I think I do get the picture, and if I am understanding you properly, I agree with you. Righteousness doesn’t come by keeping the law (Romans 4.13; Philippians 3.9). My point was not that righteousness does come through the law, but that not everyone who seeks Jesus responds positively, and not everyone that Jesus sheep Jesus seeks becomes part of his fold.

I agree with you that the rich man of Mark 10 could not become righteous by doing the Law. That’s one of the things that Jesus was trying to show him, so I agree with you.

As far as the parable of Matthew 22, it’s not that I have “obviously missed” so many other good things in the parable. I’m well aware of them. The one point of many in the parable to which I was referring was that these gents were invited to the banquet and yet didn’t come. We could certainly talk about the other teachings and elements of the parable, but my point, I think, was clear: some are sought and invited, but not all who are invited come.

So I agree with you, bro. I do get the picture. You’re right there is so much more, but I was trying to keep the conversation focused on the subject of our conversation, and I think you get the picture.

ok i've looked at the man in Mark 10.17-22
verse 19 reads
do not murder
do not commit adultery
do not steal
do not give false witness
do not defraud
honor your parents., the man replies I have kept all these,... I, William, ask: does keeping all these things laid down in the law the means of salvation ........answer is no .. keeping the law is only trying to be righteous by keeping laws .

Luke 9 v 59 - 60
The law allowed for sons to stay home when a father had died, but in this case the father was not dead yet. time enough to bury the dead when they die not before.

matt 22 v 1 - 14
another parable which I could answer in great detail , as there is much in this parable that you obviously have missed ,....so can I come back with a full explanation later. suffice to say these parables were all about the chief priests and scribes. matt 21v 45. tell me what was this banquet they were invited to, what city was destroyed with fire ,v7 of chapter 22, and what is this place of weeping and wailing in this darkness and gnashing of teeth big story , so much in it but v7 is AD70, weeping and wailing in this darkness and gnashing of teeth, is an idiom for trying to hold on to the law of moses in AD 70, the banquet was the new kingdom the law of love to all men won by Jesus,the law of moses provides no covering in regard to the man who came into the banquet, that was the old man Adam, the old adam will not get in . get these parables correct and you wont come into error.

summary
mark 10........no righteousness in keeping laws
Luke 9........ no righteousness until the old man is buried , the old man wasn't dead yet
matt 22.......the party or banquet is the gospel of Jesus forgiveness to all men., the old man will not be there


oh there is so much more . I haven't even started on those parables , but I think youll get the picture

I gave you the evidence, bro. Not everyone Jesus was seeking responded positively. Look at the man in Mark 10.17-22. Jesus loved the man and was obviously “seeking him” (Mark 10.21), but the man went away sad (v. 22). And what about Jesus in Luke 9. 59-60? Jesus invited the man to follow him, and the man had excuses not to. There’s also the parable in Matthew 22.1-14. The Master invited many people to come to his banquet, but some of those who were invited (that he was seeking) refused to come in. So he invited others. Not everyone that Jesus is seeking responds positively.

in your post you say, "You are right about many things. The conjunction 'and' does tie together two verbs meant to be tied. But in neither case is the result guaranteed. Jesus has indeed come to seek them all, but not all will be found."

Jesus came to seek in case one, case 1 is guaranteed , Jesus did come and he did seek. but you say neither case is guaranteed. I believe Jesus seeking was a guarantee. you say no ...Jim , come on man .

In that story, yes, you are absolutely correct. But that’s not the whole story; it’s only one story. Look also at John 10.26: There were a group of Jews challenging him, and Jesus identifies them as Jews who do not believe in him. So as Jews they are sheep (Matthew 9.36; 10.6; 15.24), but Jesus says directly in John 10.26: “But you do not believe because you are not my sheep.” Not every sheep will be found, and not every sheep will be saved. In John 10.27 Jesus then goes on to speak of the sheep that are his sheep, that listen to his voice and follow him.

All sheep are saved , you cant be a sheep if your not saved, the man had a 100 sheep and lost one but he searched and found the lost one and brought it back to the 99. 99 plus 1 = 100
He started with 100 and he still got 100 that's 100%

You are right about many things. The conjunction “and” does tie together two verbs meant to be tied. But in neither case is the result guaranteed. Jesus has indeed come to seek them all, but not all will be found. This saying is based in Ezekiel 34, where God views his people as his flock. Verse 16 says that the lost will be found, but elsewhere in the chapter some of the sheep will be rebellious and will be judged for it. Not all will be found. During Jesus’ ministry, many of his own people, his sheep rejected him (John 1.11). In the same way, not all will be saved. It is God’s intent to seek all, and that is what he does, but with limited success. It is also his intent to save all (2 Peter 3.9), but not all will be saved. You are very right that the conjunction “and” ties the two together. But he will have only limited success in accomplishing both objectives.

Luke 19 verse 10: For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. (NIV)

The object of the son of man was to do two things , 2 verbs: seek and save. The conjunction "and" means you can't separate the two verbs from the objective.

Carefully notice that in the text , the Son of Man actually claims not only to “seek” but also to “save” the lost. The two verbs must not be separated. They are connected by the same conjunction. They are both part of the Saviour’s earthly assignment from his heavenly Father. Does it stand to reason that he would “seek” more than he intends to “save”? Or that he would “save” less than he “seeks”? No way! He shall accomplish both objectives.

Even if you suggest it's a particular category, the conjunction "and "cannot be separated from the 2 verbs seek AND save. You would never send a boat out to seek survivors of a ship wreck and only save some . no you would seek and save all from the ship wreck. Same 2 verbs and same conjunction.

e what was lost.” You asked if Jesus wins all the lost. No, he doesn’t. “Lost” is a category, not a quantity. These are kinds of people Jesus came to save—those who are lost. It doesn’t say that he wins all the lost, meaning everybody, but that these are the kinds of people he seeks out to save.

The saying comes at the end of the Zacchaeus story. Zacchaeus was a very rich and deceitful man. He had cheated lots of people. People in those days assumed that such a man could never be saved or enter the kingdom of heaven. But Jesus is saying that no one is beyond the reach of God. It doesn’t matter whether they are rich or poor, man or woman, slave or free, he is here to seek out anyone who fits the description of “lost”, and that such a person can be saved. Notice the story a little before this one, Luke 18.18-30, about another rich man. People assumed men were rich because God had blessed them, and that any rich person was headed for heaven. The story in Luke 18 says, in contrast, that it’s very difficult for rich people to get into heaven. But it’s not impossible, and the story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19.1-10) shows that it’s not being rich or poor that gets you into heaven or keeps you out of it. Jesus is seeking those who are lost, and anyone who comes to him (which Zacchaeus did, and the rich man of Luke 18.23 did not) will be saved.

Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost. Does Jesus win all the lost? Explain.