ayoku777:


Sheol or hades means the "abode of the dead". And death is the wages of sin. Anyone who goes to hell died a sinner. Hell is not the place for the righteous.

Both the rich man and Lazarus and even Abraham were all in sheol. Abraham and Lazarus were not in the torment side of sheol; but were still in sheol all the same. Because none were righteous.

Actually the righteous men who lived before Jesus when to "shoel" also translated as "hell", so it is untrue to say "hell is not a place for the righteous".

You also claim Abraham wasn't righteous, I belive you've got that wrong too, the bible clearly teaches that abraham believed and God reckoned it to him as righteousness.


I'll answer your passages in another post.

Ubenedictus:



Actually the righteous men who lived before Jesus when to "shoel" also translated as "hell", so it is untrue to say "hell is not a place for the righteous".

You also claim Abraham wasn't righteous, I belive you've got that wrong too, the bible clearly teaches that abraham believed and God reckoned it to him as righteousness.


I'll answer your passages in another post.

So many people were called righteous under the old testament. Noah, Abraham, Job, David etc; were all called righteous. Even so, the scriptures must be understood in context otherwise you can give it your own meaning.

The same word of God that called all these saints righteous also said;

Isaiah 64v6 -But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags;

Romans 3v10 -As it is written There is none righteous, no, not one:

So unless, you want to claim the scriptures contradict themselves; then it means the righteousness of those called righteous under the old testament was relative to their time or to them. They were still all sinners relative to the imputed and inherited sin of Adam; and were all unrighteous by the standard of the righteousness that makes a man heaven-worthy and eternal life-worthy.

No one was righteous enough to merit eternal life or be heaven-worthy until Jesus came. Only Christ's death and resurrection imputs that righteousness to us.

That was why they all still went to sheol or hades. They were not righteous. If man could attain the true standard of God's righteousness, Jesus wouldn't have come to take our sin and give us His own righteousness. Scriptures should be understood in context.

No one was righteous enough for heaven or eternal life until Jesus died and rose for our sins and gave us His righteousness. Relative to that standard of righteousness; we were all sinners -including Abraham.

I can agree with you if you say they were righteous (or pleased God) enough not to be in the torment side of sheol. But they were not righteous enough for eternal life or heaven until Jesus came.

Until the blood of the Son of God was shed; the inherited sin of Adam was not remitted. All still went to sheol -the abode of the dead; the place of the wages of sin; as sinners.

Shalom.

Ubenedictus:



you seem to be forgeting a crucial detail, Is 53:8, it says by oppression he was taken away.

Does that mean God was the achitech of such oppression? Because you seem to be saying God is the active cause of Christ suffering. the cross was a punishment but importantly an unjust punishment. the bible says it is "oppression".

Was it God who was "oppressing his son and pouring wrath on him or was the cross the oppression and injustice of man? Judge for yourself and see how you make God a sinner who oppresses his son.

when I look at the cross I certainly do not see God pouring wrath! What I see is the injustice of men who crucified an innocent man, a holy victim who willingly and sacrificially surrendered himself to his unjust killer and offer himself to the father, I see Christ who by bearing injustice merited glory for all who believe in him, I see his humility and obedience that saves me. I see the father who accepts the matyrdom of his only son and for his sake reckons righteousness on all who believe in him. the cross is not the expression of divine wrath it is instead an expression of divine love. God wasn't pouring wrath on the son, instead the merits of Christ averted the wrath I deserve. Atonment isn't about pouring wrath on the innocent but averting wrath by performance of some good.

Peace

If I get you right, the position you hold is that Jesus lived a life that pleased the Father and as a result the Father accepted that as a satisfactory offering for sin. The cross was therefore not a place where punishment was put on him for mankind's sin but a place where Jesus simply showed that he willing to remain sinless no matter what MAN (not GOD) did to him.  You stop just there. It will be helpful if can confirm if this is so. 

However, you need to explain how ALL portions that talk about Christ's payment for sin tie together before a robust position can be arrived at. 

For example, what is your understanding of:
1. 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,"
Cf Hebrews 13:12 "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood."

2. Romans 3:24&25 "24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins."

3. Romans 4:25 "who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification."
Cf Romans 8: 32a “He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all” Notice; ‘did not spare’ – spare from what? Notice; ‘gave him up for us all” – gave him up?

Ubenedictus:



I actually believe God "got the revelation" of adams disobedience, he simply decided to let it be and instead bring forth good out of the mess.

Really? And he acted surprised when Adam informed him he was na'ked? Must be a good hollywood actor then.

Fastforward few hrs later, why not just scrap Adam and Eve and start creation of man anew? Wasn't that the idea behind wiping out the entire generation of Noah? Sodom? Wouldn't it have been better killing just Adam and Eve (2 people) than killing off all Noah's generation?

Right from the time of Adam, man has never-ever kept God's law; not Adam, not Noah, not Sodom, none!
Can't God take a clue that the ways of man is different - totally different from his ways and at such let man be?

ayoku777:

Also; the Father forsook Jesus on the cross. God does not forsake someone He is pleased with; He forsakes someone He is angry with. Meaning the wrath of God was not averted or abated; it was redirected at Christ. Jesus took the wages of our sin.

You so badly want to say Jesus didn't suffer in our place. But you can't explain why the Father forsook Him (the consequence of God's wrath); why He was made a curse (the consequence of breaking the law); and why He went to sheol (the abode of the dead -the wages of sin).

Shalom.

you should see me now, I am smiling! the bible records Jesus crying "my God my God why have you forsaken me" but nowhere does the scriptures suggest that the Father was agree with the son! Infact I am sure you are reading that passage wrongly.


the hebrew scriptures didn't have chapter and verse so all jews quoted scriptures by quoting the first words. When Jesus shouted "Eli Eli" he was referencing psalms twenty two, go and read the psalm then you will understand what "forsaken" means, it doesn't mean God was angry with him or was even punishing him it simply means God allowed him to suffer in the hands of his enemies, that is what "forsake me" means, just like God "forsake" job, it doesn't mean God was angry with job, it simply means God removed his protection rom him and allowed him to suffer.

Infact that passage clearly says that "forsake me" doesn't mean to turn away his face. Read verse twenty five it clearly says


"Let the sons of Isreal fear him because he has not despised the supplication of the poor man. Neither has he turn his face away from me, when I cried to him he heard me".

What more proof do you need, God forsake Jesus only in the sense of allowing his enemies inflict pain on him, God didn't turn away his face from his son, he wasn't angry with him as that messianic psalm which Jesus referenced clearly state.

Have a faithfilled day.

Ubenedictus:



you should see me now, I am smiling! the bible records Jesus crying "my God my God why have you forsaken me" but nowhere does the scriptures suggest that the Father was agree with the son! Infact I am sure you are reading that passage wrongly.


the hebrew scriptures didn't have chapter and verse so all jews quoted scriptures by quoting the first words. When Jesus shouted "Eli Eli" he was referencing psalms twenty two, go and read the psalm then you will understand what "forsaken" means, it doesn't mean God was angry with him or was even punishing him it simply means God allowed him to suffer in the hands of his enemies, that is what "forsake me" means, just like God "forsake" job, it doesn't mean God was angry with job, it simply means God removed his protection rom him and allowed him to suffer.

Infact that passage clearly says that "forsake me" doesn't mean to turn away his face. Read verse twenty five it clearly says


"Let the sons of Isreal fear him because he has not despised the supplication of the poor man. Neither has he turn his face away from me, when I cried to him he heard me".

What more proof do you need, God forsake Jesus only in the sense of allowing his enemies inflict pain on him, God didn't turn away his face from his son, he wasn't angry with him as that messianic psalm which Jesus referenced clearly state.

Have a faithfilled day.

You're trying to give "forsaken" your own definition. Forsaken as used in the scripture, is the hebrew word "azab" and it means; "to leave, to depart from, to leave behind, to abandon or to apostatise".

When God forsakes (or leaves) a man, His manifest presence departs from that man.

There is no where "forsaken" was used for the righteous. God never forsakes the righteous.

Psalm 37v25 -I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.

It is possible for God to allow the righteous to suffer or even be persecuted; yet that doesn't mean God forsook Him. The suffering of the righteous is not termed being forsaken by God in the bible.

2Cor 4v9 -Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;

Ezra 9v9 -For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the king of Persia.

No matter how the righteous suffers, if God's manifest presence doesn't depart from him, then he is not forsaken. God did not forsake Joseph in the pit or in the prison. God did not forsake Job in all his loss. God did not forsake Paul in his thorn in the flesh. For God to forsake a man is for His presence to depart from that man

God only forsakes those who forsake Him and transgress His commandments.

2Chronicles 24v20 -...Thus saith the Lord, Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot prosper? Because ye have forsaken the Lord, He hath also forsaken you.

To be forsaken of God is to be apostatised by Him (to be treated as an apostate). And God only does that to sinners who forsake Him and transgress His commandments.

Now this was the word that Jesus used to describe how God treated Him on the cross. Unless you want to claim Jesus was disoriented and didn't know what He was saying.

The Father forsook Jesus. Jesus was treated as a sinner. The fate of those who transgress God's commandment was meted out to Him on the cross.

That was why the scripture said in Isaiah 53v12

-...He shall divide the spoil with the strong; because He hath poured out His soul unto death: and He was numbered with the transgressors;

Jesus was numbered (or counted) with transgressors of God's commandments; He was treated as a transgressor -for us.

So God forsaking Jesus doesn't mean He just allowed Him to suffer in the hands of evil men. God allowing the righteous to suffer is not termed being forsaken; because God's presence doesn't leave the righteous even in his suffering.

God only forsakes an apostatised sinner. When God forsook Jesus; He apostatised Him, He left Him. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors; He was made sin for us, and He took the consequence of the sin of transgressors on our behalf.

That is what it means when the Father forsook Him.

God bless you

Ubenedictus:


for a Christian death can be a gift to God, the bible does say "O precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his faithful", so yes when the faithful lives this world it is a "gift" to God, a precious thing in his eye, moreso if the death is a matyrdom, giving of your life as a witness to him.

Did you just say that martyrdom is a precious thing to God? Hmmm. This is exactly what Boko have been trying to say for years now.

ayoku777:


You're trying to give "forsaken" your own definition. Forsaken as used in the scripture, is the hebrew word "azab" and it means; "to leave, to depart from, to leave behind, to abandon or to apostatise".

When God forsakes (or leaves) a man, His manifest presence departs from that man.

There is no where "forsaken" was used for the righteous. God never forsakes the righteous.

Psalm 37v25 -I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.

It is possible for God to allow the righteous to suffer or even be persecuted; yet that doesn't mean God forsook Him. The suffering of the righteous is not termed being forsaken by God in the bible.

2Cor 4v9 -Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;

Ezra 9v9 -For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the king of Persia.

No matter how the righteous suffers, if God's manifest presence doesn't depart from him, then he is not forsaken. God did not forsake Joseph in the pit or in the prison. God did not forsake Job in all his loss. God did not forsake Paul in his thorn in the flesh. For God to forsake a man is for His presence to depart from that man

God only forsakes those who forsake Him and transgress His commandments.

2Chronicles 24v20 -...Thus saith the Lord, Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot prosper? Because ye have forsaken the Lord, He hath also forsaken you.

To be forsaken of God is to be apostatised by Him (to be treated as an apostate). And God only does that to sinners who forsake Him and transgress His commandments.

Now this was the word that Jesus used to describe how God treated Him on the cross. Unless you want to claim Jesus was disoriented and didn't know what He was saying.

The Father forsook Jesus. Jesus was treated as a sinner. The fate of those who transgress God's commandment was meted out to Him on the cross.

That was why the scripture said in Isaiah 53v12

-...He shall divide the spoil with the strong; because He hath poured out His soul unto death: and He was numbered with the transgressors;

Jesus was numbered (or counted) with transgressors of God's commandments; He was treated as a transgressor -for us.

So God forsaking Jesus doesn't mean He just allowed Him to suffer in the hands of evil men. God allowing the righteous to suffer is not termed being forsaken; because God's presence doesn't leave the righteous even in his suffering.

God only forsakes an apostatised sinner. When God forsook Jesus; He apostatised Him, He left Him. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors; He was made sin for us, and He took the consequence of the sin of transgressors on our behalf.

That is what it means when the Father forsook Him.

God bless you

i hope you are aware of the implication of what you just said, because I am not sure you even appreciate the gravity of the christological heresy you have on you hand. So you believe that it is possible for God to forsake himself even after the bible clearly says he can't?

You somehow belive that the divine presence can leave someone who is by nature God. How can the divine presence leave God?
Unless ofcourse you do not believe in the trinity. And yes scripture is full of examples of the righteous lamenting there are many such psalms and ps 22 is one of such examples! It starts with a lamentation the it immediately rejects the idea that God has forsaken the righteous, that was the exact psalm Jesus quoted and I kindly ask you to tell me what verse 25 says and d meaning.

Context is key.

I thought maybe it was because we came from different faith traditions that we disagree, but I just checked the net and its not only my faith tradition that sees your interpretation as problematic and heretic, infact i didn't look far to find a protestant who appreciates the fact that it is heretic for God to forsake himself or that it is unjust to actively punish the innocent.

After repeating the silliness of God punishing his son he goes on to explain the meaning of "my God, My God why have you forsaken me" maybe you will appreciate his work better.

Making a Reference
Here's the key biblical insight that changed everything for me in how I read this passage. It's a simple historical fact about how Israelites cited their Scriptures. They didn't identify passages by chapter numbers or verse numbers. Verse numbers weren't invented yet. Their Scriptures did not have little numbers in the text. So how they
referenced a passage was to quote it, especially the first line. So the book of Genesis, in Hebrew, is not called Genesis. It's called, "In the beginning." Exodus is "Names." We similarly evoke a larger body of work with just a line of allusion: "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away." or "It
was the best of times, it was the worst of times."
That's why Jesus often says, "It is written" or "You have heard it said." He doesn't say, "Deuteronomy 8:3 says this." No, he says, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone.' " That's just the way they did it. So when Jesus says, "My God, my God, why
have you forsaken me?" he's saying, "Psalm 22." He expected his hearers to catch the literary allusion. And his hearers should have thought of the whole thing, not just the first verse: "I am … scorned by everyone, despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their
heads. … I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax. … My mouth is dried up … my
tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. … All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment."
Is Jesus saying "I have been forsaken by God"? No. He's declaring, "Psalm 22! Pay attention! This psalm, this messianic psalm, applies to me! Do you see it? Do you see the
uncanny way that my death is fulfilling this psalm?"
Jesus has done this before. At the beginning of his ministry, in Luke 4, he read the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue, saying, "The spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for
the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." Then to make things completely clear, he said, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
That's what Jesus is saying on the cross. When he says, "My God, my God," he's saying, "Psalm 22. Today Psalm 22 is fulfilled in your hearing. I am the embodiment of
this psalm. I am its fulfillment."

A Psalm of Lament and Vindication

Psalm 22 is one of many psalms that fit a particular lyrical pattern. We call them the psalms of lament. They usually begin with a
complaint to God, rehearsing the wrongs and injustices that have been experienced by the psalmist. Psalm 5: "Listen to my words, Lord. Consider my lament." Psalm 10: "Why, Lord, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?" Psalm 13: "How long, Lord? Will you forget me forever?" Psalm 74: "O God, why have you rejected us forever?"
This is a common pattern in the Psalms. This opening lament usually goes on for a stanza or two. But then the psalm pivots. The psalmist remembers the works of God, and the psalm concludes on a note of hope. Old
Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann says that these psalms were Israel's way of
ordering their grief and making sense of their sorrow. Today, we'd call it "processing." They would recount their troubles, but by the end of the psalm, they declared their confidence in God.

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/aprilweb-only/my-god-forsaken-me.html?start=3

He continues

That's what's happening in Psalm 22. It starts out with the psalmist feeling forsaken and abandoned. "Why have you forsaken me? … I cry out by day, but you do not answer." But he's not literally forsaken, any more than the other psalms mean that God was literally forgetting the psalmist forever.
It's expressing how the psalmist felt at the time.
But that's not the end of the story. Like the other psalms of lament, there's a pivot point.
Several, in fact. Verse 9: "Yet you brought me out of the womb … from my mother's womb you have been my God." Verse 19: "But you, Lord, do not be far from me. You are my strength; come quickly to help me." The psalm is not a psalm of forsakenness. It starts out that way, but it shifts to
confidence in God's deliverance. Verse 22: "I will declare your name to my people; in the assembly I will praise you." And here's the key verse, verse 24: "For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for
help."
Here is a direct refutation of the notion that the Father turned his face away from the Son. But the refutation is not as important
as the pivot. Jesus is declaring: Right now, you are witnessing Psalm 22. I seem forsaken right now, but my death is not the end of the story. God has not despised my suffering. I will be vindicated. The Lord has heard my cry. Because death is not the end.
Verse 30–31: "Future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it!"


Jesus is not saying that God has forsaken him. He's declaring the opposite. He's saying that God is with him, even in this time of seeming abandonment, and that God will vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

The closest modern analogy I can come up with might be something like this. Imagine
that later on this election year, this summer, the President is on the campaign trail. And despite his security, an assassin gets in and
shoots him. As the President falls to the ground, he says, "I still have a dream." And then he dies.
Now imagine everybody saying, "Hmmm, his last words were 'I still have a dream.' I wonder what that means. What was his dream? Was he napping on the campaign
bus? What was it about?" No, we'd all recognize that he was making an allusion to Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech. He'd be
saying that this dream is still alive, that it did not stop with MLK's death, and it would not stop with his.
It's the same way with "My God, my God" on the cross. It's a biblical allusion, and the point of Psalm 22 is not about being forsaken. After all, David wrote Psalm 22.
Was David saying that God had forsaken him forever? No. The literary genre of the psalm
of lament shows that David was saying that he felt like God had forsaken him. That the odds were against him. That things looked
really bad right then. But that was not the end of the story. David still had confidence that God would hear his cry. God did not abandon David. And God did not abandon
Jesus. The clearest evidence of that, besides the rest of Psalm 22, is Jesus' final words on the cross, "Father, into your hands I commit
my spirit." The Father had not forsaken him.
God was still his Father. Jesus was still his Son.

Ubenedictus:


i hope you are aware of the implication of what you just said, because I am not sure you even appreciate the gravity of the christological heresy you have on you hand. So you believe that it is possible for God to forsake himself even after the bible clearly says he can't?

You somehow belive that the divine presence can leave someone who is by nature God. How can the divine presence leave God?
Unless ofcourse you do not believe in the trinity. And yes scripture is full of examples of the righteous lamenting there are many such psalms and ps 22 is one of such examples! It starts with a lamentation the it immediately rejects the idea that God has forsaken the righteous, that was the exact psalm Jesus quoted and I kindly ask you to tell me what verse 25 says and d meaning.

Context is key.

So to you, that the Father forsook Jesus is heresis? I'm sure to you; that Jesus was made a curse or sin and was numbered with transgressors is also heresis.

Can someone who is by nature God be made sin? Yes He can (2Cor 5v21)

Can someone who is by nature God be made a curse? Yes He can (Gal 3v13)

Can someone who is by nature God be numbered with transgressors? Yes He can. (Isaiah 53v12)

So can the manifest presence of God depart from Christ when He was numbered with transgressors; and made sin and a curse? Ofcourse yes.

And you're right I don't believe in the trinity; there is no trinity in the bible. Three persons in one God doctrine is false.

Jesus is God and the Father is God. And the Father is the God of Jesus. That is what the bible teaches.

It is not together that the Father and Jesus are God.

And that verse 24 doesn't contradict the fact that God forsook Jesus on the cross.

From verse 22; the tone of that Psalm changed -from lamentation to praises. And it depicts the eventuality of what happened after the Father accepted the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

Its clear the Father didn't forsake Jesus for ever. Christ sacrifice was accepted and He was eventually raised from the dead by the glory of the Father.

Verse 22 said - I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregration will I praise thee.

When did we become the brethren of Jesus? It was after He rose from the dead.

John 20v17 -Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God, and your God.

We became His brethren after He rose. That's why I said; from verse 22 depicts after His sacrifice was accepted.

It was at His resurrection that the Father heard Him. But Jesus was forsaken on the cross. Verse 22 onward was after the price was paid by Jesus and His sacrifice was accepted.

You really don't believe the scriptures that said Jesus was made sin for us; or that He was made a curse for us; or that He was numbered with the transgressor.

Gal 3v13 said -...for it is written, CURSED is every one that hangeth on a tree:

So then; what was Christ when He hung on that tree?

Hmmm, you're tip-toeing around their interpretation; so as not to shoot yourself in the leg.

If you really believed those scriptures; this argument would have ended since.

God bless.

Ubenedictus:
[size=5pt]He continues

That's what's happening in Psalm 22. It starts out with the psalmist feeling forsaken and abandoned. "Why have you forsaken me? … I cry out by day, but you do not answer." But he's not literally forsaken, any more than the other psalms mean that God was literally forgetting the psalmist forever.
It's expressing how the psalmist felt at the time.
But that's not the end of the story. Like the other psalms of lament, there's a pivot point.
Several, in fact. Verse 9: "Yet you brought me out of the womb … from my mother's womb you have been my God." Verse 19: "But you, Lord, do not be far from me. You are my strength; come quickly to help me." The psalm is not a psalm of forsakenness. It starts out that way, but it shifts to
confidence in God's deliverance. Verse 22: "I will declare your name to my people; in the assembly I will praise you." And here's the key verse, verse 24: "For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for
help."
Here is a direct refutation of the notion that the Father turned his face away from the Son. But the refutation is not as important
as the pivot. Jesus is declaring: Right now, you are witnessing Psalm 22. I seem forsaken right now, but my death is not the end of the story. God has not despised my suffering. I will be vindicated. The Lord has heard my cry. Because death is not the end.
Verse 30–31: "Future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it!"


Jesus is not saying that God has forsaken him. He's declaring the opposite. He's saying that God is with him, even in this time of seeming abandonment, and that God will vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

The closest modern analogy I can come up with might be something like this. Imagine
that later on this election year, this summer, the President is on the campaign trail. And despite his security, an assassin gets in and
shoots him. As the President falls to the ground, he says, "I still have a dream." And then he dies.
Now imagine everybody saying, "Hmmm, his last words were 'I still have a dream.' I wonder what that means. What was his dream? Was he napping on the campaign
bus? What was it about?" No, we'd all recognize that he was making an allusion to Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech. He'd be
saying that this dream is still alive, that it did not stop with MLK's death, and it would not stop with his.
It's the same way with "My God, my God" on the cross. It's a biblical allusion, and the point of Psalm 22 is not about being forsaken. After all, David wrote Psalm 22.
Was David saying that God had forsaken him forever? No. The literary genre of the psalm
of lament shows that David was saying that he felt like God had forsaken him. That the odds were against him. That things looked
really bad right then. But that was not the end of the story. David still had confidence that God would hear his cry. God did not abandon David. And God did not abandon
Jesus. The clearest evidence of that, besides the rest of Psalm 22, is Jesus' final words on the cross, "Father, into your hands I commit
my spirit." The Father had not forsaken him.
God was still his Father. Jesus was still his Son.

[/size]

Welcome back!
I await your reaction to my last post.

ayoku777:


So many people were called righteous under the old testament. Noah, Abraham, Job, David etc; were all called righteous. Even so, the scriptures must be understood in context otherwise you can give it your own meaning.

The same word of God that called all these saints righteous also said;

Isaiah 64v6 -But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags;

Romans 3v10 -As it is written There is none righteous, no, not one:

So unless, you want to claim the scriptures contradict themselves; then it means the righteousness of those called righteous under the old testament was relative to their time or to them. They were still all sinners relative to the imputed and inherited sin of Adam; and were all unrighteous by the standard of the righteousness that makes a man heaven-worthy and eternal life-worthy.

No one was righteous enough to merit eternal life or be heaven-worthy until Jesus came. Only Christ's death and resurrection imputs that righteousness to us.

That was why they all still went to sheol or hades. They were not righteous. If man could attain the true standard of God's righteousness, Jesus wouldn't have come to take our sin and give us His own righteousness. Scriptures should be understood in context.

No one was righteous enough for heaven or eternal life until Jesus died and rose for our sins and gave us His righteousness. Relative to that standard of righteousness; we were all sinners -including Abraham.

I can agree with you if you say they were righteous (or pleased God) enough not to be in the torment side of sheol. But they were not righteous enough for eternal life or heaven until Jesus came.

Until the blood of the Son of God was shed; the inherited sin of Adam was not remitted. All still went to sheol -the abode of the dead; the place of the wages of sin; as sinners.

Shalom.

so we are back to the sematics! How righteous is righteous. Paul writes abraham believed and it was reckoned as righteousness yet he wasn't righteous enough.
I would not be trapped in that sematic.

Penal substitution says Jesus was damned in our place, that means he suffered hell fire of the damned, not shoel of the righteous.

So please show me where that passage shows a damn Jesus suffering the pains of hell fire.

Somehow you are tip toeing around how ridiculous it sounds that Jesus who you say is God suffer hell like the damned.

trustman:
[size=6pt][/size]
If I get you right, the position you hold is that Jesus lived a life that pleased the Father and as a result the Father accepted that as a satisfactory offering for sin. The cross was therefore not a place where punishment was put on him for mankind's sin but a place where Jesus simply showed that he willing to remain sinless no matter what MAN (not GOD) did to him.  You stop just there. It will be helpful if can confirm if this is so.

that is not my position!

My position is tha by the suffering and death of Jesus Christ a wholesome sacrifices was offered to God with superabundant merit, this sacrifice has the power to literally forgive all sins of the whole world and grant exceeding grace to all who recieve it my faith.

My position is that this sacrifice was an atonement (a sacrifice that averts wrath), my position is that it is heretic to claim that God diverted his wrath on his son Jesus. Instead Jesus death was a pleasing sacrifice, an acceptable offering that adequately satisfy for all sin.  

However, you need to explain how ALL portions that talk about Christ's payment for sin tie together before a robust position can be arrived at.

i have no problems with such passage, Christ sacrifice was a "payment" for sin, what I disagree with is that the father is only satisfied if he pours down wrath on his son.

For example, what is your understanding of:
1. 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,"
Cf Hebrews 13:12 "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood."

2. Romas 3:24&25 "24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins."

3. Romans 4:25 "who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification."
Cf Romans 8: 32a “He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all” Notice; ‘did not spare’ – spare from what? Notice; ‘gave him up for us all” – gave him up?

again this passages agree with what I have said.

Ubenedictus:



so we are back to the sematics! How righteous is righteous. Paul writes abraham believed and it was reckoned as righteousness yet he wasn't righteous enough.
I would not be trapped in that sematic.

Penal substitution says Jesus was damned in our place, that means he suffered hell fire of the damned, not shoel of the righteous.

So please show me where that passage shows a damn Jesus suffering the pains of hell fire.

Somehow you are tip toeing around how ridiculous it sounds that Jesus who you say is God suffer hell like the damned.

The bible says Jesus went to sheol. Whether torment side or not is something neither you nor I can argue for or against authoritatively.

The basic point, however, is only sinners go to sheol. Only those under the judgment of the imputed sin of Adam go to sheol.

If Jesus was not made sin and judged as a sinner; He would not go to sheol at all. Whether torment side or not. So don't try to grasp at straws. Jesus was made sin and judged as a sinner.

2Cor 5v21 - For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

Jesus was made sin. That's why He went to sheol; according to Psalms 16v10.

And I asked you a question you've not answered. The bible said in

Galatians 3v13 - Cursed is EVERYONE that hangeth on a tree:

So what was Christ then when He hung on the calvary tree?

Was Jesus cursed for us by hanging on that tree?

simplex2:


Really? And he acted surprised when Adam informed him he was na'ked? Must be a good hollywood actor then.

Fastforward few hrs later, why not just scrap Adam and Eve and start creation of man anew? Wasn't that the idea behind wiping out the entire generation of Noah? Sodom? Wouldn't it have been better killing just Adam and Eve (2 people) than killing off all Noah's generation?

Right from the time of Adam, man has never-ever kept God's law; not Adam, not Noah, not Sodom, none!
Can't God take a clue that the ways of man is different - totally different from his ways and at such let man be?

hehehe

have you considered if you've gat the story wrong?


I don't think God was really interested in wiping out the whole human race. Noahs flood was about showing that sin has effect not exactly ending the whole human race, hence saving noah.

It seems God wasn't interested in Distroying the human race he was more interested in repairing what was damage.

Besides this may be the wrong thread to go into a full discussion on the subject.

ayoku777:

Both the rich man and Lazarus and even Abraham were all in sheol. Abraham and Lazarus were not in the torment side of sheol; but were still in sheol all the same. Because none were righteous.

Also; the Father forsook Jesus on the cross. God does not forsake someone He is pleased with; He forsakes someone He is angry with. Meaning the wrath of God was not averted or abated; it was redirected at Christ. Jesus took the wages of our sin.

the bible actually say "He (God) did not turn his face from me"
another erronous interpretation.

That was why He went to hell; the abode of the dead; the place of the wages of sin.

hahahahahaha, you know how ridiculous you sound?

This is why I love the bible, it is very good in busting bubble, first someone said remission is different from forgiveness and paardon even though scriptures show they all refer to the same thing. Now you are telling me Jesus went to shoel to be punished by God, well what does the bible say?

I PT 4:6

For this is why the gospel was preached to the dead, for though judged in the flesh like men they may live in the spirit like God.

That is what the bible says!

Jesus didn't go to shoel to be burnt in hell fire! He went to preach to the just who died before him and announce to them the good news of the salvation

You so badly want to say Jesus didn't suffer in our place. But you can't explain why the Father forsook Him (the consequence of God's wrath); why He was made a curse (the consequence of breaking the law); and why He went to sheol (the abode of the dead -the wages of sin).

All these are the wages of sin and the consequence of unrighteousness. And since Jesus committed no sin and did no unrighteousness it means Jesus took the wages of our sins -He suffered in our place. That's the gospel truth.

Shalom.

hehehe,

this just get more funny.

First you claim God forsoked Jesus even though the very psalm Jesus reference say "he didn't hide his face from me"

then you tried to defend Calvin's teaching that Jesus went to hell fire of the damn, unfortunately you got stuck in shoel and decided to expound that Jesus was suffering the wages of sin in shoel, the bible says he went to to preach to the dead.

The last straw you are clinging on is he was made "curse" for us. I'll be happy to bust that one too.

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Some protestants see the “Great Exchange” encompassed in this passage. The classic interpretation is that though Jesus was not actually a sinner, the sin of the elect was imputed to Him and He received the Wrath they deserved, while the Christian (who lacks righteousness before God) has God's righteousness imputed to them. The main problem is a lot must be read into that one verse. This interpretation is gratuitous at
best, not to mention nowhere is the term “impute” used. Using the principle of having Scripture interpret Scripture, it is best to consult similar passages when trying to interpret this one.


Rom 8: 3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh

2 Cor 8: 9For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.

Regarding Romans 8:3, Jesus being sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh” means Jesus took on human nature, and thus “made sin” could easily be taken as sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” The phrase “for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” I interpret as being made a sin offering and made satisfaction for sin. Next, in 2 Cor 8:9 there is a clear parallel with 2 Cor 5:21. Christ doesn't become poor by infusion or imputation, rather He becomes poor in the sense of Phil 2:5-9 where Jesus humbled Himself to take on human flesh and become
obedient unto death, and through His merits heal us and raise us up.
Also, the word “sin” in “made sin” can mean “made a sin offering,” and this is because Paul knew that in the OT some Hebrew words could mean both “sin” and “sin offering,” even in the same context. The Hebrew word Chattaah (H2403) is translated, in the KJV, 182 times as “sin” and
116 times as “sin offering.” Places like Leviticus 4 translate the word both ways in the same context:

Lev 4: 28Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

The highlighted words are the same word in Hebrew. This is a very similar situation to 2 Cor 5:21 in which the first occurrence of
“sin” refers to actual sins, while the second occurrence refers to a “sin offering.” There is simply too much read into the text (without support) when Protestants interpret “made sin” as having guilt imputed to Christ and punished in Christ.


So according the right usuage of term that passage may rightly be interpreted as.

"God made him who had no sin to be a sin offering for us, so that in him we may have the righteousness of God".

The term sin and sin offering is the same word, to be made sin is not to be punished as a sinner but instead to offer a sacrifice.

Weah96:


Did you just say that martyrdom is a precious thing to God? Hmmm. This is exactly what Boko have been trying to say for years now.

i guess it is not beyond you to confuse issue.

Blowing up yourself and others as a form of "holy war" is senseless murder not to mention suicide.

Matyrdom is a totally different thing, to die a martyr is to bear witness to you faith, love or hope with you live. To give your life willingly for what you believe or to give it for another.

The story of maxmilian kolbe comes to mind as he gives his life literally for another in hope of what his faith promises, that is martyrdom. Jesus bearing the injustice of men and thus meriting "blessedness" on behalf of sinners is a death out of love.
That is a pleasing death.

I hope you are aware you didn't answer the question of the post you quoted. Since you hold that Jesus suffering was a display of the wrath of a vengeful God how do you explain the fact that Is 53 teaches that his suffering was "by oppression", since you hold that his father was punishing him do you also hold that his father was oppressing his.

trustman:
[size=6pt][/size]
3. Romans 4:25 "who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification."
Cf Romans 8: 32a “He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all” Notice; ‘did not spare’ – spare from what? Notice; ‘gave him up for us all” – gave him up?

he gave him up to suffering and death, he didn't spare him from these ordeals. Nowhere does that passage say Jesus was recieveing wrath.

ayoku777:


So to you, that the Father forsook Jesus is heresis? I'm sure to you; that Jesus was made a curse or sin and was numbered with transgressors is also heresis.

Can someone who is by nature God be made sin? Yes He can (2Cor 5v21)

yes dear, the bible uses the one word for sin and sin offering so yes rightly understood he can be made sin for us

Can someone who is by nature God be made a curse? Yes He can (Gal 3v13)

if you understand the meaning of curse in that passage then yes, he can be made a curse for us.

Can someone who is by nature God be numbered with transgressors? Yes He can. (Isaiah 53v12)

yes he can because to be numbered among transgressors does not you a trangressor make.

So can the manifest presence of God depart from Christ when He was numbered with transgressors; and made sin and a curse? Ofcourse yes.

no sir. The presence of God cannot depart from someone who is God, Go cannot stop been God, he cannot lose his divinity. The manifest presence of the divine cannot depart from the divine. It is almost the same as saying human nature cannot depart from a human being, It is not possible for human nature to depart from a human being, so also the divine presence cannot depart God (Jesus) it is not possible.

And you're right I don't believe in the trinity; there is no trinity in the bible. Three persons in one God doctrine is false.

Jesus is God and the Father is God. And the Father is the God of Jesus. That is what the bible teaches.

i can live with that, you believe Jesus is God and for now that is enough for me whether you call it a trinity and say the holyspirit is also God or you call it a dulity with d father and Jesus is not the bone of this discuss.
If Jesus is God as you say then he can't lose the divine presence, that presence is a consequence of his nature, just as a human being can lose his human nature.

It is not together that the Father and Jesus are God.

And that verse 24 doesn't contradict the fact that God forsook Jesus on the cross.

From verse 22; the tone of that Psalm changed -from lamentation to praises. And it depicts the eventuality of what happened after the Father accepted the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

Its clear the Father didn't forsake Jesus for ever. Christ sacrifice was accepted and He was eventually raised from the dead by the glory of the Father.

Verse 22 said - I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregration will I praise thee.

When did we become the brethren of Jesus? It was after He rose from the dead.

John 20v17 -Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God, and your God.

We became His brethren after He rose. That's why I said; from verse 22 depicts after His sacrifice was accepted.

It was at His resurrection that the Father heard Him. But Jesus was forsaken on the cross. Verse 22 onward was after the price was paid by Jesus and His sacrifice was accepted.

you want to bring in some othe sematics, all you need to do is read the bible, what does ps 22:24 say?

For he has not despised the affliction of the afflicted and he has not his his face from him but heard him when he cried.

Sorry the context is clear, this isn't after his suffering. The bible say he heard him when he was crying, he didn't cry after the resurrection, he say he did not despise his suffering, he says clearly he did not hide his face. The context of that statement is quite clear and immune to sematics.

ayoku777:

Gal 3v13 said -...for it is written, CURSED is every one that hangeth on a tree:

So then; what was Christ when He hung on that tree?

Hmmm, you're tip-toeing around their interpretation; so as not to shoot yourself in the leg.

If you really believed those scriptures; this argument would have ended since.

God bless.

Galatians 3:13 talks about Jesus being made a “curse” for us and quotes Deuteronomy 21:22-23.

Some might understand this as God the Father spiritually cursed His Son Jesus, but taken in that sense is quite blasphemous and not what Deut 21 was saying. Deuteronomy 21 is talking about the most humiliating form of death, crucifixion, and is described as a curse because the Jewish understanding was that someone
had to be really bad to deserve that kind of death. The OT actually sheds valuable light on this understanding, two specific passages demonstrate this clearly:


Joshua 8: 28 So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. 29 He hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take his body from the tree and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day.


Joshua 10: 26 Then Joshua struck and killed the kings and hung them on five trees, and they were left hanging on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua gave the order and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had been hiding. At the mouth of the cave they placed large rocks, which are there to this day.


These passages show clearly that hanging someone on a tree is a form of grave humiliation, especially for a king. Notice how
the passages indicate the bodies were taken down before sunset, this is according to the command in Deut 21 when this form of execution is carried out. Also, the bodies were thrown into a cave and covered with rocks. The parallels here to Christ's crucifixion are very clear, but this is not Penal Substitution because with this in mind passages like Phil 2:8 say Christ “became obedient unto death even death on a cross,” and thus the message is that Christ's perfect obedience (willing to undergo the worst humiliation) is what is carries the true value (towards making satisfaction), not the torture itself.


Put simply the curse of the law described in Deut 21 refers to the most shameful type of death, Pauls point is that by the most shameful death Christ underwent, the very one considered accursed by God, Christ free us from the curse which our disobedience to the law merits.

Again I repeat this does not teach that Jesus took the wrath of God and was sent to hell fire.

The simple message of that passage is that the shamefull death, "accursed death" of the innocent Christ cancelled out the curse which we rightly deserve from the law.

By accepting the cross he free us from the burden of the law.

Ubenedictus:


Galatians 3:13 talks about Jesus being made a “curse” for us and quotes Deuteronomy 21:22-23.

Some might understand this as God the Father spiritually cursed His Son Jesus, but taken in that sense is quite blasphemous and not what Deut 21 was saying. Deuteronomy 21 is talking about the most humiliating form of death, crucifixion, and is described as a curse because the Jewish understanding was that someone
had to be really bad to deserve that kind of death. The OT actually sheds valuable light on this understanding, two specific passages demonstrate this clearly:


Joshua 8: 28 So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. 29 He hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take his body from the tree and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day.


Joshua 10: 26 Then Joshua struck and killed the kings and hung them on five trees, and they were left hanging on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua gave the order and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had been hiding. At the mouth of the cave they placed large rocks, which are there to this day.


These passages show clearly that hanging someone on a tree is a form of grave humiliation, especially for a king. Notice how
the passages indicate the bodies were taken down before sunset, this is according to the command in Deut 21 when this form of execution is carried out. Also, the bodies were thrown into a cave and covered with rocks. The parallels here to Christ's crucifixion are very clear, but this is not Penal Substitution because with this in mind passages like Phil 2:8 say Christ “became obedient unto death even death on a cross,” and thus the message is that Christ's perfect obedience (willing to undergo the worst humiliation) is what is carries the true value (towards making satisfaction), not the torture itself.


Put simply the curse of the law described in Deut 21 refers to the most shameful type of death, Pauls point is that by the most shameful death Christ underwent, the very one considered accursed by God, Christ free us from the curse which our disobedience to the law merits.

Again I repeat this does not teach that Jesus took the wrath of God and was sent to hell fire.

The simple message of that passage is that the shamefull death, "accursed death" of the innocent Christ cancelled out the curse which we rightly deserve from the law.

By accepting the cross he free us from the burden of the law.

Honestly, I'm reading this your explanation and I'm smiling to myself.

This is nothing but a desperate and failed attempt to make this simple, straightforward and easy-to-understand scripture mean what you so badly want it to mean.

Galatians 3v13 -Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is EVERYONE that hangeth on a tree:

This scripture is so straightforward that any attempt to give it another interpretation makes one sound ridiculous.

This is what it means:

Under jewish law and custom; everyone and anyone who dies by crucifixion is considered accursed of God and under His judgment.

It means when someone dies by hanging on a tree; it means the judgment is not human or natural but divine and of God. It is the judgment of one accursed of God.

And this is what Jesus was when He hung on that tree. He was accursed of the Father and under His judgment -on our behalf. Jesus was made a curse for us and He suffered the judgment of the accursed on our behalf by hanging on the tree.

This is the simple meaning of ...Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.

All the kings that Joshua hung on the tree were accursed of God; their judgment was of God.

The only difference being; unlike them who were accursed and under judgment for their sins; Jesus was accursed for our own sins.

Its ok to disagree with the scriptures; but at least don't twist it.

"Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" means everyone who hangs on a tree is accursed. Period!

Ubenedictus:

.....

My position is tha by the suffering and death of Jesus Christ a wholesome sacrifices was offered to God

.......

Kindly further clarify this your above statement:  

Are you saying that the suffering and death inflicted on Jesus Christ by man became a pleasing sacrifice to God or that Jesus' acceptance to take on the suffering and death inflicted by man became the pleasing sacrifice to God?

trustman:

Kindly further clarify this your above statement:  

Are you saying that the suffering and death inflicted on Jesus Christ by man became a pleasing sacrifice to God or that Jesus' acceptance to take on the suffering and death inflicted by man became the pleasing sacrifice to God?

Yes accepting his "oppression"(as isaiah puts it), Christ offered to his Father a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to him.

ayoku777:


Honestly, I'm reading this your explanation and I'm smiling to myself.

This is nothing but a desperate and failed attempt to make this simple, straightforward and easy-to-understand scripture mean what you so badly want it to mean.

Galatians 3v13 -Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is EVERYONE that hangeth on a tree:

This scripture is so straightforward that any attempt to give it another interpretation makes one sound ridiculous.

This is what it means:

Under jewish law and custom; everyone and anyone who dies by crucifixion is considered accursed of God and under His judgment.

It means when someone dies by hanging on a tree; it means the judgment is not human or natural but divine and of God. It is the judgment of one accursed of God.

And this is what Jesus was when He hung on that tree. He was accursed of the Father and under His judgment -on our behalf. Jesus was made a curse for us and He suffered the judgment of the accursed on our behalf by hanging on the tree.

This is the simple meaning of ...Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.

All the kings that Joshua hung on the tree were accursed of God; their judgment was of God.

The only difference being; unlike them who were accursed and under judgment for their sins; Jesus was accursed for our own sins.

Its ok to disagree with the scriptures; but at least don't twist it.

"Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" means everyone who hangs on a tree is accursed. Period!

my dear I always agree with scripture, what I disagree with is the interpretation some give it.

The scriptures say "cursed is any that dies on a tree", does that mean that everybody killed on a tree is a sinner and thus experiencing divine wrath and God's anger, or does it simply mean that death on a tree was reserved in the old law as a most shameful death to portray that the dead person is believed to have committed a serious sin that puts him under Gods displeasure?

hmm.. got me thinking of one of the thieves...is the thief that gained paradise while hanging on a tree cursed too?

Ubenedictus:
Yes accepting his "oppression"(as isaiah puts it), Christ offered to his a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to him.

Here are some of your statements:

I repeat, Yes Jesus "bore our sins in his body on the cross", Yes! "his wound have effected healing for me", Yes!! "On him was laid the iniquities of us all", but no in the sense that trustman means! He wasn't undergoing the penalty for the sins of a select few, his father wasn't pouring wrath for our sins down on him instead he was offering to God a sacrifice, allow me to go back to scripture to get back the sense in which those words are used.

So God had no part in man’s redemption? Jesus chose to give an “offering” to God which became acceptable to God.

Christ died for you mean he died for your sake not that he is a substitute for your physical death

.
’died for your sake’ means what?

I believe that the punishment the bible is refering to is death, God proclaimed death and suffering as punishment for sin and since Christ accepted suffer and die he bore "chastisement", the very one that brought is peace. that is what I believe that passage is saying. I do not believe, infact I reject the thought that erronously claims it means Jesus went to hell fire of condemn souls and suffered the torments of the damned, I reject the thought that says God was actively pouring his vindictive wrath on his son, I repeat what I said ealier in the thread, that teaching is a 16th cent teaching and isn't true.

was the penalty (punishment, price, payment) for sin borne by Jesus on behalf (in place of) of mankind?

Like i said:

1. 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,"
Cf Hebrews 13:12 "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood."

2. Romans 3:24&25 "24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins."

3. Romans 4:25 "who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification."
Cf Romans 8: 32a “He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all” Notice; ‘did not spare’ – spare from what? Notice; ‘gave him up for us all” – gave him up?

My position is tha by the suffering and death of Jesus Christ a wholesome sacrifices was offered to God with superabundant merit, this sacrifice has the power to literally forgive all sins of the whole world and grant exceeding grace to all who recieve it my faith.

who demanded payment for sin?

My position is that this sacrifice was an atonement (a sacrifice that averts wrath), my position is that it is heretic to claim that God diverted his wrath on his son Jesus. Instead Jesus death was a pleasing sacrifice, an acceptable offering that adequately satisfy for all sin.

was man under God’s wrath as a result of sin? Will God’s wrath continue to be poured on those who refuse him?

Ubenedictus

Ultimately every sin is against God; an outrage to God’s holiness, an offense and insult to His perfection.

God’s justice demands that every sin be punished – “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). It is God who does the punishing. To be just God has to punish sin; He has to judge every sin.

In his wisdom God made available a substitute – one who will stand in the place of sinners – to take the judgment (pay the penalty) for mankind’s sin. That one is Jesus – Romans 3:25; 4:25a; 8:32a.

He – God – did this so that his justice will be satisfied and he can therefore justify those who are guilty without compromising his essence – chiefly his holiness (righteousness and justice).

Jesus satisfied the demands of a righteous and just God as far as the sin issue is concerned – Romans 3:25. The just (Jesus) was standing in for the unjust (mankind). He did not have to pay the penalty for man’s sin but chose (in agreement with the Father) to do so on man’s behalf (as a representative of man). He took our place – Jesus became our substitute.

Standing in as our substitute, Jesus Christ took upon Himself the punishment for our sins (as demanded by the justice of God). He did this on the cross – “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree … …” 1 Peter 2:24. The cross became the ‘altar’ on which the overwhelming debt of the penalty of sin against mankind was resolved.

trustman:


Here are some of your statements:

So God had no part in man’s redemption? Jesus chose to give an “offering” to God which became acceptable to God.

ofcuz God has a part in our salvation, he is the one who provided the plan of salvation and the means of it. He provide his son as an atonement, propitiation (a sacrifice that averts wrath).

’died for your sake’ means what?

it means exactly what you read, that his death was a substitory (vicarious), atonement. He died so that the full debt of my sin may be paid. His death wasn't a pouring of divine wrath but a offering of a superabundant payment. That is what redemption means.

was the penalty (punishment, price, payment) for sin borne by Jesus on behalf (in place of) of mankind?

Christ did bear the punishment God decreed for sin (i.e death) for our sake. But he certainly didn't go to hell fire nor was the chastisement an active one as in the sense of God actively pouring his wrath on the son but instead in the general sense of accepting our general punishment for sins and offering a sacrifies to free us from the eternal punishments thereof.

Like i said:

1. 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,"
Cf Hebrews 13:12 "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood."

2. Romans 3:24&25 "24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins."

3. Romans 4:25 "who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification."
Cf Romans 8: 32a “He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all” Notice; ‘did not spare’ – spare from what? Notice; ‘gave him up for us all” – gave him up?

and as I explained those passage clearly showed that Jesus offered a payment for sin! A sacrifice that was of so much value that it suffice to pay for all sin!

God did not need to actively pour his wrath on his son or send him to hell fire because Jesus has already offered a WORTHY AND ACCEPTABLE SACRIFICE. God didn't need to actively pour all his wrath on his son because his son already provided a sacrifice of his own life that was sufficient and superabundant for sins.

God didn't spare his son from suffering and death, he instead accepted this suffering and death as a sacrifice. He didn't need to send his son to hell to suffer for sins because the blood he shed, the life he gave was already a offering for sin! And beautiful and acceptable one.

The book of Heb contains a good explaination of what happened on the cross, it says

heb 9:12

when Christ went through the tent and entered once and for all into the most holy place...he took his own blood and obtained eternal salvation for us.

Infact I suggest you read heb 9 and 10 it shows who Christ won our salvation and it wasn't by going to hell or emptying his fathers wrath, no! Instead he offered a sacrifice that had the value of paying for all sin and averting divine wrath.

The value of his sacrifice is based upon the value of his life, his obedience and his humility which gave back to God more glory than the offense of sins, it has nothing to do with taking wrath or going to hell.

Heb 10:10
because Jesus Christ did what God wanted him to do we are all purified from sin by th offering that he made of his own body!

Heb 10:12
Christt however offered one sacrifice for sins, an offering that is effective for ever.

Again I repeat he offered himself to God as an offering of abundant merit, an acceptable sacrifice a means of averting wrath by his obedience by his accepting a shameful death and suffering that is the sacrifice that brings us peace.

The payment the father demanded and took was a "body that came to do his will" a life obedient onto death not someone to send to hell fire.

Syncan:
hmm.. got me thinking of one of the thieves...is the thief that gained paradise while hanging on a tree cursed too?

my dear u get the point, "cursed is any that dies on a tree", does not mean the dead person is going to hell, it simply means that type of death was considered most shameful that you must be considered to be very bad and under divine judgement to get it.


If an innocent man dies on a tree is he also "cursed"?

trustman:
was man under God’s wrath as a result of sin? Will God’s wrath continue to be poured on those who refuse him?

Ubenedictus

Ultimately every sin is against God; an outrage to God’s holiness, an offense and insult to His perfection.

God’s justice demands that every sin be punished – “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). It is God who does the punishing. To be just God has to punish sin; He has to judge every sin.

really? Where does the bible teach that God cannot forgive sins gratitously?

God only punishes unatoned sins! That is the whole reason for atonement and propitiation.

In his wisdom God made available a substitute – one who will stand in the place of sinners – to take the judgment (pay the penalty) for mankind’s sin. That one is Jesus – Romans 3:25; 4:25a; 8:32a.

He – God – did this so that his justice will be satisfied and he can therefore justify those who are guilty without compromising his essence – chiefly his holiness (righteousness and justice).

Jesus satisfied the demands of a righteous and just God as far as the sin issue is concerned – Romans 3:25. The just (Jesus) was standing in for the unjust (mankind). He did not have to pay the penalty for man’s sin but chose (in agreement with the Father) to do so on man’s behalf (as a representative of man). He took our place – Jesus became our substitute.

Standing in as our substitute, Jesus Christ took upon Himself the punishment for our sins (as demanded by the justice of God). He did this on the cross – “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree … …” 1 Peter 2:24. The cross became the ‘altar’ on which the overwhelming debt of the penalty of sin against mankind was resolved.

hehehe,

nowhere does the bible teach that God provided Jesus to be a victim of his wrath! That is your own doctine, what scripture teaches is that God provided a sacrificial victim, one who offers a sacrifice for others sin!

Ubenedictus:


really? Where does the bible teach that God cannot forgive sins gratitously?

God only punishes unatoned sins! That is the whole reason for atonement and propitiation.

hehehe,

nowhere does the bible teach that God provided Jesus to be a victim of his wrath! That is your own doctine, what scripture teaches is that God provided a sacrificial victim, one who offers a sacrifice for others sin!

Your various comments and responses leave many questions unanswered. And by ignoring those issues you have failed to make your position clear. 

First, the title of your thread "... Jesus Didn't Die In Place of Anyone" contradicts Romans 5:6-8 and Hebrews 2: 9

Jesus voluntarily gave up the ghost. What does this tell us? 
One, that he did not bleed to death. Two, he did not give up the ghost as soon as he was nailed to the cross or shortly after but only after noonday darkness, his cries to the father and declaration that "It is finished". 
Three,  he knew that it was only then his work was complete. He was still physically alive on the cross when the work of salvation was completed for him to declare "Tetelestai!" 

God was actively involved in Jesus' sacrificial death. 
See Romans 3:25 "whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins."(ESV). 
"God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished."

The cross was a high point in the work of salvation. 
1 Peter 2:24 "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed."(ESV)
The cross was therefore critical to the salvation work of Christ - Col. 2:14