I want to explore the above claim.
What does this claim try to overcome? Had Jesus suffered God's punishment then God would be unrighteous by His own standard.
But in effect saying that Jesus was not punished for our sins, that what Jesus experienced was God punishing our sins laid on Him, is even more problematic than traditional Penal Substitution Theory. The reason is @Martin Marprelate is trying to explain away what was never the problem (the problem with Penal Substitution Theory is not Jesus being punished, which traditionally os dealt with as God taking upon Himself that punishment).
What is the problem with saying "God did not punish Jesus but ounishedour sins on Him" (other than it is unbiblical)?
1. It demeaning the suffering and death of Jesus
2. It defines salvation as the act of the Father punishing our sins
3. It is illogical
First, @Martin Marprelate makes Jesus' suffering and death meaningless. Jesus suffered and died indirectly, because God was punishing our sins. It also divorces sins from the sinner and makes sins material beings that can be punished.
Second, it presents salvation on the grounds of the Father punishing sins rather than Scripture.
Third, it is a nonsense distinction. A father may punish a child for lying, but he cannot ounish the lie.
I believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is unbiblical. But it is logical within its on philosophy.
This neo-throry @Martin Marprelate has developed is flawed even within its own philosophy.
But this does tell me that @Martin Marprelate recognizes problems with Penal Substitution Theory, otherwise he would not have taken the effort to revise it. The problem is his revision is worse than the original form.