The Wrath of God Poured Out

You are arguing nonsense.

Do I believe the God literally rests His feet on the Earth? No. Do I believe Jesus is literally bread and wine? No. Do I believe Jesus is literally water (H2O)?

Your accusation that the interpretation "made sin" refers to God offering Christas a "sin offering", Christ bearing our sins, becoming flesh and dying on a cross is a denial of the passage rather than an 8nterpretation if it is dishonest to those who deny the passage means that God literally was made onto an immoral act.

You are not dealing honestly with my words. You are better than that.

 

@Martin Marprelate ,

Maybe this will help you understand the concept of interpretation:

Matthew 26:27-28
27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Do you believe that the disciples literally drank human blood? Or do you deny the passage?

I hope this exercise helps you understand a bit more (I'm crossing my fingers you don't walk away thinking the disciples drank human blood).

 

The reason I am stating that you misrepresented my view is that I affirmed that I agreed with the passage and that Christ "was made sin" as related in the verse. I denied, however, that this means He was literally made "an immoral act" (i.e., sin). The reason is "made sin" does not take on the "literal" definition of "made an immoral act" or "made evil".

It is referring to the Atonement. I know you hypothesis of the Greek word that you argued before and it is wrong. That defense (granted, you may have abandoned it for another) was based on the Greek word dictating the meaning of the verse rather than the context of the passage. (This is one reason I do not recommend word studies for Christians who are less than adequate in handling the scriptures).

The problem is that you were falsely accusing me of not believing the passage because I took a more orthodox view of God than a "literal interpretation" would allow. That is how I can affirm that "Christ was made sin" while still denying that "Christ was made an immoral act".

You have to let Scripture interpret Scripture and when you do I think that you will find that "made sin" refers to the Cross and our redemption.

The reason you are dishonest is apparent in your refusal to answer my simple question - do you believe that the disciples drank human blood? Of course you don't. But if you answer "no" then you prove your claims a lie. If you answer "yes" then you are a heretic. That is simply the game you play.

 

Thread will close soon due to length.

 

This thread is closed.