Atonement (what is written)

[JonC]

This is an absolute denial of the Gospel.

Yet it is not a denial of God's words.

What you call "the gospel" is not the gospel of Jesus Christ (the gospel that one can read in the Bible) but instead a your own philosophy ("another gospel").

We can know this several ways.

1. One is by your favorite, logic. If a Jew sinned by eating pork God cpuld not punish "eating pork". He could punish the sinner.

If you sin by stealing money God cannot punish "stealing money". God could punish you.

2. But the other is by Scripture, my favorite. God punishes the wicked.


Sin itself cannot be punished. Punishment is towards people because of sin.

You have been carried away by carnal philosophy.


"Instead of" is NOT the natural meaning of "bearing". You .ade this up to suit your theory.

We bear one another's sorrows. This is NOT "instead of". We will bear Christ's righteousness (not "instead of"). We bear one anothers burdens.

IN FACT - Nobody views "bearing" something to br "instead of" another EXCEPT the PSA cult when it comes to Jesus bearing sins.

The "natural meaning" of the word is not "instead of". The verse is saying Jesus bears our sins.

 

[JonC]

You don't give God the room to be God.

God tells us what is good and what is evil.

You say my belief that God will not be unrighteous is me not allowing God to be wicked. That is foolishness.

Righteousness is not a set of rules God follows. Righteousness is descriptive of God.


We know Muslims worship a different god because their description of God's nature is different from God's words.

A god that does not meet the standard of righteousness defined by God is not the God of the Bible.

Your view of God (one who is unrighteous and unjust based on His own standards) is not descriptive the God of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

To clarify - one cannot say "He bore our sins" means "substitution" because of the text (the language demands such a meaning) yet deny "bear one another's sorrow" means "substitution".

@Aaron (and @Anthony Pritchard ) are deriving their understanding from their philosophy, NOT the actual text.

They conclude Jesus bearing sin has to be "instead of us" because their philosophy demands it.

 

[37818]

The "natural meaning" of the word is not "instead of". The verse is saying Jesus bears our sins.

There is an "instead of" passage. MLV, Mark 10:45, For* the Son of Man also came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life[soul] as a redemption in exchange-for many.
That being, the "in exchange- for," reading. Creek αντι

Also Matthew 20;28.