You are not doing so with mine. You have accused me of misrepresenting you when all I have done is put your words back to you. You have agreed me when I wrote:
And yet now you say Christ was not made sin.....or do you? I don't know and I wonder if you do yourself.
But if you believe that He was made a 'sin offering' you are quite wrong as I shall show you in a new thread in due course. The text says that He was made 'sin.' You have to deal with that and handle the text honestly.
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.
