Featured I know this horse is dead as dead can be....

Jon, knock it off. You have no clue what I got wrong, which is why you are so vague in your comment.
At this point shall I conclude you are clueless about covenants?

 

Do you want to tell us all how the ESV translates Matthew 17:24 and Romans 13:6?

 

Pay attention to JonC not offering any scripture, but questioning MM.

 

Pretty sure most of us will side with Martin. He's staying closer to scripture than you have been.

 

MM has offered more scripture...[with understanding] than the two of you combined.
If either of you two "shut me down"...it will be a first.
Maybe when you mature, and move from the milk, to the meat of the word, pray and study, try and understand the verses, then you can move from your carnal philosophy to actually begin to understand. I mean the best for you two, and am pulling for you to get it.

 

Stop it. Your understanding is not mature. The condescension of your posts is nearly unbearable, Jon. You have lost this debate and now you are being a jerk.

 

Warren Wiersbe…

"It is finished!" is one word in the Greek text—tetelestai. The word was a common one and was used by merchants to mean "The price is all paid!" Shepherds and priests used it when they found a perfect sheep, ready for sacrifice; and Christ died as the perfect lamb of God. Servants, when their work was completed, would use this word when reporting to their masters. Christ, the obedient Servant, had finished the work the Father gave Him to do. Christ willingly and deliberately gave up His life; He laid down His life for His friends. (Wiersbe, W. W. Wiersbe's Expository Outlines on the New Testament. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books)


John MacArthur writes that It is Finished…

was a shout of triumph; the proclamation of a victor. The work of redemption that the Father had given Him was accomplished: sin was atoned for (He 9:12-note; He 10:12-note), and Satan was defeated and rendered powerless (He 2:14-note; cf. 1Pe 1:18, 19-note, 1Pe 1:20-note; 1Jn 3:8). Every requirement of God's righteous law had been satisfied; God's holy wrath against sin had been appeased (Ro 3:25-note; He 2:17-note; 1Jn 2:2; 4:10); every prophecy had been fulfilled. Christ's completion of the work of redemption means that nothing needs to be nor can be added to it. Salvation is not a joint effort of God and man, but is entirely a work of God's grace, appropriated solely by faith (Eph. 2:8, 9-note). His mission accomplished, the time had come for Christ to surrender His life. (MacArthur New Testament Commentary – John 12-21)

Andrew Murray;
Perhaps the meaning that Jesus had foremost in His mind when He uttered the word tetelestai was related to its secular use in the context of payment of debts. When someone had a debt in ancient times and it was paid off, they would write "tetelestai" on the certificate signifying "Paid in Full". When He gave Himself on the cross, Jesus fully met the righteous demands of a holy law; He paid our debt in full. None of the Old Testament sacrifices could take away sins. Their blood only covered sin. But the Lamb of God shed His blood, (for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, Heb 9:15-note) and that blood (and only that blood) can take away the sins of the world (Jn 1:29; He 9:24-note, He 9:25, 26-note, He 9:27, 28-note).

 

Some people actually study the words in the verses...they do not just give the empty husk...

 

Nothing wrong with your eyesight or reading comprehension.

 

Again, you offer no Scripture support for this thinking.

Unless you can prove in the Scriptures that such wrath was "imputed" because it was due as judgement to attain justice, then you are just wrong.

Quite possibly you do not know the Scriptures and are merely presenting what you have learned as I did until challenged.

All I ask is that you prove by Scriptures your statements, and then we just might agree, depending if you actually quote the Scriptures without bending them to a scheme.

For example: "My God. Why have you forsaken me?" Does not mean abandon, does not mean God cannot look upon sin, does not mean that God turned away from the Son, or a host of other cute, trite sayings that appeal to the emotional evangelist trying to stir up the people to emotionally appeal to the altar.

"Forsake" means to withhold support, to withdraw nurture and sustaining, ... That which the Lord had even seen by the disciples as the angels would attend to Him. Such was the cup He drank, and martyrs have taken and drunk from that same cup as He said would happen.

You ready to deal in Scriptures or keep parroting others?

 

I have studied, I don't present empty husks. You know this, for often you and I have commented together.

@Martin Marprelate is correct in what He stated concerning the single word pronounced by our Lord as He was exhaling the final breaths. It is recorded as three English words, "It is finished."

"Paid in full" used to be stamped at the bottom of loan contracts. Don't see that much anymore.

Some history of the old Roman war boats presents that above the head of the prisoner sitting at the oar, nailed to the beam, was a paper listing the crime and sentence. When the sentence was complete one word was written. That was the word "Paid in full" and handed as a pass to leave the ship without escort.

However, what is missing is any sign or statement concerning the wrath of God.

If ever there was a place, a place were we see huge scripture prophecy being fulfilled, certainly that would be prominent. But there is not even a hint, not even a single word, no sign, no portrayal.

Study the words? I have.

 

I don't know if this has been worked through, but until the Babylonian conquest, the "soul" was thought by the Hebrews as the body.

The "living soul" as many refer, was part of the Persian and Greek thinking, and is used as "the psyche."

It is unfortunate that some folks on this thread grab at the use of "living soul" and the NT did not use such terms.

One should understand that the original Hebrew usage is what is to be read as one reads Matthew.

Folks who do not keep in mind that Matthew was written to the JEWS to prove the King of Kings was the Lord Jesus Christ will ultimately slip into error at one point or another.

Folks this is so simple, WHY is it even a point of discussion?

 

You do realize that NOT a single person you quoted in this post states that the cost of the "righteous demands of a holy law; He paid our debt in full" states that God poured out His wrath upon the Son in some manner of divine judgement?

If you have read my other posts before this, you would see that I presented EXACTLY the same principles these have. Yet, would you listen?

@Iconoclast.

Look to the Scriptures.

They do not state or even hint at any wrath from God being endured by the Son for us. NOT a single verse.

Now, either the Scriptures are right, or your thinking as presented by the abundant posting you have copied and pasted are correct. By attempting to represent a scheme that is not foundational to the presentation of Scriptures, you are not following a basic principle of the superiority of the Word over the human conjuring.

Which are we going to assume is right?