John 12:32 in context

ESV because it uses the best manuscripts available. KJV is fine, I could use it but it doesn't change the meaning of the verses either.

The context of John 12 you have to go back to verse 20 when the Greeks were wanting to see Jesus. That is the context of all. He is talking about all people groups both Jew and Gentile. That is what it means when it says draws all based on the context of the passage. In no way at all does it say draw every person. You do not find that anywhere and there are other verses that would directly contradict that interpretation. The same is true in John 11.

Some things to note about John 11. First is that it is Caiaphas, not Jesus, speaking. Second is this, verse 48 shows it is talking about people groups. The Romans. I'm not sure how verse 53 is even playing into our discussion. But if you look at the verses in between it talks about not only the nation of Israel coming to God but people scattered abroad. In no way does it say or even mention that every person is drawn.

Just because something is a complete sentence does not mean that is the full context. You clearly don't understand the meaning of context. Do you always single out sentences out of paragraphs to determine what the whole paragraph is saying?

I will ask you again, because you keep leaving this out, if single sentences are how we interpret Scripture, what is the meaning of Matthew 7:1?

 

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Does that mean, each and every, who have ever drawn a breath of lives.

 

Yes, as I said, I understand your TULIP context. But that is as bogus as a 3 dollar bill.

 

Now we get yet another rewrite, as men of flesh becomes similar to men of flesh. No kidding that is the claim. The actual verse indicates Paul spoke to regenerate new born believers as if they were men of flesh because they could not handle spiritual solid food yet.

Next, Romans 8:5-11 suggests men of flesh (natural unregenerate people) can set their minds on fleshly things or on some spiritual things (milk). Try to stick to the subject, 1 Corinthians 3:1, rather than post other bogus interpretations of other passages. It just wastes my time.

Ephesians refers to Gentiles with their mind set on fleshly desires, thus offers absolutely no support for your premise.

Using the context of 1 Cor. 3:1, 2:14 indicates those not indwelt cannot understand spiritual solid food, thus once more offering absolutely no support.

And finally, 2 Corinthians refers to people in the first soil category of Matthew 13. If your view was valid for the other 3 soils, Jesus would not have to have spoken in parables, but He did. Matthew 13:

13 Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;
You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
15 For the heart of this people has become dull,
With their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes,
Otherwise they would see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart and return,
And I would heal them.’

Paul teaches the same, unregenerates can understand and respond to spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel.

 

Well as you understand what is claimed. I dare say, while many who profess to believe in the inerracy of the word of God, I am presuaded are wrong on this. To hold that so called critical text view is to hold the vast majority of the NT manuscript evidence is wrong. One example: The long ending of Mark 98.8% are wrong? Only 3 Greek mss correctly omit it?

 

Precisely.

Suggests?
You mean you don't know for sure?
It relates to 1 Corinthians 3:1 directly.

In truth, I'm not posting anything to waste your time.
I'm answering your posts out of my own understanding of Scripture, the same as you are doing to mine.

Sorry, I still disagree.
Again, you and I appear to see Scripture very differently when we read it.
To me, there is nothing more to be said, as even the verses I have posted thus far do not seem to get through to you.

With that said, this is my last reply to you in this thread.
I wish you well.

 

This shows a lack of knowledge with regard to textual criticism. It also tries to act as though these verses are not included in the new translations, they are. I am looking at the long ending of Mark in my ESV right as I type this. This is a red herring argument.