have both a literal meaning and a figurative meaning. When an author employs a word for figurative use, the author (in this case Paul) alerts the reader that he is using a literal reality as an example in order to make a point. Literally speaking, a "doulos" is a person made a slave by another person. Used figuratively, a "doulos" is someone who made themselves a slave, speaking about someone who leads a slavish life. In this way Paul argues,

"Do you not know that if you present yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or obedience resulting in righteousness?" Romans 6:16

In the sentence above, Paul alerts the reader that he is using "doulos" in a figurative sense, basing his argument on the realities of a "bondservant", who presents himself as an obedient slave to another man. Logically then, "you are slaves of the one you obey." Even if a man claims to serve God, in light of his slavish lifestyle, it is clear that he actually serves sin. (Jesus warned the Pharisees about this. John 8:34)

Here we clearly see that Paul has employed the term "douloo" in the figurative sense, i.e. voluntarily offering to serve one thing or another. In this case, one has either voluntarily agreed to obey sinful lusts etc. or one has voluntarily agreed to obey righteousness. Figuratively speaking, a person is a "slave" of sin if that person continues to obey his lusts. It was said of that person He lives a slavish life.

Paul is not focused on one's social status, i.e. slave or free; he is focused on one's lifestyle, i.e. slavishly obeying lusts, or dedicated to uprightness, wholesomeness, and goodness. The question is, as a believer, shall we continue in sin or not? The answer is, those who follow Jesus have committed themselves to a life of uprightness, wholesomeness, and goodness because, according to the gospel, Jesus has promise to set them free of sin. Therefore, the answer is NO, we shall not sin in order that grace might increase.

Review and study Paul's argument in Galatians 4.

Of course not. But neither will you find a passage of the New Testament, which indicates that Christ bought slaves. You have yet to understand the concept of redemption. To redeem a slave is to set him free, not to take him as your own. Until you understand the concept, you won't understand the purpose and meaning of the cross.
Paul isn't talking about the purchase of slaves; he is talking about the purchase of "freedom" for those individuals who want to be set free on his terms. You seem to misunderstand the exchange that takes place when a man "redeems" another man. When a man decides to redeem another man, he doesn't steel the slave or take him by force. No. Rather, he first must pay the slave merchant a fair price for the slave; then he sets the slave free.

Again, the ransom is payment for "freedom." A ransom is given in exchange for another person's freedom, not in payment for a slave.
But that isn't ALL it is. The Bible uses many metaphors to describe what took place on the cross. The New Testament also describes the cross in terms of a lamb, slain at the temple. It also describes the cross in terms of the atoning sacrifice, made once a year for the sins of the people. Additionally, it describes the cross as the terms of reconciliation. Each of these ideas is different one from another, but they all serve to describe the meaning and significance of the cross. We can't understand the true meaning of the cross, until we take all these examples into account.

Yes, I am responding indirectly to the incorrect underlying assumption in this tread that Christ died in the place of his disciples, i.e. the "substitutionary atonement" theory of the cross. The argument goes something like this.

1. The Father accepted the death of his son as the means to absolve people of guilt.
2. The Father does not absolve the entire world of guilt.
3. Therefore, Jesus didn't die for everyone in the world.

My argument is this (based on Paul's argument in his epistle to the Romans, chapters 2 and 3.)

1. The Father "passed over sins" to allow time for people to repent. Romans 2:4, Romans 3:25
2. At the appropriate time in history, the cross served both as a public demonstration of God's righteousness, and a propitiation of his wrath.
3. Therefore, the purpose of the cross was not the expiation of sins, which God was already passing over, but a way for the world to be reconciled to God. He was NOT counting their sins against them when he made the overture to reconcile. 2 Corinthians 5:19. If God was not counting their sins against them, having already decided to pass them over, then there was NO need for Christ to die in their place.

If one begins with the substitution theory of the cross, one can not conclude that Christ died for each and every person in the world. But if one rejects the substitution theory of the cross, one is free to understand the actual reason why Christ had to die.

highly useful.

 

[Taken]

It was you who said “Everybody went to hell before Jesus Christ died on the Cross and rose again. Then everyone after that all were justified.” Those were your words, right?

Since I believe you said that as per your reading of the Bible, that I asked of who among the apostles taught you that. Because, in my reading of the Bible, I find no apostle teaching that, nor did Jesus.

I am surprised that you kind of find the question hard to answer. But no problem. I just have to take it as an “I don’t know” answer then.

Thanks.

Tong
R4844

Jumping in.
Before Jesus' arrivial ON Earth, men who endured, remained Faithful to God, to the end of their natural lives....Became soul saved.

Their bodys died, were buried.
Their souls received Salvation, departed their dead body's AND were escourted to what we commonly call Hell (center of the earth.)

Ancient knowledge...
Body's die, souls depart the body.
Souls saved (with God), would be in comfort (with God).
Souls unsaved (without God), would be in discomfort (without God).

*Historic Hebrews...(Aramaic language)..
Sheol-place of the dead, separated from God.
*Historic Gentiles...(Greek language)...
Hades-place of the dead, separated from God.
*Modern Gentiles...(English language)...
Hell, with a division, (without God)
Hell, with a division, (with God called Paradise

*Historic Hebrews...(Aramaic language)
Hinnom (a physical valley outside of Jerusalem, where men sacrificed children, by buring them to death...and what Hebrews/Jews believe What Sheol is like for unsaved souls separated (without God) experience.
*Historic Gentiles...(Greek language)
Gehenna ( a similar belief, per the Hebrews of what an unsaved soul experiences after physical death.)
* Modern Gentiles...(English language)
Hell, with a division.(without God-discomfort)
Divided by a great gulf (Luke 16:26)
Hell, with a division (with God-comfort-Paradise)

Note. ( the great gulf division, that none from one SIDE could pass to the other SIDE...Yet those "living souls" could, SEE, HEAR, SPEAK, "communicate", with each other, )

The Point (MathewG) was making IS:
"IN the Earth "WAS" the resting place FOR ALL "departed living souls", "saved and unsaved"..... "UNTIL" ....
Jesus' was bodily killed.
Jesus' departed living soul Went to the Paradise side of Hell.
Jesus' living soul Departed Paraide, returned to His Body and His body resumed Living.

Once Jesus' Living Soul Departed Paradise (in Hell)....Every Living Saved soul, IN Paradise, in Hell, was JUSTIFIED to be Raised UP to Heaven, (to Be IN Comfort, IN Rest, IN Heaven, with God).

They WERE Justified "to BE raised Up to Heaven"....but were NOT immediately "RAISED Up" to Heaven.

Jesus' Living soul returned to His body, His body raised up....and remember Jesus' continued walking about the Earth, showing men His Risen body.

Once Jesus....bodily, and living soul RETURNED TO Heaven.......THEN was every "justified" saved living soul, IN PARADISE, IN HELL......RAISED UP, escourted...."Paradise AND the saved souls"......taken up to Heaven.
There they remain in Paradise, in Comfort, in Rest, with God....waiting for the day their Body's are raised in Glory and their saved soles reimparted in their glorified bodies.
* Because that was fulfilled...
Since Jesus' return to Heaven, All saved departed living souls, go directly to Paradse IN Heaven, and the unsaved souls, continue to go to Hell to wait in discomfort for judgement.

So WHY....the waiting in hell of saved souls?
BECAUSE ...*** Jesus IS First and Before ALL things. (Col 1:17)

Jesus is not only our Example....But He expressly "experiences" Everything God has prepared for earthly Godly men to "experience". Life upon the Earth, fair, just, treatment, horrid, unjust treatment, Death, resurrection expressly unto God.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Tong2020]

What do you mean?

Is is kind of like what you said in one of your post. Here’s the excerpt.

“The Bible uses many metaphors to describe what took place on the cross. The New Testament also describes the cross in terms of a lamb, slain at the temple. It also describes the cross in terms of the atoning sacrifice, made once a year for the sins of the people. Additionally, it describes the cross as the terms of reconciliation. Each of these ideas is different one from another, but they all serve to describe the meaning and significance of the cross. We can't understand the true meaning of the cross, until we take all these examples into account.”

Paul said:

1 Corinthians 6:20
For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

1 Corinthians 7:23
You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

Peter said:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

The writer of Acts said:

Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Did Jesus Christ buy/purchase those who are being saved? Yes.

Tong
R4845

 

[BloodBought 1953]

This isn't about what you want to do. The claim is made that the cross, somehow, purchased disciples.

Not exactly “ on point?”...... lol.....who cares? I bet what I posted was of value to somebody out there....excuuuuuuuuuse me! Lol..

 

[brightfame52]

Christ died for a Particular People !

The OT Scriptures are they which are a sign, token , and indication of how we know that Christ's death/blood was to be shed only for particular sinners verses all sinners without exception. One such Old Testament scripture is here out of the Minor Prophets Zech 13:1

In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.

The Day here is speaking of the New Testament Days when Christ has come and shed His Blood, His Blood is the fountain, shed for sin and uncleanness. But its said to be for a specific People, To the House of David, the inhabitants of Jerusalem !

Remember the fulfilled Prophecy as stated by the Old Saint in Lk 1:68-70

68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

Notice also that this Promised Salvation reaches back to the beginning of the World, which must refer to Gen 3:15, so even then Salvation has only a segment of mankind in view, the Seed of the Women , which equates to the House of David !

Notice also back in Zech 13:1 that the fountain is for their sin and uncleanness, which corresponds also with the NC Promises here Ezk 36:25-29

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.


26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

29 I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.

The sprinkling of clean water upon them in Vs 25 is the Blood of Christ, it refers to the sprinkling of the Blood of Christ as Per Peter 1 Pet 1:1-2

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.


Heb 12:24

And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

The House of David refers to the Family of Christ, His Church, For He is the Son of David that all the Promises of God are confirmed unto !

 

[Kermos]

This isn't about what you want to do. The claim is made that the cross, somehow, purchased disciples.

Paul wrote "you have been bought with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20) about us disciples.

 

[Kermos]

I did not lie.

In your heart you conjured a new meaning for the word ἐδουλώθητε
(edoulōthēte, Strong's #1402 douloó: to enslave, bring under subjection) in Romans 6:18.

Thus, you most certainly lie and lied.

Many words have both a literal meaning and a figurative meaning. When an author employs a word for figurative use, the author (in this case Paul) alerts the reader that he is using a literal reality as an example in order to make a point. Literally speaking, a "doulos" is a person made a slave by another person. Used figuratively, a "doulos" is someone who made themselves a slave, speaking about someone who leads a slavish life. In this way Paul argues,

"Do you not know that if you present yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or obedience resulting in righteousness?" Romans 6:16

Obedience is a deed.

Of good deeds, such as obedience, the Word of God says "he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God" (John 3:21).

The ONLY persons that are obedient to God are persons whose obedience to God is wrought in God, not one less person, not one more person.

Therefore, a person's obedience to God is fruit of the Spirit of God, not man, but God.

A person cannot righteously obey God apart from Christ working in the person for Christ says "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

In effect, you subtract "slave" from scripture while also adding "servant" into scripture.

You wickedly add ability for man that the Word of God exclusively reserves to God.

In the sentence above, Paul alerts the reader that he is using "doulos" in a figurative sense, basing his argument on the realities of a "bondservant", who presents himself as an obedient slave to another man. Logically then, "you are slaves of the one you obey." Even if a man claims to serve God, in light of his slavish lifestyle, it is clear that he actually serves sin. (Jesus warned the Pharisees about this. John 8:34)

Here we clearly see that Paul has employed the term "douloo" in the figurative sense, i.e. voluntarily offering to serve one thing or another. In this case, one has either voluntarily agreed to obey sinful lusts etc. or one has voluntarily agreed to obey righteousness. Figuratively speaking, a person is a "slave" of sin if that person continues to obey his lusts. It was said of that person He lives a slavish life.

Paul declares precisely what Paul means in Romans 9:16 which is:

• a person who displays the fruit of obedience to sin - such a one is truly "the slave of sin" - the slave of satan (John 8:34, John 8:44).
• a person who displays the fruit of obedience to righteousness - such a one is truly "the slave of righteousness" - the slave of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

You foolishly subtract out the true spiritual meaning of Paul's writing by applying your free-will precepts of men that leads to worship in vain (Matthew 15:9).

Paul is not focused on one's social status, i.e. slave or free; he is focused on one's lifestyle, i.e. slavishly obeying lusts, or dedicated to uprightness, wholesomeness, and goodness. The question is, as a believer, shall we continue in sin or not? The answer is, those who follow Jesus have committed themselves to a life of uprightness, wholesomeness, and goodness because, according to the gospel, Jesus has promise to set them free of sin.

Bingo.

You wrote "Jesus has promise to set them free of sin".

I have repeatedly proclaimed the meaning of "free" to you with writing like:

Behold, "transferred" is Lord Jesus sets "the slave of sin" (John 8:34) free from the punishment for sin (Matthew 20:28); therefore the Word of God buys "the slave of sin" (John 8:34) to become "the slave of righteousness" (Romans 6:18).
​

You evilly subtract Christ from the center then you add yourself/man to the center about man's salvation and man's obedience.

You are a thief trying to steal the glory of God in the salvation of man!

Therefore, the answer is NO, we shall not sin in order that grace might increase.

Review and study Paul's argument in Galatians 4.

Of course not. But neither will you find a passage of the New Testament, which indicates that Christ bought slaves.

Paul wrote "you have been bought with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20) about us disciples.

Paul expresses Christ's ownership of Christ's disciples.

Paul also wrote of Christ's disciples "having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" (Romans 6:18).

Here, Paul expresses Christ transferring His disciples into being "slaves of righteousness" (Romans 6:18) being bought/redeemed by the Blood of Christ.

There is more than one passage!

You lied again, and the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44).

continued to post #2436

 

[Kermos]

continued from post #2435

You have yet to understand the concept of redemption. To redeem a slave is to set him free, not to take him as your own.

Scripture shows the definition of redemption, and hence redeem, so to scripture:

29 If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.
30 If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him.
31 Whether it gores a son or a daughter, it shall be done to him according to the same rule.
Exodus 21:29-31

• "ransom" and "redemption" literally appear in this passage.
• ransom shows "demand for payment" placed upon the "him"/"owner".
• redemption shows "unencumbered ownership". The ox owner no longer "owns" his life being under judgment of death, but if the owner pays the ransom then the ox owner "owns" his life; therefore, the ox owner bought/redeemed "his life".

Now, moving on to Christ's sayings:

the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many
Matthew 20:28

• "ransom" literally appears in this passage.
• ransom means "demand for payment", and Lord Jesus means ransom when Lord Jesus says ransom.
• redemption means "payment for recovery, unencumbered ownership, reconcilliation", and the phrase "to give His life" shows redemption.

I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me
John 10:14

• neither "ransom" nor "redemption" literally appears in this passage.
• Christ's ownership of His disciples literally appears here with "My own".

When you wrote "Jesus didn't buy disciples", then, in effect, @CadyandZoe, you excluded yourself from the ransom that Jesus paid!

Until you understand the concept, you won't understand the purpose and meaning of the cross.
Paul isn't talking about the purchase of slaves; he is talking about the purchase of "freedom" for those individuals who want to be set free on his terms. You seem to misunderstand the exchange that takes place when a man "redeems" another man. When a man decides to redeem another man, he doesn't steel the slave or take him by force. No. Rather, he first must pay the slave merchant a fair price for the slave; then he sets the slave free.

Again, the ransom is payment for "freedom." A ransom is given in exchange for another person's freedom, not in payment for a slave.
But that isn't ALL it is. The Bible uses many metaphors to describe what took place on the cross. The New Testament also describes the cross in terms of a lamb, slain at the temple. It also describes the cross in terms of the atoning sacrifice, made once a year for the sins of the people. Additionally, it describes the cross as the terms of reconciliation. Each of these ideas is different one from another, but they all serve to describe the meaning and significance of the cross. We can't understand the true meaning of the cross, until we take all these examples into account.

Yes, I am responding indirectly to the incorrect underlying assumption in this tread that Christ died in the place of his disciples, i.e. the "substitutionary atonement" theory of the cross. The argument goes something like this.

1. The Father accepted the death of his son as the means to absolve people of guilt.
2. The Father does not absolve the entire world of guilt.
3. Therefore, Jesus didn't die for everyone in the world.

My argument is this (based on Paul's argument in his epistle to the Romans, chapters 2 and 3.)

1. The Father "passed over sins" to allow time for people to repent. Romans 2:4, Romans 3:25
2. At the appropriate time in history, the cross served both as a public demonstration of God's righteousness, and a propitiation of his wrath.
3. Therefore, the purpose of the cross was not the expiation of sins, which God was already passing over, but a way for the world to be reconciled to God. He was NOT counting their sins against them when he made the overture to reconcile. 2 Corinthians 5:19. If God was not counting their sins against them, having already decided to pass them over, then there was NO need for Christ to die in their place.

If one begins with the substitution theory of the cross, one can not conclude that Christ died for each and every person in the world. But if one rejects the substitution theory of the cross, one is free to understand the actual reason why Christ had to die.

Christ's disciples repent by God's working in Christ's disciples, for the Christ of us Christians says:

"I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to babes" (Matthew 11:25)

AND the apostles and elders glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18)

SO, clearly, Jesus' words in Matthew 11:25 state that God causes man to think differently after an encounter with God (repent means to think differently afterward).

Behold, @CadyandZoe, repentance is a fruit of Christ in His disciples!

Your point number 1 conveys that man repents by man's free-will.

The Word of God pulverizes your point number 1 resulting in the destruction of yout remaining points 2 and 3 (Matthew 7:26-27).

Whatever you call your thoughts for your 3 points, it doesn't matter because you wickedly substitute the power of yourself in place of Christ the Power of God by way of your purported choice of Christ unto salvation.

A word about your thoughts. It is written, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares YHWH. 'For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.'" (Isaiah 55:8-9).

A word about adding to scripture as you have done. It is written "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6), and the above explanation of your thoughts shows where you added to scripture.

Of the new Jerusalem, the Apostle John wrote "nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life" (Revelation 21:27) - notice that no one who practices lying gets in, and a human adding to scripture is the human lying.

Your free will assertion is referring to man attempting to override God's thoughts with man's thoughts, and that is evil.

 

[MatthewG]

Sometimes you just got let things go. Let other people be right in their own minds. The best thing one can do is seek for God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Let them be your guide. Haha. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

If you are really seeking for God and answers to your questions go to God and ask him. Do not worry about trying to provide your points to others which you can if you desire however people debate about whatever it is.

Im right, your wrong attitude comes about. It’s just not fruitful, or life providing. What is profitable is having love for God and other people by and through faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.

It doesn’t matter to me if someone believes that we are in the last days and the end is coming and Jesus will put right everything. All people are let up to their own beliefs and how they will see things. It’s not up to an individual to change a person.

Only God can truly change a person, he was the only one who set me free from my darkness of hatred for God, Christians and others.

 

[Kermos]

* John 15:16: Here the Lord Jesus was talking to His disciples:-
'Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth:
but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of My Father I have made known unto you.
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.'
(Joh 15:15)

* These were the twelve, chosen indeed by God the Father, through the Son.

* John 15:19:
'If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own:
but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world,
therefore the world hateth you.'
(Joh 15:18-19)

* These are the twelve, many who would go on to know martyrdom for His Name.

This is more about the recorded Word of God in John 15:16 and John 15:19 as mentioned in post #2283 which shows that you try to limit the audience to exclusively the apostles for the supper covered in John chapters 14 to 17.

Lord Jesus says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19, includes salvation) to all His own disciples (John 10:27-29) in all time.

LORD JESUS INDICATES DISCIPLES IN THE SUPPER ROOM OF A NUMBER GREATER THAN 12

Lord Jesus says "It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl" (Mark 14:19) about the apostle who betrayed Him.

The Master Orator cleverly exposes that the audience for the supper exceeds the 12 apostles by explicitly stating "the twelve" instead of "you".

Master Jesus used the phrase "the twelve" to distinguish that the betrayer was in the group of 12 disciples called apostles which, by such way of expression by Jesus, the rest of the disciples present in the supper room would know that they are not the betrayer that Jesus was identifying.


Lord Jesus expressed that more than 12 disciples attended the supper when He exposed that the betrayer was not only from the set of all disciples but even more narrowly that the betrayer was numbered from among "the twelve" - the 12 disciples He called apostles.


Lord Jesus says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19, includes salvation) to all His own disciples (John 10:27-29) in all time.

Related post 1: more disciples present at supper

Related post 2: Free-willian's Claim To Superiority Over The Apostles

Related post 3: The Friend Of Jesus (John 15:15) Is Exclusively Chosen By Jesus (John 15:16)

Related post 4: Lord Jesus says "what I say to you I say to all" believers in Jesus Mark 13:37)

Related post 5: Lord Jesus Prophesies And Declares The Holy Spirit Indwelling Believers In Jesus Thus "You" In John 14-17 Includes All Believers In Jesus In All Time

Related post 6: Lord Jesus' prayer for us believers

 

[CadyandZoe]

Is is kind of like what you said in one of your post. Here’s the excerpt.

“The Bible uses many metaphors to describe what took place on the cross. The New Testament also describes the cross in terms of a lamb, slain at the temple. It also describes the cross in terms of the atoning sacrifice, made once a year for the sins of the people. Additionally, it describes the cross as the terms of reconciliation. Each of these ideas is different one from another, but they all serve to describe the meaning and significance of the cross. We can't understand the true meaning of the cross, until we take all these examples into account.”

Paul said:

1 Corinthians 6:20
For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

1 Corinthians 7:23
You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

Peter said:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

The writer of Acts said:

Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Did Jesus Christ buy/purchase those who are being saved? Yes.

Tong
R4845

No, not quite. The complete exchange goes something like this. The will of the Father was to make peace with mankind and reconcile the world to himself. This act came at a cost. The Father proposed to demonstrate (vindicate) his righteousness by allowing the religious and political authorities to put his son to death on a cross. (the cost) After three days and three nights, he raised his son from the dead, thus vindicating his word, giving substantial evidence that he is fully willing and able to keep his other promises: to take away the sins of the world; to raise up the fathers and bless them with eternal life; to tabernacle among the people; to rule over them as king; to protect them from his enemies and much more (that slips my mind at the moment.)

In exchange for Jesus' voluntary submission to the authorities to be crucified, the Father gave his son all authority to choose disciples; to forgive sins; to lead his church; to rule over the entire world as king; to act as high priest on behalf of his followers and all believers throughout history. All this and much more.

The purchase price did not buy disciples as such; the purchase price did not pay for sins that were already forgiven. With regard to his church, the "purchase price" qualified Jesus to enter heaven to intercede on behalf of his church according to the order of Melchizedek. The purchase price also qualified Jesus to serve as the Messiah, Romans 1:4, the king who would rule not only over Israel, but over the entire world. (The scope of Jesus' sacrifice and the Father's efforts are worldwide, which is why the Bible talks about the cross in terms of a propitiation for the sins of the world.)

In this regard, King David pictured his Lord sitting at the right hand of the Father, until the Father makes his enemies a footstool for his feet. Psalms 110. Because Jesus was obedient unto death, the Father has put all things under his feet and over time, as we experience it, the Son conquers in the name of the Father and with the Father's help. Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Hebrews 2:8

Finally, in his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul paints the above picture symbolically. During the time of writing, the kings of old would enter the capital city preceded by the prisoners he captured during the war. The prisoners were sold or given to the people as servants. In like manner, the Father is like the victorious king, having taken captives and giving these men as gifts to the church. The Father is giving his son men in the role of apostle, prophet, preacher, evangelist, preachers and teachers to edify his church.

All of this because Jesus voluntarily allow himself to be arrested and put to death on a cross, in order to allow the Father to demonstrate his righteousness (and all that entails).

 

[CadyandZoe]

Not exactly “ on point?”...... lol.....who cares? I bet what I posted was of value to somebody out there....excuuuuuuuuuse me! Lol..

I'm sure it is. You quote a lot of scripture and make good points. It just so happens that your good points don't support your overarching premise that Jesus didn't die for each and every man or woman or child.