Actual statements by synergists

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The word "all" in verse 9 does NOT refer to the seed of Adam (all men without exception), but refers to the seed of Abraham in particular.
The use of "all" in v.9 is of the same scope as the 3 uses of "all" in v.8.

Dr. Thomas J. Nettles:

The epistle is addressed to the believing of the seed of Abraham. The apostle was saying that Christ died for ALL of them.
yawn. it says nothing of the sort. But one must dismiss the meaning of 'de' in order to come to that conclusion.

Christ died for the believing of Gentiles too. But that's NOT what Hebrews is about. The Universal Atonement doctrine CANNOT be proved from Hebrews at all.[/SIZE]
Hebrews is about a lot of things. And universal atonement HAS BEEN proven from Hebrews.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The use of "all" in v.9 is of the same scope as the 3 uses of "all" in v.8.
Nope. Different genders. Another error.

The problem here is that there is a subjunctive, "might". Whether this expresses intent or just capability is subject of quite a discusssion among Greek speakers, but I dont see the point. Jesus does not taste death for everyone. That is where this verse goes: no universal atonement.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Nope. Different genders. Another error.
Since when did genders change the scope usage? Never.

The problem here is that there is a subjunctive, "might". Whether this expresses intent or just capability is subject of quite a discusssion among Greek speakers, but I dont see the point.
So there's no reason to bring it up.

Jesus does not taste death for everyone.
The Bible quite clearly SAYS differently. He tasted death for all, which is translated everything or everyone.

This is how 46 translators rendered 'pas' in Heb 2:9

EVERYONE - 25
Common English Bible
Contemporary English Version
Easy-To-Read Version
ESV
ESV Anglicized
Expanded Bible
God’s Word
Good News Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Lexham English Bible
Mounce Reverse Interlinear NT
Names of God Bible
NASB
New Century Version
NET
NIRV
NIV
NKJV
NLT
NRSV
NRSV anglicized
NRSV anglicized Catholic
NRSV Catholic
The Voice
World English Bible

EVERY ONE - 3
RSV
RSV Catholic
Young’s Literal Translation

EVERY MAN - 6
21st Century KJV
ASV
JB Phillips NT
Jubilee Bible 2000
KJV
Authorized KJV

EVERY INDIVIDUAL PERSON - 1
Amplified Bible

ALL HUMANITY - 1
Complete Jewish Bible

EVERY THING - 2
Darby Translation
Douay-Rheims1899 American Ed

ALL MEN - 2
1599 Geneva
Wycliffe

ON BEHALF OF ALL - 2
Knox Bible
Orthodox Jewish Bible

EVERY PERSON’S PLACE - 1
The Message

ALL OF US - 1
New Life Version

EVERY PERSON - 1
Worldwide English NT

Obviously clear how they understood the writer's meaning.

How many of these translations can refer to just the elect? Please answer.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Since when did genders change the scope usage? Never.
ROFL every time they change, FreeGrace2. Every time. Ask Mounce about that one, too. It changes what is being referenced. So the scope changes what it is focused on.

A little grammar is a corrective thing.
So there's no reason to bring it up.
Wrong gain. Yjust cant stop making errors. You make it seem like nobody should try to come up with the right answer or even learn theyre wrong. Cite that as part of the 10 Commandments why dont you.
The Bible quite clearly SAYS differently. He tasted death for all, which is translated everything or everyone.

This is how 46 translators rendered 'pas' in Heb 2:9
So, youre having trouble shifting off the uselessness of this point. What translation omits "should", "might", and "may"?

Have y'noticed the word is not translated "tasted" but "taste"...?
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
ROFL every time they change, FreeGrace2. Every time. Ask Mounce about that one, too. It changes what is being referenced. So the scope changes what it is focused on.
I see a lot of claims, but absolutely zero support or evidence for any of them. How about quoting from Mounce, since you've cited him. I've done that.

A little grammar is a corrective thing.
That's why I keep telling you about it.

Wrong gain. Yjust cant stop making errors. You make it seem like nobody should try to come up with the right answer or even learn theyre wrong. Cite that as part of the 10 Commandments why dont you.
Please re-read this to see just how confused it is.

So, youre having trouble shifting off the uselessness of this point. What translation omits "should", "might", and "may"?
More confusion, huh. The uselessness of your point is trying to make a point about the subjunctive. Quit dodging HOW 46 translators rendered "pas" in Heb 2:9. I know the truth hurts, sometime.

Have y'noticed the word is not translated "tasted" but "taste"...?
I suppose there's a point to that bit of irrelevance?

From the silly focus on the subjunctive and present tense of "taste", it would seem your view is that Jesus hasn't done it yet. Is that correct? I have no idea what you view is. Your seemingly pointless tidbits don't make any sense.


So, what does "taste" mean, then? And what does "might" mean?
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I see a lot of claims, but absolutely zero support or evidence for any of them. How about quoting from Mounce, since you've cited him. I've done that.
"by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone"

Might.

You seem to be confusing "might" with "shall". You might want to take a closer look at subjunctives. Really, you should. You might just learn something. Perhaps you will.
That's why I keep telling you about it.
And why I keep telling you about it. Obsessing on one rule at a time tends to weaken your case though.
Please re-read this to see just how confused it is.
I shall rephrase:you look like a modern Moses trying to create a new 10 Commandments that keep people from pointing out how broadly wrong your assertions are.
More confusion, huh. The uselessness of your point is trying to make a point about the subjunctive. Quit dodging HOW 46 translators rendered "pas" in Heb 2:9. I know the truth hurts, sometime.
Well, you might want to take a look at that crack in your attempt to make this universal. It is called a subjunctive verb.
I suppose there's a point to that bit of irrelevance?

From the silly focus on the subjunctive and present tense of "taste", it would seem your view is that Jesus hasn't done it yet. Is that correct? I have no idea what you view is. Your seemingly pointless tidbits don't make any sense.


So, what does "taste" mean, then? And what does "might" mean?
You mean, what might "might" mean? It means that the subject might, or might not, take the predicate's action.

You've got a verse that says it might or might not be this way. I could do better pointing out Jesus gave His life for joy, not disappointment.

As for my view, it seems youre wrong about my view. On two counts. It isnt my view that "Jesus hasnt done it yet" for clear grammatical reasons. And subjunctive compromises the idea of universality, so, it isnt "silly".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AndOne
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
"by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone"

Might.

You seem to be confusing "might" with "shall". You might want to take a closer look at subjunctives. Really, you should. You might just learn something. Perhaps you will.
Without any kind of explanation, I still have NO IDEA what your view is here.

And why I keep telling you about it.
There is a huge difference between "telling about it" and actually explaining your point as to WHY my view "might" be wrong. ;)

But, I've asked for an explanation of what the subjunctive in Heb 2:9 means to you. Will you provide one some day?

Well, you might want to take a look at that crack in your attempt to make this universal. It is called a subjunctive verb.
How about this link:
More Detailed Use of the Greek Subjunctive Mood - Framed View

I'm fully aware of all that is in that link. So what's missing from my view? Care to share, instead of just throwing insults and such?

You mean, what might "might" mean? It means that the subject might, or might not, take the predicate's action.
Well, here's a start, sort of. So, what's your point? Did Jesus actually die for "all" or not "all"? Again, your point is clear as mud.

You've got a verse that says it might or might not be this way. I could do better pointing out Jesus gave His life for joy, not disappointment.
Your posts sure could "do better". A lot better, IF you'd add some explanation of what your points are.

As for my view, it seems youre wrong about my view.
I've been asking WHAT YOUR POINT is for a long time. I still have no idea what your points are. Why not lay it all out?

On two counts. It isnt my view that "Jesus hasnt done it yet" for clear grammatical reasons. And subjunctive compromises the idea of universality, so, it isnt "silly".
Please read your own statement here and figure out why it still makes no sense or makes any point.

If Jeus "hasn't doen it yet", what has He done yet?
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Without any kind of explanation, I still have NO IDEA what your view is here.


There is a huge difference between "telling about it" and actually explaining your point as to WHY my view "might" be wrong. ;)

But, I've asked for an explanation of what the subjunctive in Heb 2:9 means to you. Will you provide one some day?


How about this link:
More Detailed Use of the Greek Subjunctive Mood - Framed View

I'm fully aware of all that is in that link. So what's missing from my view? Care to share, instead of just throwing insults and such?
What's missing from your view is what function the subjunctive serves. Why the subjunctive? "Care to share?" Or just cite all the functions of a subjunctive?
Well, here's a start, sort of. So, what's your point? Did Jesus actually die for "all" or not "all"? Again, your point is clear as mud.
Whats a subjunctive say? Once you know, you know why I brought it up.
Your posts sure could "do better". A lot better, IF you'd add some explanation of what your points are.

I've been asking WHAT YOUR POINT is for a long time. I still have no idea what your points are. Why not lay it all out?
My main one is that learning is always by carefully checking critiques for substance. In this case it is about subjunctives not encompassing everything. Plus determining how the subjunctive is meant.
Please read your own statement here and figure out why it still makes no sense or makes any point.

If Jeus "hasn't doen it yet", what has He done yet?
As I denied that, youll have to answer that question. It is why I wrote what I wrote.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
"by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone"

Might.

You seem to be confusing "might" with "shall". You might want to take a closer look at subjunctives. Really, you should. You might just learn something. Perhaps you will.
This is beyond silly. When the writer wrote Heb 2:9, Christ's death was an ACCOMPLISHED FACT. Or didn't you get the word?

And you still haven't explained what "might" means to you. Are you seriously suggesting that when the writer wrote, Christ still was contemplating whether or not He "might" died for all???????????

And why I keep telling you about it. Obsessing on one rule at a time tends to weaken your case though.
Your imagination only thinks I'm obsessing. In truth, your view is obsessing on the perfect tense, though, for what reason, escapes logic.

The point of 1 Jn 5:1 is that those presently believing have been born again. Agree or disagree?

I shall rephrase:you look like a modern Moses trying to create a new 10 Commandments that keep people from pointing out how broadly wrong your assertions are.
Well, that was about as unhelpful as your original statement was. Your sentences still are quite confused. Maybe your attempt to be cute or something is clouding your ability to communicate in a way that really communicates.

Well, you might want to take a look at that crack in your attempt to make this universal. It is called a subjunctive verb.
OK, so it seems that your view is that when the writer wrote, Jesus hasn't yet tasted death for anyone, but was merely considering whether He "might" or "might not"? That view is really beyond absurd.

You mean, what might "might" mean? It means that the subject might, or might not, take the predicate's action.
However, a simple reality check will reveal the FACT that Jesus had ALREADY died for all when the writer wrote. Apparently news travels slowly in your parts.

You've got a verse that says it might or might not be this way. I could do better pointing out Jesus gave His life for joy, not disappointment.
First, by the time the writer wrote Heb 2:9, He had ALREADY died for all.

Second, your second sentence is another one of your failed attempts at cutesy.

As for my view, it seems youre wrong about my view. On two counts. It isnt my view that "Jesus hasnt done it yet" for clear grammatical reasons. And subjunctive compromises the idea of universality, so, it isnt "silly".
So, your view seems to be that the subjunctive mood eliminates universality of Christ's death??!! Are you serious? The tense is aorist. Does that have any meaning relating to your view?
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
What's missing from your view is what function the subjunctive serves. Why the subjunctive? "Care to share?" Or just cite all the functions of a subjunctive?

Whats a subjunctive say? Once you know, you know why I brought it up.

My main one is that learning is always by carefully checking critiques for substance. In this case it is about subjunctives not encompassing everything. Plus determining how the subjunctive is meant.

As I denied that, youll have to answer that question. It is why I wrote what I wrote.
I'm tiring of your lack of serious discussion. I gave you a link to the subjunctive mood, and you've ignored it. Does it need to be explained?

At this point, either just lay out what the subjunctive mood in Heb 2:9 means, or this conversation is done. This silly back and forth is childish.

For some inexplicable reason, seems you'd rather not share your view. So, either share, or let's just close this sad chapter on the failure to communicate.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is beyond silly. When the writer wrote Heb 2:9, Christ's death was an ACCOMPLISHED FACT. Or didn't you get the word?
Still havent figured out the subjunctive I see. Yes the view you express is beyond silly. And I have pointed out my view, its really too bad you missed it. I got reps for pointing it out. So it is clear enough what the subjunctive refers to. It took down your assertion.

And the assertion above is really nonsense. Is that all you've got?

You did bring up this verse. Not me. I already know it doesnt say what you want it to.

My view doesn't even make this verse relevant to the thread.

That would be yours.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Still havent figured out the subjunctive I see.
Actually, I still haven't figured out your understanding of it, given the confusing nature of your posts.

Yes the view you express is beyond silly. And I have pointed out my view, its really too bad you missed it. I got reps for pointing it out.
Is that "reps" as in reprimands? I have no idea what is trying to be communicated here.

So it is clear enough what the subjunctive refers to. It took down your assertion.
Sure. Shoot out all the claims you'd like to. Without any supportiing evidence, or explanation, they are all worthless claims. What is clear is that your understanding of the subjunctive is anything but clear. When will you actually put your understanding in a post that is easy to understand?

You did bring up this verse. Not me. I already know it doesnt say what you want it to.
Another vague sentence. So what does it actually say then? Care to share?

My view doesn't even make this verse relevant to the thread.
For no apparent reason, or is there one? If there is, care to share?

That would be yours.
Not one of your sentences was connected to any relevant thought. I would suggest that one reads their posts before posting, and try to read it as if the other person needs at least SOME context for whatever is being said.

And, regarding Heb 2:9, I have no idea what you think is says. Care to share?
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Without any supportiing evidence, or explanation, they are all worthless claims. What is clear is that your understanding of the subjunctive is anything but clear. When will you actually put your understanding in a post that is easy to understand?
The subjunctive means that there's something else qualifying the assertion of the sentence. That is, it is not unqualifiedly true.

The guy who wrote this wrote the subjunctive. It's why he used the subjunctive. It's intentional. The indicative is always available.

He used the subjunctive. Heb 2:9 is qualified explicitly by the writer of Hebrews as not being always true.

So it can't be universal. Universality would require it always be true, the nature of universality being ... universality. :doh:

There are ways to try to shoehorn this sentence into your view. That is, some Greek usage will allow you to do that. You're welcome to try them, but they have consequences on the meaning of the rest of the verse. I wouldn't advise ignoring the grammar of any word in this sentence if you do that.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The subjunctive means that there's something else qualifying the assertion of the sentence. That is, it is not unqualifiedly true.

The guy who wrote this wrote the subjunctive. It's why he used the subjunctive. It's intentional. The indicative is always available.

He used the subjunctive. Heb 2:9 is qualified explicitly by the writer of Hebrews as not being always true.
I provided an actual source for my understanding of the subjunctive. Apparently you've not gotten to it yet. I hope that you do.

All you've given is your opinion on the subjunctive.

So it can't be universal. Universality would require it always be true, the nature of universality being ... universality. :doh:
Citing one's opinion doesn't win many arguments.

There are ways to try to shoehorn this sentence into your view. That is, some Greek usage will allow you to do that. You're welcome to try them, but they have consequences on the meaning of the rest of the verse. I wouldn't advise ignoring the grammar of any word in this sentence if you do that.
More vagueness, again. So, please explain WHY I shouldn't ignore any word in Heb 2:9? What's the problem? And thanks for at least acknowledging that my view can be applied to heb 2:9, but you've failed to show the problem of doing that.

Please be more concise and explain your opinions.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I provided an actual source for my understanding of the subjunctive. Apparently you've not gotten to it yet. I hope that you do.
Actually you didnt. You cited something, but never applied it to this sentence youre citing as somehow universal.

Your cited reference already states, "The action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances." Which, as you cited it, I thought you knew.

Apparently you dont share your cited authority's opinion. Maybe you should cite another?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Actually you didnt. You cited something, but never applied it to this sentence youre citing as somehow universal.

Your cited reference already states, "The action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances." Which, as you cited it, I thought you knew.

Apparently you dont share your cited authority's opinion. Maybe you should cite another?
OK, sure, let's go your way and apply this to Heb 2:9 and the subjunctive mood.

So, per the time of the writer, WHEN WILL Jesus "possibly" taste death for all?
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟20,928.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
OK, sure, let's go your way and apply this to Heb 2:9 and the subjunctive mood.

So, per the time of the writer, WHEN WILL Jesus "possibly" taste death for all?

That is not how it is used in the text though...
 
Upvote 0