all about 'ALL'

When a person willing gives his life for all that all not have to die, he is (by virture or nature of the giving) NOT included in the ALL. Else that he himself can not die either.
Check mate! :laugh:

There is no discrepency. The sacrifice of Christ "...THE RESULT of one act of righteouness was justification THAT BRINGS LIFE FOR all men."
This does not state in ANY fashion all the blood is used but actually shows the exact opposite. It shows the sacrifice "BRINGS" and NOT "has BROUGHT". It shows not ALL men will recieve that 'justification that brings life but that some will.

It parellels the OT sacrifice of Atonement in Duet where they use only a portion to anoint the horns of the altar and pour the rest of the blood of the Covenant (blood of atonement) on the ground at the base of the alter to be trampled under foot.

 

Allan.

As you say, all does not mean all, that is what I was saying and you were denying it.

As one act of unrighteousness was condemnation for all. You said: The rest was poured out sybolically refering to their damnation for rejection. Which is in contradiction of the scripture isn't it? Yes it is. So when you say I do not know much about context I think a man that lives in a glass house should not throw stones. You said that Eli's house finished with his sons but you were wrong wasn't you? You did not acknowledge your error of course, context is helped by knowing the bible Allan.

Your crowing is in vain for you treat Rom 11:11 as a joke because you are shown in error again. Israel is not part of the world according to scripture but according to you a fine response to God's word is to blank it and try to rubbish me. Cool. Look at what it says: The world is blessed by Israel's trangressions. Deal with that and then you can crow.

And wrong again, we are all flawed, some more than others. Not only do you think it is good to laugh at people and pull them done without scripture you put yourself above a well respected translator as if you know something about scripture. Strong, you say, has an imperfect understanding of 'world'. Why? Because he disagrees with you. You claimed it had only two primary meanings and Strong says you're wrong and so does scripture.

JN 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

And you should not presume to teach. Wrong again are you not. Jesus tells you that He has revealed Himself to those His Father gave Him out of the world. And then He tells us, I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. John 17:9 says that Jesus said He doesn't pray for your 'world' that He loves so much doesn't He?

I didn't count the meanings given the word but I think it is more than two, but you edge your bets. "It has only two main definitions with variations of each." And that is meaningless. It has two meanings or it has more.

What is this? What of the minority then, edging your bets again I see.

And there we have it from the Church Planter, Evangelist Dir, Sun Sch Teacher, Youth Dir and Bible study Leader? One that denies `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "

There was a discrepency between you saying men are condemned for rejecting Christ and scripture says Adam condemned us by his actions. Where is your vaunted free will gone? RO 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men...
You can't deal with it so you try a mocking approach in the hope of what?

We are saved by the death of Christ by the way, the blood is for show. The sacrifice offered and received by God, not by you, was the death of Christ as the goat that died and the goat that was driven out of Israel into the world.

The sacrifice was offered and received by God, what for? JN 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

john.