Because it is evident that most on this site are not good readers, I will spell out the main point in the OP.
Under v5,6 I point out that Paul says that the fact that Christ gave His life "for all", would be "testified in due time".
That is, he is saying that there would be something which would occur which would confirm to us that Christ had indeed given His life as a ransom "for all".
So that would not be the Cross itself, but something which happened after the Cross.
With regard to salvation then (for that is what the Cross is all about), the only thing which occurred was the notable incoming of the Gentiles (as distinct from the Jews). So it was this event (or series of events) which was that which "testified" to the fact that Christ had given His life as a ransom "for all".
So then, taken in conjunction with the fact that not everyone gets saved, we see that this "all" is a reference to "all kinds of men", and not "every single man on earth".
So the whole thing hinges on just what was "testified". It is this "testified" which holds the key to the interpretation of the passage.
Last edited by Colossians; May 30th, 2012 at 07:21 PM.
You show yourself a numbskull who is unable to digest the argument.
It is very clear to me you are not as intelligent as you like to think you are. You don't have the analytic skill to be able to analyse argumentation, nor the reading and comprehension skill. Commensurately, you lack confidence in attempting any of these things, esp when it brings you outside the very narrow area you have dabbled in.
But one thing you don't lack, is bluff.
So you get 10/10 for being a bluffer, but also unfortunately 10/10 for being a duffer.
Oh and by the way, I look forward to the next time I see you toggling between my expositional threads and another thread of similar topic, as you did between my thread "Understanding the covering of 1 Cor 11" and the idiotic thread on the same topic by poster Angel4Truth.
It was quite funny watching you log on to my thread, race off to the other and make a comment, and come back to mine for your next bit of information. I just sat there watching your name appear and reappear.
Even funnier was your attempt to appeal to the grammatical perfect aspect on my "Unfortunately embarrassing Mr Muzicman on his knowledge of Greek" thread, as that which supposedly supported your erroneous translation of Rev 13:8. Hilarious: your manner was reminiscent of a homeopath attempting to justify homeopathy in the face of modern science.
Which just shows us YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
Which should come as no surprise: you're one of the crackpots who thinks God doesn't know everything, and that He makes mistakes.
Finally, and that which really confirms your unintelligence, you seek to bluff the audience who are viewing this thread, into thinking that they somehow can't digest the argument presented. Very stupid thing to do on the internet Mr Desert. There are a lot of intelligent people out there who can read, and you simply insult them by supposing to bluff them.
I find you a pretender, unintelligent, a pseudo-intellectual, a hack in linguistics, full of yourself, and a joke. Apart from that, you're a great guy, and I'll include you on my Christmas card list.
The OP and post #48 stand unrefuted. As all the visitors to the site will have witnessed.
Last edited by Colossians; June 5th, 2012 at 02:59 AM.