Christ made Sin?

[The Archangel]

I think we can cut to the chase, there is no basic word meaning difference from 2 person singular and 3 person singular. The difference relates to "you treated" (2 Person Singular) and He treated (3 Person Singular.)

But there is a difference with the double accusative, which is present in 2 Corinthians 5:21, but not the Luke passage. And, one instance our of 568 occurrences of a word does not lend itself to favor your position.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

I already addressed the something treated as something requirement of the double acc.
Greek grammar never requires false doctrine.

 

[Van]

I don't see how "treated" can fall within the range of word meaning. It is, IMHO, systematically derived and (if that were a proof text) read into the verse ( e.g., the people or God could have treated Christ as if He were sinful).

I found Luke 2:48 where the NASB and nine other versions translate the word as treated. So I do not think I am guilty of ends driven translation. I looked at how the word was used, and the lexicon meaning, and saw appointed and dealt with, so I hit upon treated. Then I found treated widely used for the word. (10 versions).

Now their may be a valid reason why treated cannot be the meaning in 2 Cor. 5:21, but so far no one in my opinion has made a viable argument.

 

[The Archangel]

I already addressed the something treated as something requirement of the double acc. Greek grammar never requires false doctrine.

That's funny. It is a logical fallacy to claim what you've claimed here. Actually you didn't address this. Never the less, I'm not sure you understand what the double accusative does, especially when the word ἐποίησεν is concerned.

I found Luke 2:48 where the NASB and nine other versions translate the word as treated. So I do not think I am guilty of ends driven translation. I looked at how the word was used, and the lexicon meaning, and saw appointed and dealt with, so I hit upon treated. Then I found treated widely used for the word. (10 versions).

Now their may be a valid reason why treated cannot be the meaning in 2 Cor. 5:21, but so far no one in my opinion has made a viable argument.

The NASB and nine other translations may translate Luke 2:48 as "treated," but they likely don't translate 2 Corinthians 5:21 as "treated." Just because one context allows it, doesn't mean all contexts do.

On your current line of reasoning, you will never be right about this.

The Archangel

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 9:20 PM Pacific.