Nothing Short Of Perfection

[Clear]

1) Regarding Billiardsballs' theory that Jesus imparts his own perfection to us
BIlliardsball said (# 53) “ I can endeavor further to explain how Jesus imparts perfection to us. “
Clear resonded (#55) Please, don’t. You have had eighteen pages in the “God in Mormonism” thread and in the three pages of discussion in this thread, and in these 21 pages, you have been consistently unable to offer relevant , logical and historical support for your personal theory that Christ imparts his actual perfection to you. Your attempts, in the main, have been to repeat your claim in differing forms….
Post # 53 is another example of your habit of irrelevance. …. Think carefully as to whether you actually have any relevant, logical, rational and historically accurate data to support your theory. Unless and until you have relevant data, lets drop it.

Billiardsball, My point was NOT that you should stop trying to support your personal theories, but that you should not simply offer illogical, irrational, irrelevant "stuff" just to keep an argument going. It is counterproductive for readers to spend time on irrelevance.



2) Regarding Billiardsballs' theory that God punished Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit
Clear said (#55) Why don’t you consider the possibility that Christs sufferings were not a punishment for sins he did not commit. Not all suffering one suffers in relation to another person is a punishment. …. Suffering, yes. Punishment, no. If you still refuse to modify your theory of God punishing Jesus, then on what logical or rational basis do you theorize that God PUNISHED Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit?

Why don’t you start by doing a basic scripture search of the word “punishment” and see if any of these occurrences apply to Jesus actually being "punished"? If you find any suspicious reference, USE the greek training that you claim to have and see if it is a punishment. You claim to have historical training in religion. If you find a suspicious reference, USE the historical religious training and analyze historically, what is meant in the historical context. If you do this, you may have a better chance at offering relevant data, logical data and rational data that has some historical basis.
Billiardsball replied (#57) : “ I would start to answer your new query--which is a great gedanken, I grant you, with this, "He became sin for us."

Regarding Billiardsballs’ new theory that Jesus “became sin” :

I assume you are referring to 2 Cor 5:21 : “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (NKJV).

The greek for this sentence is : “τον γαρ με γνοντα αμαρτιαν υπερ εμων αμαρτιαν εποιησεν ινα ημεις γινομεθα διδαιοσυνη θεου εν αυτω.” (GN4 shows no variants of this text). You claimed you have training in Greek and in History. LOOK at the greek and consider it’s historical context.

a) Do you think this text means that the “sinless” and “perfect” Jesus actually DID sin? (i.e. Jesus was NOT perfect?)

b) If your new theory implies Jesus was a sinner, then what sin did Jesus commit that made him a sinner?

c) If Jesus was a sinner, (and therefore was morally imperfect), then he does not have moral perfection to “impart” to anyone else.

d): If you new theory, implies a perfect Jesus, became imperfect by sinning, then do you theorize that he then became “perfect” once again?

e) If your new theory, theorizes that a sinful Jesus, once again became “perfect”, by what mechanism does he become once again, perfect?



3) Regarding the actual greek text underlying the English translation Billiardsball offered
You claimed you have training in both Greek and Religious history. Examine this greek text through it's historical context.

a) If you believe the specific english translation you offered is correct, but should not be interpreted to mean Jesus actualy became “sin” or was“sinful” or had “sin in his nature”, then how specifically, do you think the greek in it’s historical context should be interpreted? (specifically).

b) If you see a contextual error in the English you offered us, then how would you correct the text to agree with the early Judeo-Christian historical interpretation?


4) Does the text say that Jesus was PUNISHED by God for someone elses sin?

You were to find a scripture where it says Jesus was punished by God for Sin. Where in this, or any other text, does it say God punished JESUS for sins Jesus did not commit? The text still does not tell us God unjustly punished Jesus for sin which Jesus did not commit.

The text, in the form you offered to us, again, undermines your OP rather than supporting your personal theory. Your text (as it is offered), intimates that Jesus became “sin”, “sinful”, “committed sin”, etc and was not, therefore perfect and thus, had no perfection to give anyone else (if such a mechanism for "imparting perfection" could exist).


5) Modern theological theories have no advantage over the earliest Christian doctrines and earliest Christian interpretations

Creating additional new and complicated theories to support your original illogical, irrational and historically inaccurate theory of religion that is, inherently flawed in it’s basis will not be a helpful mechanism for you. Creating supportive theories to support a flawed premise will (usually) create as many problems as they meant to solve.

In my opinion, none of these “new and improved” theories of religion seem to be as rational, as logical and as sensible as the earliest Christian beliefs on this subject. For example, readers can see (obviously) that abandonment of the early doctrine of repentance simply doesn’t work as well as the original doctrines.



Clear
φιτζωφι

 

[BilliardsBall]

As there are many points, I'll respond to your posts in red. I'll also mark my earlier statements you cite with a blue bracket to distinguish and separate the replies from each other more clearly.



This is not a proper response. Google has all kinds of things that can be found. They don't all have value. The point turns on the text and the text clearly indicates contradictory statements. Unless you can change the text, the contradictions stand and the position: the Bible is harmonious with reason is repudiated.

The idea a book that has significant portions that predate the development of logic is nonetheless harmonious with logic, is problematic.

per B) I will not sit here to defend Calvinism. You are claiming perfection imputed is inappropriate because a penal model is inappropriate?

The idea God punished Christ is Calvinistic. It is fundamental to the Penal Substitution Model you have previously tried to defend. Whether you still hold to it or no, the idea God punishes the innocent turns God into an amoral or immoral being and therefore unworthy of devotion. This is a killing argument against your position. You have never been able to defend this point which makes your stance irrational.

per C) Anyone breaking one law is a lawbreaker. Lawbreakers cannot be in Heaven. It has to be more than clean, but if that helps you, I'm okay with that.

Your example of the traffic tickets and previous usage of perfection all fit with the basic meaning of 'clean'. If you wish to assert your meaning is more that just being clean, that is fine. The standard notion of perfection would entail what I mentioned before: the maximalization of positive traits and attributes, including the same with virtue. So, if God makes one perfect, how is that done, given virtue is a moral category and morality is tied to free will? This is the original problem you have not been able to answer. Assertion is not justification.

per D) I don't repudiate repentance. I repudiate repentance as a works-based mode of salvation. Repentance is part of human sanctification, but sanctification does not save. Sanctification is for already saved persons (saints). I'm uncomfortable with where to go next because we are both arguing the Bible but one of us thinks it is a true book. Normally people who identify not only as Christians but as Christian apologist and hermeneutically skilled say the Bible is God's Word.

Repentance by definition is an action taken by the subject. It cannot be coerced as then it is not the subject's repentance. If you accept repentance, then you must accept the individual can do something in regards to their standing before the Lord. This venom toward a "works based mode of salvation" isn't something anyone has argued or does argue. It's a straw man. There are two options:

a) you accept repentance has value. If so, then there is something the individual can do that has merit.
b) you reject repentance. If so, then the sea of verses in the Bible calling for people to repent (including the citation from Christ) need to be rejected.

Master Billiards, I accept and believe the Bible is scripture. I do not believe in inerrancy. Inerrancy is a comically bad position and cannot be defended rationally.

1)(the good guys) You assert moral attributes are transferable, but have not demonstrated how this is possible.
--you haven't demonstrated how moral attributes are non-transferable.

This is not a good reply. One cannot prove a negative. My position has been that moral attributes cannot be transferred because its an absurdity, meaning it is impossible to do. It is the same as rejecting the idea of a square-circle. I explained in an earlier post why it is impossible:

"Moral attributes are nontransferable because the contrary is irrational. I'll explain. Aside from bald assertion, there is no mechanic whereby one can transfer or impose moral awareness or moral standing. Looking at the latter first, moral standing refers to the sum of free acts made by a subject where good and evil are meaningful. It is thereby person specific, by definition. Such cannot be transferred because the ethical free decisions of a subject, are the subject's. Any lauding or condemning of those decisions relate to the acting subject. To apply a judgment to one outside the rubric of choice, would be unjust."
​

from this I gave the stolen bike example where I defined and explained the meaning of justice.

You made the claim "(Christ) would impart His perfection to you". If this is a rational claim, you must explain how this is done, or it must be rejected as bald assertion, void of substance.

2) (the good guys) You have claimed the Bible is harmonious with reason, but it has contradictions.
--you have cited ancient Christian authorities and commentators--these persons claimed the Bible is harmonious with reason.

I don't believe I've cited any Christian authorities or commentators in this thread. Regardless, citation of a figure does not thereby mean one must accept the entirety of the referenced person's corpus. The basic point remains: you claim the Bible is harmonious with reason, but the text has contradictions. Therefore, the claim fails.

3) (the good guys) You have claimed the Bible is the same as God's word, but have no way of demonstrating a correct understanding: text and interpretation are not the same.
--text and interpretation are not the same, although in the Hebraic mode of understanding, only one level is the face value text. I grew up with four levels of interpretation. These are commonly accepted by Rabbis and Judaism.

In the Classical and Medieval Tradition, there are multiple interpretive models. Historically, it appears Rabbinic Judaism adopted such from the larger Hellenistic Tradition. Whether that is correct or not, if one opts for a allegorical, analogical or anagogical interpretive model etc., one is still placing an interpretation onto the text, and must justify that positioning. If one accepts that the Bible is God's Word, then (as I explained before) the problem is that as God's word it is by definition perfect. An interpreter to perform his role correctly, must also be perfect, and therefore equal to God. Unless you wish to claim equal status with Deity, there is a fundamental divide between text and reader/interpreter.

4) (the good guys) You confuse the meaning of perfection with clean
--not at all. I was merely attempting to provide you with an analogy. By the way, an animal to be sacrificed at the Temple had to be both clean and without defect (perfect). But you can see where someone would conflate the two without being guilty of a crime.

I responded to this in the above C)

5) (the good guys) You reject repentance as a lower law
--Not at all. Godly sorrow brings in repentance, not worldly sorrow. The godly repent. The ungodly... what do they do to be saved? Trust Jesus, receive of His perfection.

You posted "The problem I have (with repentance) is that Christ's way is above..." This indicates repentance is a lower order value. It's also problematic as I gave an example of Christ calling for people to repent. This means Christ (the higher way) is advocating your lower way. This is another problem for you.

6)(the good guys) You believe punishing the innocent is fine.
--Not usually. But sometimes, as when God condemned His innocent Son, it is right. Do you really disagree with the Father punishing the Son? If it wasn't a "substitution" did He punish Christ because of His capricious nature?

If you believe punishing the innocent is fine (even with the 'not usually' qualifier) it violates the principles of justice and morality. It is an evil system.

I don't believe God punished His Son. I don't believe in an evil God. I don't believe punishment is necessarily the same as suffering. I believe Christ took on the atonement and all it's pain and suffering because He loves us, not because of the demands of an evil tyrant that must have blood to be appeased.

This post is way beyond the OP. I apologize. It is likely my fault that we got off track.

I believe Christ took on the atonement and all it's pain and suffering because He loves us, not because of the demands of an evil tyrant that must have blood to be appeased.

I agree. I love this as you wrote. I'm sorry we seem to have two misunderstandings:

1. Perfection

2. Propitiation - God is indeed propitiated by the blood of Christ, as the scripture says.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree as brothers?

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) Regarding Billiardsballs' theory that Jesus imparts his own perfection to us
BIlliardsball said (# 53) “ I can endeavor further to explain how Jesus imparts perfection to us. “
Clear resonded (#55) Please, don’t. You have had eighteen pages in the “God in Mormonism” thread and in the three pages of discussion in this thread, and in these 21 pages, you have been consistently unable to offer relevant , logical and historical support for your personal theory that Christ imparts his actual perfection to you. Your attempts, in the main, have been to repeat your claim in differing forms….
Post # 53 is another example of your habit of irrelevance. …. Think carefully as to whether you actually have any relevant, logical, rational and historically accurate data to support your theory. Unless and until you have relevant data, lets drop it.

Billiardsball, My point was NOT that you should stop trying to support your personal theories, but that you should not simply offer illogical, irrational, irrelevant "stuff" just to keep an argument going. It is counterproductive for readers to spend time on irrelevance.



2) Regarding Billiardsballs' theory that God punished Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit
Clear said (#55) Why don’t you consider the possibility that Christs sufferings were not a punishment for sins he did not commit. Not all suffering one suffers in relation to another person is a punishment. …. Suffering, yes. Punishment, no. If you still refuse to modify your theory of God punishing Jesus, then on what logical or rational basis do you theorize that God PUNISHED Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit?

Why don’t you start by doing a basic scripture search of the word “punishment” and see if any of these occurrences apply to Jesus actually being "punished"? If you find any suspicious reference, USE the greek training that you claim to have and see if it is a punishment. You claim to have historical training in religion. If you find a suspicious reference, USE the historical religious training and analyze historically, what is meant in the historical context. If you do this, you may have a better chance at offering relevant data, logical data and rational data that has some historical basis.
Billiardsball replied (#57) : “ I would start to answer your new query--which is a great gedanken, I grant you, with this, "He became sin for us."

Regarding Billiardsballs’ new theory that Jesus “became sin” :

I assume you are referring to 2 Cor 5:21 : “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (NKJV).

The greek for this sentence is : “τον γαρ με γνοντα αμαρτιαν υπερ εμων αμαρτιαν εποιησεν ινα ημεις γινομεθα διδαιοσυνη θεου εν αυτω.” (GN4 shows no variants of this text). You claimed you have training in Greek and in History. LOOK at the greek and consider it’s historical context.

a) Do you think this text means that the “sinless” and “perfect” Jesus actually DID sin? (i.e. Jesus was NOT perfect?)

b) If your new theory implies Jesus was a sinner, then what sin did Jesus commit that made him a sinner?

c) If Jesus was a sinner, (and therefore was morally imperfect), then he does not have moral perfection to “impart” to anyone else.

d): If you new theory, implies a perfect Jesus, became imperfect by sinning, then do you theorize that he then became “perfect” once again?

e) If your new theory, theorizes that a sinful Jesus, once again became “perfect”, by what mechanism does he become once again, perfect?



3) Regarding the actual greek text underlying the English translation Billiardsball offered
You claimed you have training in both Greek and Religious history. Examine this greek text through it's historical context.

a) If you believe the specific english translation you offered is correct, but should not be interpreted to mean Jesus actualy became “sin” or was“sinful” or had “sin in his nature”, then how specifically, do you think the greek in it’s historical context should be interpreted? (specifically).

b) If you see a contextual error in the English you offered us, then how would you correct the text to agree with the early Judeo-Christian historical interpretation?


4) Does the text say that Jesus was PUNISHED by God for someone elses sin?

You were to find a scripture where it says Jesus was punished by God for Sin. Where in this, or any other text, does it say God punished JESUS for sins Jesus did not commit? The text still does not tell us God unjustly punished Jesus for sin which Jesus did not commit.

The text, in the form you offered to us, again, undermines your OP rather than supporting your personal theory. Your text (as it is offered), intimates that Jesus became “sin”, “sinful”, “committed sin”, etc and was not, therefore perfect and thus, had no perfection to give anyone else (if such a mechanism for "imparting perfection" could exist).


5) Modern theological theories have no advantage over the earliest Christian doctrines and earliest Christian interpretations

Creating additional new and complicated theories to support your original illogical, irrational and historically inaccurate theory of religion that is, inherently flawed in it’s basis will not be a helpful mechanism for you. Creating supportive theories to support a flawed premise will (usually) create as many problems as they meant to solve.

In my opinion, none of these “new and improved” theories of religion seem to be as rational, as logical and as sensible as the earliest Christian beliefs on this subject. For example, readers can see (obviously) that abandonment of the early doctrine of repentance simply doesn’t work as well as the original doctrines.



Clear
φιτζωφι

I yield to your training in Greek. After all, better scholars than us both, in teams of translators working for decades and peer-reviewing each other's work, clearly got the English wrong, and in multiple translations.

What does the verse say in LDS-accepted Bible versions and/or what do YOU say is the correct rendering in English?

Thanks.

 

[Clear]

Regarding this new theory that Jesus became “sin”, “sinful”, “committed sin”, was “made sin” (however one wants to describe this new theory)

A) Billiardsball said (#57) : “ I would start to answer your new query--which is a great gedanken, I grant you, with this, "He became sin for us."
B) Clear responded (#61)

2) Regarding Billiardsballs' theory that God punished Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit
Clear said (#55) Why don’t you consider the possibility that Christs sufferings were not a punishment for sins he did not commit. Not all suffering one suffers in relation to another person is a punishment. …. Suffering, yes. Punishment, no. If you still refuse to modify your theory of God punishing Jesus, then on what logical or rational basis do you theorize that God PUNISHED Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit?

Why don’t you start by doing a basic scripture search of the word “punishment” and see if any of these occurrences apply to Jesus actually being "punished"? If you find any suspicious reference, USE the greek training that you claim to have and see if it is a punishment. You claim to have historical training in religion. If you find a suspicious reference, USE the historical religious training and analyze historically, what is meant in the historical context. If you do this, you may have a better chance at offering relevant data, logical data and rational data that has some historical basis.
Billiardsball replied (#57) : “ I would start to answer your new query--which is a great gedanken, I grant you, with this, "He became sin for us."

Regarding Billiardsballs’ new theory that Jesus “became sin” :

I assume you are referring to 2 Cor 5:21 : “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (NKJV).

The greek for this sentence is : “τον γαρ με γνοντα αμαρτιαν υπερ εμων αμαρτιαν εποιησεν ινα ημεις γινομεθα διδαιοσυνη θεου εν αυτω.” (GN4 shows no variants of this text). You claimed you have training in Greek and in History. LOOK at the greek and consider it’s historical context.

a) Do you think this text means that the “sinless” and “perfect” Jesus actually DID sin? (i.e. Jesus was NOT perfect?)

b) If your new theory implies Jesus was a sinner, then what sin did Jesus commit that made him a sinner?

c) If Jesus was a sinner, (and therefore was morally imperfect), then he does not have moral perfection to “impart” to anyone else.

d): If you new theory, implies a perfect Jesus, became imperfect by sinning, then do you theorize that he then became “perfect” once again?

e) If your new theory, theorizes that a sinful Jesus, once again became “perfect”, by what mechanism does he become once again, perfect?



3) Regarding the actual greek text underlying the English translation Billiardsball offered
You claimed you have training in both Greek and Religious history. Examine this greek text through it's historical context.

a) If you believe the specific english translation you offered is correct, but should not be interpreted to mean Jesus actualy became “sin” or was“sinful” or had “sin in his nature”, then how specifically, do you think the greek in it’s historical context should be interpreted? (specifically).

b) If you see a contextual error in the English you offered us, then how would you correct the text to agree with the early Judeo-Christian historical interpretation?


4) Does the text say that Jesus was PUNISHED by God for someone elses sin?

You were to find a scripture where it says Jesus was punished by God for Sin. Where in this, or any other text, does it say God punished JESUS for sins Jesus did not commit? The text still does not tell us God unjustly punished Jesus for sin which Jesus did not commit.

The text, in the form you offered to us, again, undermines your OP rather than supporting your personal theory. Your text (as it is offered), intimates that Jesus became “sin”, “sinful”, “committed sin”, etc and was not, therefore perfect and thus, had no perfection to give anyone else (if such a mechanism for "imparting perfection" could exist).


5) Modern theological theories have no advantage over the earliest Christian doctrines and earliest Christian interpretations

Creating additional new and complicated theories to support your original illogical, irrational and historically inaccurate theory of religion that is, inherently flawed in it’s basis will not be a helpful mechanism for you. Creating supportive theories to support a flawed premise will (usually) create as many problems as they meant to solve.

In my opinion, none of these “new and improved” theories of religion seem to be as rational, as logical and as sensible as the earliest Christian beliefs on this subject. For example, readers can see (obviously) that abandonment of the early doctrine of repentance simply doesn’t work as well as the original doctrines.

C) Billiardsball responded (# 63) : “ I yield to your training in Greek. After all, better scholars than us both, in teams of translators working for decades and peer-reviewing each other's work, clearly got the English wrong, and in multiple translations. “


Hi Billiardsball :

Regarding your use of 2 Cor 5:21 : “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (NKJV) to support your theory that Jesus sinned and was, therefore, not morally perfect.

I cannot tell if you actually see the problem the implied meaning your text creates or if your response is contains sarcasm meant to imply translators could not have gotten this text wrong (and therefore it is correct).

For example, you seem to believe that Jesus sinned, or became sin, or was unjustly judged to be sinful, or was “impuned” as having sinned (you have not made clear what you actually mean by claiming that Jesus “was made sin” in trying to support your theory that God unjustly punished Jesus for Sins that Jesus did not commit.)

For example, Hebrews 4:15 tells us : “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.”
Hebrews 7:26 tells us , speaking of Jesus, says “Such a high priest truly meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.”
1 Peter 2:22 says of Jesus : “"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."
and 1 John 3:5 says, of Jesus “…he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.”

Yet you indicate Jesus’ sinned or "became sin".

This is an unusual contradiction. Either the bible contradicts itself, or the translation is incorrect, or the interpretation OF the translation is correct, or something else is going on.

Do you still insist that 2 Cor 5:21 means that Jesus “sinned” or “became sin” is the correct interpretation?

Clear

 

[BilliardsBall]

Regarding this new theory that Jesus became “sin”, “sinful”, “committed sin”, was “made sin” (however one wants to describe this new theory)

A) Billiardsball said (#57) : “ I would start to answer your new query--which is a great gedanken, I grant you, with this, "He became sin for us."
B) Clear responded (#61)
C) Billiardsball responded (# 63) : “ I yield to your training in Greek. After all, better scholars than us both, in teams of translators working for decades and peer-reviewing each other's work, clearly got the English wrong, and in multiple translations. “


Hi Billiardsball :

Regarding your use of 2 Cor 5:21 : “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (NKJV) to support your theory that Jesus sinned and was, therefore, not morally perfect.

I cannot tell if you actually see the problem the implied meaning your text creates or if your response is contains sarcasm meant to imply translators could not have gotten this text wrong (and therefore it is correct).

For example, you seem to believe that Jesus sinned, or became sin, or was unjustly judged to be sinful, or was “impuned” as having sinned (you have not made clear what you actually mean by claiming that Jesus “was made sin” in trying to support your theory that God unjustly punished Jesus for Sins that Jesus did not commit.)

For example, Hebrews 4:15 tells us : “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.”
Hebrews 7:26 tells us , speaking of Jesus, says “Such a high priest truly meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.”
1 Peter 2:22 says of Jesus : “"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."
and 1 John 3:5 says, of Jesus “…he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.”

Yet you indicate Jesus’ sinned or "became sin".

This is an unusual contradiction. Either the bible contradicts itself, or the translation is incorrect, or the interpretation OF the translation is correct, or something else is going on.

Do you still insist that 2 Cor 5:21 means that Jesus “sinned” or “became sin” is the correct interpretation?

Clear

He didn't sin as an action--He became sin as a sacrifice. An animal doesn't sin either, yet is killed in the Mosaic Law. What sin did the animal do?

The four quotations you gave are correct. Jesus was tempted and did not make a sin. Jesus is exalted because of the cross above all sinners. Jesus committed no acts of sin. He appeared to take [away] our sins. And in Him is no sin. Human sin was propitiated on the cross.

Jesus became sin. Romans says He did what the law could not and became an offering for sin for us to condemn sin [in His] in the flesh. Romans 3 says Jesus Christ's blood propitiated the Father. Do you disagree?

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was pointing to your habit of telling me I have a translation wrong when I offer you not my own translations, but translations from teams of translators with decades, even centuries combined, of translation experience. Since my first attempt at a paraphrase (not my own formal rendering from Greek), I have tried to avoid giving you MY translations. Please recall how LDS and other translators were invited to help translate the NASB, for one notable example, precisely so that groups could not say "bad translation!"

If you don't like a common translation that multiple modern (formal) translations employ, please, as I suggested, provide your own translation--that is, either say the Bible has a contradiction or give the correct translation so that there is no contradiction, but I don't think you can have it both ways.

And no, the Word of God is without error. We will be judged in turn for judging God. Please be cautious!

 

[Orontes]

This post is way beyond the OP. I apologize. It is likely my fault that we got off track.



I agree. I love this as you wrote. I'm sorry we seem to have two misunderstandings:

1. Perfection

2. Propitiation - God is indeed propitiated by the blood of Christ, as the scripture says.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree as brothers?

Propitiation does not mean: punished by God. I think you would be better served if you saw the Divine motivated by love, not wrath.

We can agree to disagree, but this means you must bring the pizza.

 

[Clear]

To Forum Members :

One source of conflicting New Christian Doctrines
Occasionally a post will discuss the origin of a specific, new religious doctrine. This is one of those posts. This modern theory that Jesus becomes evil “sin” would have been heretical to early Christians who believed Jesus remained a morally perfect being without any evil or sin in his nature.

Unfamiliarity with language and historical context as a source of erroneous doctrines
Disregard for language and history,often underlie the creation of many, many of the conflicting modern Christian theories. Both language AND historical context are helpful to inform meaning and correct errors.



An example of erroneous theory caused by disregard to linguistic history
This theory that Jesus “became sin” is based on a version of the english text of 2nd Corinthians 5:21 : “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”(NKJV) The historical use of this specific idiom of language did not mean that Jesus became “evil” or became “sin”. The linguistic and historical source of error is simple and avoidable. The historical context and meaning is NOT that Jesus “become sin for us”, rather Jesus “became a sin offering for us” and there are many, many examples of this linguistic idiom of referring to a "sin offering" by the single word "sin".

Multiple examples of single word references for multiple types of offerings
There are multiple examples of single words indicating the offering just in the 4th chapter of Leviticus alone. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is simply using similar language. The Jewish Greek LXX ALSO demonstrates this usage. Let me explain

Multiple examples from the Hebrew of Leviticus, chapter Four
Vs 2: uses the words החטא“the sin” in the normal context of a sin which is committed by a person.
Vs 3: Also uses “he sins” (יחטא) in the same context and meaning.

However, as the actual sacrifice of the bull is described, notice the shift in usage of terms for the sacrifice. The instructions regarding the blood poured out on the altar of the ascent העלה(burnt) offering.
In verse 7,the offering is merely referred to as the “ascent” (העלה) WITHOUT using another word for “offering”.
In verse 8, the same pattern is used in referring to the sin offering. It is referred to in Hebrew merely as “the sin”.
In verse 10, the peace offering is simply referred to as “the peace” (השלמימ ) and not as the peace offering.
In vs 14, again, the “sin offering” is again, simply referred to as the “sin” (חטאת).
In verse 18, again, the “ascent offering” is simply referred to as “the ascent” (חעלה).
Again, in verse 20, the “sin offering” is simply referred to as “the sin” (החטאת), again, in the same pattern, without the word for gift or offering accompanying the word for sin.
Again, in verse 21 the same pattern exists as the “sin offering” is again, described merely as “sin” (הטאת) .
Yet again, in verse 23 we see the “approach offering” described by the single word “approach” (קרבנו) without a word indicating it is an offering or present.
The same pattern exists twice in verse 24, for BOTH the “ascent” and the “sin” (offerings).
In verse 25, again the same two words exist in the same pattern three times, giving us multiple examples of this pattern inside a single verse.
Yet again, in verse 26 the peace offering is simply referred to as “the peace”.
In verse 28, again, the approach offering is simply referred to as the “approach”.
Verse 29 again, gives us three more examples in this single verse. Twice the sin offering is simply referred to as the “sin” and the ascent offering is simply referred to as the “ascent”.
Yet again, in verse 30, the ascent offering is simply the “ascent”.

EVERY verse to the end of the chapter contain examples within them of this same usage.

ANYONE who looks the multiple examples of such typical old testament usage of these terms cannot avoid noticing this pattern. The Jew Paul, would also have understood this same usage. Jesus, who is morally perfect, never became "sin" itself. Instead, Jesus "became a sin offering for us."

The Jewish Greek Old Testament that Paul used also displays this same pattern of usage by using the terms Καρπωσεως, Σωτηριου, Αμαρτιας, WITHOUT using Δωρον (gift or offering) in referring to the sacrifice itself. Jesus did NOT become sin in the early Judeo-Christian, but he became “a sin offering” for mankind. He himself, remained sinless and morally perfect.

I hope this clarifies the historical use of these terms in this pattern of usage, and also that it shows the folly of disregarding history and language in creating theological theories.


Clear.
σιφυτωω

 

[BilliardsBall]

Propitiation does not mean: punished by God. I think you would be better served if you saw the Divine motivated by love, not wrath.

We can agree to disagree, but this means you must bring the pizza.

The meaning of propitiation has to do with the necessity of sacrifice. And I do see the Divine motivated by love. And I do like mushroom pizza best.

 

[BilliardsBall]

To Forum Members :

One source of conflicting New Christian Doctrines
Occasionally a post will discuss the origin of a specific, new religious doctrine. This is one of those posts. This modern theory that Jesus becomes evil “sin” would have been heretical to early Christians who believed Jesus remained a morally perfect being without any evil or sin in his nature.

Unfamiliarity with language and historical context as a source of erroneous doctrines
Disregard for language and history,often underlie the creation of many, many of the conflicting modern Christian theories. Both language AND historical context are helpful to inform meaning and correct errors.



An example of erroneous theory caused by disregard to linguistic history
This theory that Jesus “became sin” is based on a version of the english text of 2nd Corinthians 5:21 : “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”(NKJV) The historical use of this specific idiom of language did not mean that Jesus became “evil” or became “sin”. The linguistic and historical source of error is simple and avoidable. The historical context and meaning is NOT that Jesus “become sin for us”, rather Jesus “became a sin offering for us” and there are many, many examples of this linguistic idiom of referring to a "sin offering" by the single word "sin".

Multiple examples of single word references for multiple types of offerings
There are multiple examples of single words indicating the offering just in the 4th chapter of Leviticus alone. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is simply using similar language. The Jewish Greek LXX ALSO demonstrates this usage. Let me explain

Multiple examples from the Hebrew of Leviticus, chapter Four
Vs 2: uses the words החטא“the sin” in the normal context of a sin which is committed by a person.
Vs 3: Also uses “he sins” (יחטא) in the same context and meaning.

However, as the actual sacrifice of the bull is described, notice the shift in usage of terms for the sacrifice. The instructions regarding the blood poured out on the altar of the ascent העלה(burnt) offering.
In verse 7,the offering is merely referred to as the “ascent” (העלה) WITHOUT using another word for “offering”.
In verse 8, the same pattern is used in referring to the sin offering. It is referred to in Hebrew merely as “the sin”.
In verse 10, the peace offering is simply referred to as “the peace” (השלמימ ) and not as the peace offering.
In vs 14, again, the “sin offering” is again, simply referred to as the “sin” (חטאת).
In verse 18, again, the “ascent offering” is simply referred to as “the ascent” (חעלה).
Again, in verse 20, the “sin offering” is simply referred to as “the sin” (החטאת), again, in the same pattern, without the word for gift or offering accompanying the word for sin.
Again, in verse 21 the same pattern exists as the “sin offering” is again, described merely as “sin” (הטאת) .
Yet again, in verse 23 we see the “approach offering” described by the single word “approach” (קרבנו) without a word indicating it is an offering or present.
The same pattern exists twice in verse 24, for BOTH the “ascent” and the “sin” (offerings).
In verse 25, again the same two words exist in the same pattern three times, giving us multiple examples of this pattern inside a single verse.
Yet again, in verse 26 the peace offering is simply referred to as “the peace”.
In verse 28, again, the approach offering is simply referred to as the “approach”.
Verse 29 again, gives us three more examples in this single verse. Twice the sin offering is simply referred to as the “sin” and the ascent offering is simply referred to as the “ascent”.
Yet again, in verse 30, the ascent offering is simply the “ascent”.

EVERY verse to the end of the chapter contain examples within them of this same usage.

ANYONE who looks the multiple examples of such typical old testament usage of these terms cannot avoid noticing this pattern. The Jew Paul, would also have understood this same usage. Jesus, who is morally perfect, never became "sin" itself. Instead, Jesus "became a sin offering for us."

The Jewish Greek Old Testament that Paul used also displays this same pattern of usage by using the terms Καρπωσεως, Σωτηριου, Αμαρτιας, WITHOUT using Δωρον (gift or offering) in referring to the sacrifice itself. Jesus did NOT become sin in the early Judeo-Christian, but he became “a sin offering” for mankind. He himself, remained sinless and morally perfect.

I hope this clarifies the historical use of these terms in this pattern of usage, and also that it shows the folly of disregarding history and language in creating theological theories.


Clear.
σιφυτωω

Clear,

This seems like obfuscation to me since millions of people of all faiths believe in sin and salvation, and since we have clear statements like this one in Romans 8:

"For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

You may even recognize that "as an offering" is added in the English making it better rendered "in the likeness of sinful flesh and as sin".

Or, if you like, we can have per your study, "One may not approach God or ascend to God apart from the atonement of Christ." Christ is for us and has redeemed His bride, but not in the sense of "an example to follow so we are saved" but rather as the salvific One in His body, His cross and His blood, appropriated by faith.

 

[Sundance]

I believe that the spirit of Jesus' teachings are present and obvious in scripture. But, I also recognize the facts. The Bible (except for some of Paul's Epistles and possibly Luke/Acts of the Apostles) were written by unknown authors thousands of years ago who had a much more primitive understanding of the natural world. As a result, I don't see the Bible as being infallible, and, often, the human interference with "the word of God" is so obvious it seems to smack me in the face. So, when my fellow Christians go around using passages from scripture as evidence for God's will or God's law I get a bit frustrated.

Further, I don't come to this forum to learn what people believe, but, instead WHY they believe it. I find out myself what members of other faiths believe. And, after reading the Bible about 100 times (attended Catholic Grade School and an all-boys Jesuit High School ... not to mention my fascination with theology), I certainly don't need members here quoting/citing Bible verses, as I know the claims made in Christian Scripture. But, like I said, imperfect and unknown men wrote the Bible, so, like any other man-created book, it isn't perfect. So, it is frustrating when I ask Christians why they believe what they do, and they merely quote/cite Biblical verses, as it is a HUGE cop-out.

I hope this explanation helps. My devotion to Christ and the spirit of his teachings is great, but I have no loyalty to the unknown authors of the Bible. Because we all have a much more sufficient understanding of the natural world, I think we should all be willing to look at every text (scripture or not) with skepticism.

Forgive me if my perspective on your post is misinformed, but after reading your post I must know for sure, what do you mean by this?

“My devotion to Christ and the spirit of his teachings is great, but I have no loyalty to the unknown authors of the Bible.”

Secondly, if you're referring exclusively to Christians, I will say that I somewhat agree with what you posted (excluding the above), leibowde84. I also, however, recognize the crucial importance of the Holy Scriptures in Christian faith and practice as well as the need for the authors (especially those who wrote the canonical Gospels) to have written down the teachings of Christ Jesus. To add, it matters not whether or not you, I, or anyone else believe the Scriptures to be absolutely infallible; they nonetheless define what it means to be a Christian even in the various ways that denominations differ in this regard. They form an essential guidebook for how to live as a Christian. One absolutely cannot divorce authentic Christian living from the necessity of the Bible (especially, the New Testament). To even do so, in my mind is mindless. On the other hand, if you're talking about knowing the specific reasons as to why members of various faiths or philosophies believe what they do, or in my case, what attracts people to them, then I'll briefly say that you and I are in the very same boat.

 

[Orontes]

The meaning of propitiation has to do with the necessity of sacrifice. And I do see the Divine motivated by love. And I do like mushroom pizza best.

Master Billiards,


I thought this had come to an end.


To your comment: the word the King James translate as propitiation (the RSV translates as expiation) does not entail a necessity of sacrifice. The Greek is hilasterion. The Greek is where you should look to understand the meaning. The word has cultic (religious) use in the larger Greco-Roman Classical world, but (and this is particularly the case in Koine Greek) was a much more commonly used word, with no religious ties at all. If we just take its verb form hiaskomai: it simply means to be conciliatory or to appease. The notion does not require or have any necessary connection to sacrifice itself. The typical references made to mercy seat (kapporeth) by those who want to tie it to sacrifice, are anachronistic*. It's a misunderstanding of the rite that occurred in the First Temple**. Second Temple Period Jews would not have understood that reference, neither would any Greco-Roman audience.



* This move to conceptually bind the mercy seat to God's dealing with the problem of sin was adopted as a later Christian typology.

**The rite was about purification of the temple, not a forgiveness of people's sins.

 

[Clear]

Forum readers :

In the context of Billiardsballs’ theory that 2 Cor 5:21 means that Jesus became evil “sin” so as to justify his theory that God the Father punished him for sin :

Clear said (post #67) :
" Unfamiliarity with language and historical context as a source of erroneous doctrines
Disregard for language and history,often underlie the creation of many, many of the conflicting modern Christian theories. Both language AND historical context are helpful to inform meaning and correct errors.

An example of erroneous theory caused by disregard to linguistic history
This theory that Jesus “became sin” is based on a version of the english text of 2nd Corinthians 5:21 : “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”(NKJV) The historical use of this specific idiom of language did not mean that Jesus became “evil” or became “sin”. The linguistic and historical source of error is simple and avoidable. The historical context and meaning is NOT that Jesus “become sin for us”, rather Jesus “became a sin offering for us” and there are many, many examples of this linguistic idiom of referring to a "sin offering" by the single word "sin".

Multiple examples of single word references for multiple types of offerings
There are multiple examples of single words indicating the offering just in the 4th chapter of Leviticus alone. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is simply using similar language. The Jewish Greek LXX ALSO demonstrates this usage. Let me explain

Multiple examples from the Hebrew of Leviticus, chapter Four
Vs 2: uses the words החטא“the sin” in the normal context of a sin which is committed by a person.
Vs 3: Also uses “he sins” (יחטא) in the same context and meaning.

However, as the actual sacrifice of the bull is described, notice the shift in usage of terms for the sacrifice. The instructions regarding the blood poured out on the altar of the ascent העלה(burnt) offering.
In verse 7,the offering is merely referred to as the “ascent” (העלה) WITHOUT using another word for “offering”.
In verse 8, the same pattern is used in referring to the sin offering. It is referred to in Hebrew merely as “the sin”.
In verse 10, the peace offering is simply referred to as “the peace” (השלמימ ) and not as the peace offering.
In vs 14, again, the “sin offering” is again, simply referred to as the “sin” (חטאת).
In verse 18, again, the “ascent offering” is simply referred to as “the ascent” (חעלה).
Again, in verse 20, the “sin offering” is simply referred to as “the sin” (החטאת), again, in the same pattern, without the word for gift or offering accompanying the word for sin.
Again, in verse 21 the same pattern exists as the “sin offering” is again, described merely as “sin” (הטאת) .
Yet again, in verse 23 we see the “approach offering” described by the single word “approach” (קרבנו) without a word indicating it is an offering or present.
The same pattern exists twice in verse 24, for BOTH the “ascent” and the “sin” (offerings).
In verse 25, again the same two words exist in the same pattern three times, giving us multiple examples of this pattern inside a single verse.
Yet again, in verse 26 the peace offering is simply referred to as “the peace”.
In verse 28, again, the approach offering is simply referred to as the “approach”.
Verse 29 again, gives us three more examples in this single verse. Twice the sin offering is simply referred to as the “sin” and the ascent offering is simply referred to as the “ascent”.
Yet again, in verse 30, the ascent offering is simply the “ascent”.

EVERY verse to the end of the chapter contain examples within them of this same usage.

ANYONE who looks the multiple examples of such typical old testament usage of these terms cannot avoid noticing this pattern. The Jew Paul, would also have understood this same usage. Jesus, who is morally perfect, never became "sin" itself. Instead, Jesus "became a sin offering for us."

The Jewish Greek Old Testament that Paul used also displays this same pattern of usage by using the terms Καρπωσεως, Σωτηριου, Αμαρτιας, WITHOUT using Δωρον (gift or offering) in referring to the sacrifice itself. Jesus did NOT become sin in the early Judeo-Christian, but he became “a sin offering” for mankind. He himself, remained sinless and morally perfect.

I hope this clarifies the historical use of these terms in this pattern of usage, and also that it shows the folly of disregarding history and language in creating theological theories. “

Billiardsball responded in post #69 with “This seems like obfuscation to me since millions of people of all faiths believe in sin and salvation, and since we have clear statements like this one in Romans 8:”





Forum members :

If Obfuscate means “ to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy “

Is there anyone else who is confused, bewildered, or stupefied by the early Christian concept that Jesus remained a morally sinless and willing sacrifice?

The ancient view of a Jesus who willingly offers his entire life including all of his efforts and desires and teaching and influence as a willing sacrifice for mankind, whom he loves conflicts with this modern theory of a Jesus who becomes evil "sin" to justify being punished by his wrathful father/God who then lets the actual sinners go unpunished.

1) Billiardsball modern theory describes God punishing a sinless Jesus for sin and letting evil and sinful individual go free of punishment. Jesus becomes evil “sin” (at least temporarily), thereby justifing God having punished Jesus.

Opposed to this is the early Christian view

2) The early christian textual witnesses describe a morally perfect Jesus who offers his own entire life as a sinless and perfect sacrifice for mankind. In this view, Jesus remained Morally sinless and is not Punished by God for sins he did not commit.

I do not believe this new personal theory and it's interpretation has any logical or rational advantage over the older historical Christian doctrine and their interpretations on this specific point.

I agree with Orontes, that, in creating our personal models as to what God and his son did and are now doing, we are better served if we create theories less influenced by God’s wrath and desire to "punish someone" and instead, allow God and Jesus love of and desire to educate mankind influence our theories.



Clear
ακτζσεω

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,


I thought this had come to an end.


To your comment: the word the King James translate as propitiation (the RSV translates as expiation) does not entail a necessity of sacrifice. The Greek is hilasterion. The Greek is where you should look to understand the meaning. The word has cultic (religious) use in the larger Greco-Roman Classical world, but (and this is particularly the case in Koine Greek) was a much more commonly used word, with no religious ties at all. If we just take its verb form hiaskomai: it simply means to be conciliatory or to appease. The notion does not require or have any necessary connection to sacrifice itself. The typical references made to mercy seat (kapporeth) by those who want to tie it to sacrifice, are anachronistic*. It's a misunderstanding of the rite that occurred in the First Temple**. Second Temple Period Jews would not have understood that reference, neither would any Greco-Roman audience.



* This move to conceptually bind the mercy seat to God's dealing with the problem of sin was adopted as a later Christian typology.

**The rite was about purification of the temple, not a forgiveness of people's sins.

We are agreeing then, that Jesus's death appeased or was a conciliation to God. Since Jesus's death was motivated by human sin, sin required such appeasement.

However, where we disagree is your statement that the mercy seat was untied to sacrifice. The blood of animals was placed upon it. And Second Temple Jews had bells on the garments in case the blood of the appeasement of Yom Kippur was ineffective--they'd hear silence and know the supplicant was dead and to be pulled out!

I guess where I'm growing confused is why millions of animals were killed over millennia if not for sacrifices--or why the word sacrifice as seen in every English translation is considered by you anachronistic.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Forum readers :

In the context of Billiardsballs’ theory that 2 Cor 5:21 means that Jesus became evil “sin” so as to justify his theory that God the Father punished him for sin :

Clear said (post #67) :
" Unfamiliarity with language and historical context as a source of erroneous doctrines
Disregard for language and history,often underlie the creation of many, many of the conflicting modern Christian theories. Both language AND historical context are helpful to inform meaning and correct errors.

An example of erroneous theory caused by disregard to linguistic history
This theory that Jesus “became sin” is based on a version of the english text of 2nd Corinthians 5:21 : “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”(NKJV) The historical use of this specific idiom of language did not mean that Jesus became “evil” or became “sin”. The linguistic and historical source of error is simple and avoidable. The historical context and meaning is NOT that Jesus “become sin for us”, rather Jesus “became a sin offering for us” and there are many, many examples of this linguistic idiom of referring to a "sin offering" by the single word "sin".

Multiple examples of single word references for multiple types of offerings
There are multiple examples of single words indicating the offering just in the 4th chapter of Leviticus alone. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is simply using similar language. The Jewish Greek LXX ALSO demonstrates this usage. Let me explain

Multiple examples from the Hebrew of Leviticus, chapter Four
Vs 2: uses the words החטא“the sin” in the normal context of a sin which is committed by a person.
Vs 3: Also uses “he sins” (יחטא) in the same context and meaning.

However, as the actual sacrifice of the bull is described, notice the shift in usage of terms for the sacrifice. The instructions regarding the blood poured out on the altar of the ascent העלה(burnt) offering.
In verse 7,the offering is merely referred to as the “ascent” (העלה) WITHOUT using another word for “offering”.
In verse 8, the same pattern is used in referring to the sin offering. It is referred to in Hebrew merely as “the sin”.
In verse 10, the peace offering is simply referred to as “the peace” (השלמימ ) and not as the peace offering.
In vs 14, again, the “sin offering” is again, simply referred to as the “sin” (חטאת).
In verse 18, again, the “ascent offering” is simply referred to as “the ascent” (חעלה).
Again, in verse 20, the “sin offering” is simply referred to as “the sin” (החטאת), again, in the same pattern, without the word for gift or offering accompanying the word for sin.
Again, in verse 21 the same pattern exists as the “sin offering” is again, described merely as “sin” (הטאת) .
Yet again, in verse 23 we see the “approach offering” described by the single word “approach” (קרבנו) without a word indicating it is an offering or present.
The same pattern exists twice in verse 24, for BOTH the “ascent” and the “sin” (offerings).
In verse 25, again the same two words exist in the same pattern three times, giving us multiple examples of this pattern inside a single verse.
Yet again, in verse 26 the peace offering is simply referred to as “the peace”.
In verse 28, again, the approach offering is simply referred to as the “approach”.
Verse 29 again, gives us three more examples in this single verse. Twice the sin offering is simply referred to as the “sin” and the ascent offering is simply referred to as the “ascent”.
Yet again, in verse 30, the ascent offering is simply the “ascent”.

EVERY verse to the end of the chapter contain examples within them of this same usage.

ANYONE who looks the multiple examples of such typical old testament usage of these terms cannot avoid noticing this pattern. The Jew Paul, would also have understood this same usage. Jesus, who is morally perfect, never became "sin" itself. Instead, Jesus "became a sin offering for us."

The Jewish Greek Old Testament that Paul used also displays this same pattern of usage by using the terms Καρπωσεως, Σωτηριου, Αμαρτιας, WITHOUT using Δωρον (gift or offering) in referring to the sacrifice itself. Jesus did NOT become sin in the early Judeo-Christian, but he became “a sin offering” for mankind. He himself, remained sinless and morally perfect.

I hope this clarifies the historical use of these terms in this pattern of usage, and also that it shows the folly of disregarding history and language in creating theological theories. “

Billiardsball responded in post #69 with “This seems like obfuscation to me since millions of people of all faiths believe in sin and salvation, and since we have clear statements like this one in Romans 8:”





Forum members :

If Obfuscate means “ to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy “

Is there anyone else who is confused, bewildered, or stupefied by the early Christian concept that Jesus remained a morally sinless and willing sacrifice?

The ancient view of a Jesus who willingly offers his entire life including all of his efforts and desires and teaching and influence as a willing sacrifice for mankind, whom he loves conflicts with this modern theory of a Jesus who becomes evil "sin" to justify being punished by his wrathful father/God who then lets the actual sinners go unpunished.

1) Billiardsball modern theory describes God punishing a sinless Jesus for sin and letting evil and sinful individual go free of punishment. Jesus becomes evil “sin” (at least temporarily), thereby justifing God having punished Jesus.

Opposed to this is the early Christian view

2) The early christian textual witnesses describe a morally perfect Jesus who offers his own entire life as a sinless and perfect sacrifice for mankind. In this view, Jesus remained Morally sinless and is not Punished by God for sins he did not commit.

I do not believe this new personal theory and it's interpretation has any logical or rational advantage over the older historical Christian doctrine and their interpretations on this specific point.

I agree with Orontes, that, in creating our personal models as to what God and his son did and are now doing, we are better served if we create theories less influenced by God’s wrath and desire to "punish someone" and instead, allow God and Jesus love of and desire to educate mankind influence our theories.



Clear
ακτζσεω

Clear, we obviously agree that:

The early christian textual witnesses describe a morally perfect Jesus who offers his own entire life as a sinless and perfect sacrifice for mankind

.

The problem is we disagree on why it was a necessity to have a PERFECT sacrifice. If not for our imperfection, what was it for? Because those who follow Jesus as an example of moral rectitude or agape love unto salvation are promoting a works-based salvation that is not presented in the scriptures as I understand them.

Thanks.

 

[Clear]

SUMMARY OF Billiardsballs’ TWIN THEORIES

1) First, the original theory that God the Father punished Jesus for sin. However, it is unjust to punish the innocent and reward the guilty.

So, a second theory was offered by Billiardsball in support of the first theory, namely:

2) 2 Cor 5:21 says Jesus became evil “sin”, thus God is justified for punishing Jesus.

2 Cor 5:21 : “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”(NKJV)


THE ACTUAL QUOTES OF THE RESPONDENTS

POST 57 & 65 : Billiardsball said : QUOTE :
"I would start to answer your new query--which is a great gedanken, I grant you, with this, "He became sin for us." (post #57) This point is re-iterated is post #65 : " He became sin as a sacrifice."

POST # 67 Clear replied: QUOTE :
One source of conflicting New Christian Doctrines
Occasionally a post will discuss the origin of a specific, new religious doctrine. This is one of those posts. This modern theory that Jesus becomes evil “sin” would have been heretical to early Christians who believed Jesus remained a morally perfect being without any evil or sin in his nature.

Unfamiliarity with language and historical context as a source of erroneous doctrines
Disregard for language and history,often underlie the creation of many, many of the conflicting modern Christian theories. Both language AND historical context are helpful to inform meaning and correct errors.



An example of erroneous theory caused by disregard to linguistic history
This theory that Jesus “became sin” is based on a version of the english text of 2nd Corinthians 5:21 : “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”(NKJV) The historical use of this specific idiom of language did not mean that Jesus became “evil” or became “sin”. The linguistic and historical source of error is simple and avoidable. The historical context and meaning is NOT that Jesus “become sin for us”, rather Jesus “became asin offeringfor us” and there are many, many examples of this linguistic idiom of referring to a "sinoffering"by the single word "sin".

Multiple examples of single word references for multiple types of offerings
There are multiple examples of single words indicating the offering just in the 4th chapter of Leviticus alone.2 Corinthians 5:21is simply using similar language. The Jewish Greek LXX ALSO demonstrates this usage. Let me explain

Multiple examples from the Hebrew of Leviticus, chapter Four
Vs 2: uses the words החטא“the sin” in the normal context of a sin which is committed by a person.
Vs 3: Also uses “he sins” (יחטא) in the same context and meaning.

However, as the actual sacrifice of the bull is described,notice the shift in usage of terms for the sacrifice. The instructions regarding the blood poured out on the altar of the ascent העלה(burnt) offering.
In verse 7,the offering is merely referred to as the “ascent” (העלה) WITHOUT using another word for “offering”.
In verse 8, the same pattern is used in referring to the sin offering. It is referred to in Hebrew merely as “the sin”.
In verse 10, the peace offering is simply referred to as “the peace” (השלמימ ) and not as the peace offering.
In vs 14, again, the “sin offering” is again, simply referred to as the “sin” (חטאת).
In verse 18, again, the “ascent offering” is simply referred to as “the ascent” (חעלה).
Again, in verse 20, the “sin offering” is simply referred to as “the sin” (החטאת), again, in the same pattern, without the word for gift or offering accompanying the word for sin.
Again, in verse 21 the same pattern exists as the “sin offering” is again, described merely as “sin” (הטאת) .
Yet again, in verse 23 we see the “approach offering” described by the single word “approach” (קרבנו) without a word indicating it is an offering or present.
The same pattern existstwice in verse 24, for BOTH the “ascent” and the “sin” (offerings).
In verse 25, again the same two words exist in the same patternthree times, giving us multiple examples of this pattern inside a single verse.
Yet again, in verse 26 the peace offering is simply referred to as “the peace”.
In verse 28, again, the approach offering is simply referred to as the “approach”.
Verse 29 again, gives us three more examples in this single verse. Twice the sin offering is simply referred to as the “sin” and the ascent offering is simply referred to as the “ascent”.
Yet again, in verse 30, the ascent offering is simply the “ascent”.

EVERY verse to the end of the chapter contain examples within them of this same usage.

ANYONE who looks the multiple examples of such typical old testament usage of these terms cannot avoid noticing this pattern. The Jew Paul, would also have understood this same usage. Jesus, who is morally perfect, never became "sin" itself. Instead, Jesus "became a sin offering for us."

The Jewish Greek Old Testament that Paul used also displays this same pattern of usage by using the terms Καρπωσεως, Σωτηριου, Αμαρτιας, WITHOUT using Δωρον (gift or offering) in referring to the sacrifice itself. Jesus did NOT become sin in the early Judeo-Christian, but he became “a sin offering” for mankind. He himself, remained sinless and morally perfect.

I hope this clarifies the historical use of these terms in this pattern of usage, and also that it shows the folly of disregarding history and language in creating theological theories. END QUOTE


POST 74 : Billiardball responded : (post # 74) QUOTE
Clear, we obviously agree that: The early christian textual witnesses describe a morally perfect Jesus who offers his own entire life as a sinless and perfect sacrifice for mankind. The early christian textual witnesses describe a morally perfect Jesus who offers his own entire life as a sinless and perfect sacrifice for mankind





Billiardsball Does this agreement mean that you now believe that Jesus remained sinless and without blemish and never became something evil (i.e. sin)? IF, however, you still maintain that Jesus "became sin", then what sin did Jesus commit, or by what mechanism does Jesus become something evil (that is, how does he "become sin") in this new theory you offered?


Clear

 

[BilliardsBall]

SUMMARY OF Billiardsballs’ TWIN THEORIES

1) First, the original theory that God the Father punished Jesus for sin. However, it is unjust to punish the innocent and reward the guilty.

So, a second theory was offered by Billiardsball in support of the first theory, namely:

2) 2 Cor 5:21 says Jesus became evil “sin”, thus God is justified for punishing Jesus.

2 Cor 5:21 : “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”(NKJV)


THE ACTUAL QUOTES OF THE RESPONDENTS

POST 57 & 65 : Billiardsball said : QUOTE :
"I would start to answer your new query--which is a great gedanken, I grant you, with this, "He became sin for us." (post #57) This point is re-iterated is post #65 : " He became sin as a sacrifice."

POST # 67 Clear replied: QUOTE :
One source of conflicting New Christian Doctrines
Occasionally a post will discuss the origin of a specific, new religious doctrine. This is one of those posts. This modern theory that Jesus becomes evil “sin” would have been heretical to early Christians who believed Jesus remained a morally perfect being without any evil or sin in his nature.

Unfamiliarity with language and historical context as a source of erroneous doctrines
Disregard for language and history,often underlie the creation of many, many of the conflicting modern Christian theories. Both language AND historical context are helpful to inform meaning and correct errors.



An example of erroneous theory caused by disregard to linguistic history
This theory that Jesus “became sin” is based on a version of the english text of 2nd Corinthians 5:21 : “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”(NKJV) The historical use of this specific idiom of language did not mean that Jesus became “evil” or became “sin”. The linguistic and historical source of error is simple and avoidable. The historical context and meaning is NOT that Jesus “become sin for us”, rather Jesus “became asin offeringfor us” and there are many, many examples of this linguistic idiom of referring to a "sinoffering"by the single word "sin".

Multiple examples of single word references for multiple types of offerings
There are multiple examples of single words indicating the offering just in the 4th chapter of Leviticus alone.2 Corinthians 5:21is simply using similar language. The Jewish Greek LXX ALSO demonstrates this usage. Let me explain

Multiple examples from the Hebrew of Leviticus, chapter Four
Vs 2: uses the words החטא“the sin” in the normal context of a sin which is committed by a person.
Vs 3: Also uses “he sins” (יחטא) in the same context and meaning.

However, as the actual sacrifice of the bull is described,notice the shift in usage of terms for the sacrifice. The instructions regarding the blood poured out on the altar of the ascent העלה(burnt) offering.
In verse 7,the offering is merely referred to as the “ascent” (העלה) WITHOUT using another word for “offering”.
In verse 8, the same pattern is used in referring to the sin offering. It is referred to in Hebrew merely as “the sin”.
In verse 10, the peace offering is simply referred to as “the peace” (השלמימ ) and not as the peace offering.
In vs 14, again, the “sin offering” is again, simply referred to as the “sin” (חטאת).
In verse 18, again, the “ascent offering” is simply referred to as “the ascent” (חעלה).
Again, in verse 20, the “sin offering” is simply referred to as “the sin” (החטאת), again, in the same pattern, without the word for gift or offering accompanying the word for sin.
Again, in verse 21 the same pattern exists as the “sin offering” is again, described merely as “sin” (הטאת) .
Yet again, in verse 23 we see the “approach offering” described by the single word “approach” (קרבנו) without a word indicating it is an offering or present.
The same pattern existstwice in verse 24, for BOTH the “ascent” and the “sin” (offerings).
In verse 25, again the same two words exist in the same patternthree times, giving us multiple examples of this pattern inside a single verse.
Yet again, in verse 26 the peace offering is simply referred to as “the peace”.
In verse 28, again, the approach offering is simply referred to as the “approach”.
Verse 29 again, gives us three more examples in this single verse. Twice the sin offering is simply referred to as the “sin” and the ascent offering is simply referred to as the “ascent”.
Yet again, in verse 30, the ascent offering is simply the “ascent”.

EVERY verse to the end of the chapter contain examples within them of this same usage.

ANYONE who looks the multiple examples of such typical old testament usage of these terms cannot avoid noticing this pattern. The Jew Paul, would also have understood this same usage. Jesus, who is morally perfect, never became "sin" itself. Instead, Jesus "became a sin offering for us."

The Jewish Greek Old Testament that Paul used also displays this same pattern of usage by using the terms Καρπωσεως, Σωτηριου, Αμαρτιας, WITHOUT using Δωρον (gift or offering) in referring to the sacrifice itself. Jesus did NOT become sin in the early Judeo-Christian, but he became “a sin offering” for mankind. He himself, remained sinless and morally perfect.

I hope this clarifies the historical use of these terms in this pattern of usage, and also that it shows the folly of disregarding history and language in creating theological theories. END QUOTE


POST 74 : Billiardball responded : (post # 74) QUOTE
Clear, we obviously agree that: The early christian textual witnesses describe a morally perfect Jesus who offers his own entire life as a sinless and perfect sacrifice for mankind. The early christian textual witnesses describe a morally perfect Jesus who offers his own entire life as a sinless and perfect sacrifice for mankind





Billiardsball Does this agreement mean that you now believe that Jesus remained sinless and without blemish and never became something evil (i.e. sin)? IF, however, you still maintain that Jesus "became sin", then what sin did Jesus commit, or by what mechanism does Jesus become something evil (that is, how does he "become sin") in this new theory you offered?


Clear

Your questions are changing the argument. We have to start not with "How then did Jesus become sin?" or "Don't you know some early church sources would find this heresy?" but with the following:

1) Does the Bible say Jesus became sin for others?

2) Does it matter what the Bible says if one rejects the Bible as infallible and has no clear marker as to which portions of the Bible are true, which are literal, and which metaphorical?

Thanks.

 

[Orontes]

We are agreeing then, that Jesus's death appeased or was a conciliation to God. Since Jesus's death was motivated by human sin, sin required such appeasement.

However, where we disagree is your statement that the mercy seat was untied to sacrifice. The blood of animals was placed upon it. And Second Temple Jews had bells on the garments in case the blood of the appeasement of Yom Kippur was ineffective--they'd hear silence and know the supplicant was dead and to be pulled out!

I guess where I'm growing confused is why millions of animals were killed over millennia if not for sacrifices--or why the word sacrifice as seen in every English translation is considered by you anachronistic.

Master Billiards,

I think you've misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn't clear. The point being looked at is your notion: Christ was punished by God. I rejected this concept as both irrational and immoral. You put forward Rom. 3:25 with the focus on hilasterion (propitiation), stating it demonstrated the necessity of sacrifice. I explained hilasterion does not require sacrifice. I explained the base meaning of the word as appease or conciliation. Now I want you to consider something from your reply to this last post. To me, your prepositional phrase is telling. You wrote "Jesus' death appeased or was a conciliation to God"

Your base stance is:

A) God is just
Men sin
God's justice demands punishment
God sends Christ
Christ steps in to accept that punishment.
Christ's act appeases God.

Consider an alternate view:

B) God is just
Men sin
God sends Christ
Christ's atonement takes on all of man's pain and sorrow
Men who accept Christ are appeased and find conciliation.
This acceptance is tied to repentance and is the basis of at-one-ment

The appeasement or conciliation you want to ascribe to a wrathful God needing blood by punishing an innocent is misdirected. Sin is a knowing disobedience, a willful turning from the good. Therefore, the dilemma is not appeasing a wrathful God, but is found in the heart of the sinner. It is there the primary battle is waged. Christ's atonement reaches into the core of man. All our pain, sorrow, fear etc. is known by Christ. He willingly takes on our pain, if we open to Him. This is the repentance that is repeated over and over in the scriptures. If we refuse, then our sin remains with us and damnation/stagnation is the result. If we accept, then appeasement and conciliation is with one's own heart, which then allows at-one-ment with the Lord. The locus of choice is the individual, made possible by Christ's act. This has nothing to do with appeasing a blood God.



Per the Kapporeth (mercy seat): I am not claiming animals were not killed, but rather the understanding of the practice of killing. This is tied to your claim Christ was sacrificed to a wrathful God. There is no notion of vicarious atoning for sin in Ancient Jewry. The sprinkling of blood on the kapporeth was not related to personal or moral sin, but purification. This is the same as the sin offering on the Day of Atonement. The sacrifices on that day were for purification of the temple, not for a forgiveness of people's sin. The point is noted in Leviticus:

And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: Lev 16:20​

Further, there was no kapporeth in the Second Temple. Jews at the time of Paul would not have understood a reference to it, let alone gentiles. The position you want to argue is highly problematic as it wouldn't work for a Pauline audience. Blood is not magic. Its flowing had no power to remove sin. Its value was symbolic, to refers to Christ's death.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,

I think you've misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn't clear. The point being looked at is your notion: Christ was punished by God. I rejected this concept as both irrational and immoral. You put forward Rom. 3:25 with the focus on hilasterion (propitiation), stating it demonstrated the necessity of sacrifice. I explained hilasterion does not require sacrifice. I explained the base meaning of the word as appease or conciliation. Now I want you to consider something from your reply to this last post. To me, your prepositional phrase is telling. You wrote "Jesus' death appeased or was a conciliation to God"

Your base stance is:

A) God is just
Men sin
God's justice demands punishment
God sends Christ
Christ steps in to accept that punishment.
Christ's act appeases God.

Consider an alternate view:

B) God is just
Men sin
God sends Christ
Christ's atonement takes on all of man's pain and sorrow
Men who accept Christ are appeased and find conciliation.
This acceptance is tied to repentance and is the basis of at-one-ment

The appeasement or conciliation you want to ascribe to a wrathful God needing blood by punishing an innocent is misdirected. Sin is a knowing disobedience, a willful turning from the good. Therefore, the dilemma is not appeasing a wrathful God, but is found in the heart of the sinner. It is there the primary battle is waged. Christ's atonement reaches into the core of man. All our pain, sorrow, fear etc. is known by Christ. He willingly takes on our pain, if we open to Him. This is the repentance that is repeated over and over in the scriptures. If we refuse, then our sin remains with us and damnation/stagnation is the result. If we accept, then appeasement and conciliation is with one's own heart, which then allows at-one-ment with the Lord. The locus of choice is the individual, made possible by Christ's act. This has nothing to do with appeasing a blood God.



Per the Kapporeth (mercy seat): I am not claiming animals were not killed, but rather the understanding of the practice of killing. This is tied to your claim Christ was sacrificed to a wrathful God. There is no notion of vicarious atoning for sin in Ancient Jewry. The sprinkling of blood on the kapporeth was not related to personal or moral sin, but purification. This is the same as the sin offering on the Day of Atonement. The sacrifices on that day were for purification of the temple, not for a forgiveness of people's sin. The point is noted in Leviticus:

And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: Lev 16:20​

Further, there was no kapporeth in the Second Temple. Jews at the time of Paul would not have understood a reference to it, let alone gentiles. The position you want to argue is highly problematic as it wouldn't work for a Pauline audience. Blood is not magic. Its flowing had no power to remove sin. Its value was symbolic, to refers to Christ's death.

The acceptance is not based on repentance. This concept leads to notions including a works-based salvation rather than faith-based salvation.

Jews at the time of Paul didn't understand the mercy seat concepts? Have you read Hebrews? Are you saying the Septuagint didn't mention the mercy seat 250 years or so before Paul was born?

 

[Orontes]

The acceptance is not based on repentance. This concept leads to notions including a works-based salvation rather than faith-based salvation.

Jews at the time of Paul didn't understand the mercy seat concepts? Have you read Hebrews? Are you saying the Septuagint didn't mention the mercy seat 250 years or so before Paul was born?

Master Billiards,

Your rejecting statement indicates nothing other than a loyalty to dogmatism. Unfortunately, it is a dogma that turns Deity into an evil, irrational being and Christianity into an absurdity. To highlight these errors:

1) You assert Christ was punished by God for sinners. This means Christ, an innocent, is punished and the guilty go free. This has been explained previously. It violates a base notion of justice: the innocent ought not to suffer, the guilty ought not to go free. Therefore, the punishing agent (God) is either immoral or evil. Your system is unjust.

2) This statement "acceptance is not based on repentance" indicates one can accept Christ, but continue in sin. Therefore, morality is irrelevant. Your God is amoral, or immoral.

3) This statement on acceptance not including repentance because then it would lead to : "a works-based salvation rather than faith-based salvation" is irrational. Why? If one accepts there is a concept of acceptance, then who is accepting? Quite clearly, it is the subject who accepts. Therefore, the subject is performing an act, which then is a work by definition. This works based vs. faith based schema is a false dichotomy. Faith itself, insofar as it is the subject's faith is also a work. The attempted divide makes no sense. In attempting this position, you create an absurdity. Your system is irrational.

4) In divorcing repentance from your salvation schema your stance is unbiblical. Repentance is a fundamental concept in the Bible. It is repeated over and over. Christ Himself taught it. I'll give one simple example:

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Matt. 4:17​

Your position is unbiblical.

The conclusions to you stance then:

Your system is unjust
Your God is amoral or immoral
Your system is irrational
Your system is unbiblical

Master Billiards, there is no reason you need to maintain a loyalty to this comedy or errors. The heart of the Christian message is about love and turning one's heart to the Divine. If you separate yourself from your Calvinist penchants this will become clear.



Per hilasterion: the LXX does translate hilasterion for kapporeth. However, it doesn't follow that hilasterion in Rom. 3:25 should therefore be read as kapporeth. That reading becomes incoherent. Why?

1) The Book of Romans lacks the supersessionist typology that would develop later in Christian teaching where Jewry would be seen as a shadow of the reality of Christ. That is a typology that developed post the destruction of the temple where Christ was seen as coopting the prior role of the temple.

2) The mercy seat interpretation wrongly interprets the sprinkling of blood as personal and moral atonement where the reality is the act was for the purification of the temple.

3) The meaning of hilasterion does not entail sacrifice.

4) The kapporeth was not part of the Second Temple Period. It had no place in the devotional life of a Pauline audience. It would have no meaning for Paul's audience.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Your post stirs a lot inside of me about the faith. I left it for a few years, and having come back...I've learned...that Jesus was always there. He always loved me. He lets us leave Him. And then He comes to find us. I didn't go seeking Jesus, but a few weeks ago, He sought me. And in an instant, I realized who this Jesus is. And He is not what I thought, He is better than I imagined.

That is how much He loves us...He lets us leave. But, be careful to not worry too much about heaven, or if you are ready. All we need to be, is ready to love Him. All good things will flow from that, and you needn't worry.

This is a very beautiful post and I totally relate to it.