Penal Substitution and the Trinity

[JonC]

God, in order to remaun faithful to his holiness/wrath/love/justice, to Himself, had to treat and view Jesus on the Cross as being Sin Bearer, as being as it were very sin....

That is actually a false statement. But I understand that it is your theory. Work through this illustration with me:

Suppose you punch me in the nose.
Who do I have to punch in order to forgive you? A family member? Myself?

Your tradition makes assumptions about justice, Yeshua1. Maybe they are right. But maybe they are wrong. All we can say is that they are not actually in Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Is that a threat?

The Archangel

No, silly. It's one of Aesop's Fables.

Library of Congress Aesop Fables

A more contemporary one would be a short story by Pedro Sacristan called "The Wicked Prince". It's a story of a king whose son was a dishonest telltale.

 

[TCassidy]

Most of the quotes in the NT come from the LXX.

Actually none of them are word for word from the LXX. It is more likely they are translated on the fly from the Hebrew Vorlage Text.

 

[JonC]

Actually none of them are word for word from the LXX. It is more likely they are translated on the fly from the Hebrew Vorlage Text.

Or translated on the fly from the LXX.

 

[TCassidy]

Or translated on the fly from the LXX.

How do you translate from Greek into Greek?

 

[JonC]

How do you translate from Greek into Greek?

Reading a few posts around here I find myself translate English into English all the time. Kinda like that.

(Really, I was relying on something I read of Gordon Fee in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Obviously I have not given it much thought beyond that).

My point is that my position agrees with both the LXX and the Hebrew text. So whether or not the LXX is wrong does not really concern me (insofar as my position goes) as it was not involved in determining my interpretation of the text.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is actually a false statement. But I understand that it is your theory. Work through this illustration with me:

Suppose you punch me in the nose.
Who do I have to punch in order to forgive you? A family member? Myself?

Your tradition makes assumptions about justice, Yeshua1. Maybe they are right. But maybe they are wrong. All we can say is that they are not actually in Scripture.

How about any one who breaks one of the Commandments of God deserves to die and go to Hell, but Jesus was willing to die in my stead, and take the very same punish while of the Cross the Judge decided I must to pay for my crime?

 

[JonC]

How about any one who breaks one of the Commandments of God deserves to die and go to Hell, but Jesus was willing to die in my stead, and take the very same punish while of the Cross the Judge decided I must to pay for my crime?

No, that verse doesn't really work either. You see, God effects repentance and God forgives the repentant. And the "second death" is a Christ-centered judgment.

 

[JonC]

How about any one who breaks one of the Commandments of God deserves to die and go to Hell, but Jesus was willing to die in my stead, and take the very same punish while of the Cross the Judge decided I must to pay for my crime?

Jesus did suffer death so that we might live. Insofar as your crime, if you repent God is faithful to forgive.

 

[TCassidy]

My point is that my position agrees with both the LXX and the Hebrew text.

Actually, it doesn't. There is NO, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, instance of an exact word for word quote of the LXX in the Greek New Testament.

 

[The Archangel]

JonC keeps on claiming that on this issue, you and me and Martin are trusting in traditions of men over the scriptures for our understanding, but is he not doing here the very same thing he claims that we are? his presumptions on wrath of God and Jesus not having to face that wrath is coloring his understanding here?

Yep.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Actually, it doesn't. There is NO, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, instance of an exact word for word quote of the LXX in the Greek New Testament.

That's not what I mean. I mean that my position can be reconciled with both the LXX and the Hebrew text. So it doesn't matter to my position which we use.

 

[The Archangel]

That's not what I mean. I mean that my position can be reconciled with both the LXX and the Hebrew text. So it doesn't matter to my position which we use.

It can be reconciled with the Hebrew text only if you change the Hebrew text.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

It can be reconciled with the Hebrew text only if you change the Hebrew text.

The Archangel

You are mistaking. What you mean to say is that it cannot be reconciled to your satisfaction.

Isaiah 53:10
10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

God loved the world by giving His Son. This was God's will. As Peter noted - it was the predetermined plan of God. The Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief.

Not "the Lord was giddy about pouring His wrath upon Him, nailing Him to the Cross". We affirm the same verses. The difference is that you are reading that God's "crushing" Him, putting Him to grief means God pouring out His wrath for our sins on Him rather than simply God offering Him as a guilt offering.

 

[The Archangel]

You are mistaking. What you mean to say is that it cannot be reconciled to your satisfaction.

How dare you tell me what I mean to say?!

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

How dare you tell me what I mean to say?!

The Archangel

Easy. "You mean to say" is an expression of correction (usually to common falicies).

You said it cannot be reconciled with the Hebrew text (an obvious error as it has been reconciled many times over). An accurate statement is that it cannot be reconciled to your satisfaction.

And the term is more polite than how I learned in grade school. I had one teacher that would make you stand with your back to the wall holding a dictionary parallel with the ground for such errors. Another would look you in the eye and say "are you stupid", and then explain the error. I doubt either'd fly today.

 

[The Archangel]

Easy. "You mean to say" is an expression of correction (usually to common falicies).

You said it cannot be reconciled with the Hebrew text (an obvious error as it has been reconciled many times over). An accurate statement is that it cannot be reconciled to your satisfaction.

No. I did not stutter. I meant to say what I said.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

No. I did not stutter. I meant to say what I said.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's fine. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[TCassidy]

It can be reconciled with the Hebrew text only if you change the Hebrew text.

The Archangel

That's my point. The Vorlage text reads quite differently than the Masoretic Text. (IE it is changed.)

The oldest complete copy of the LXX dates to 240 AD so it is difficult to use it to prove a position is "biblical."

 

[TCassidy]

As this thread is, once again, going off the rails, I am closing it.

Enough is enough!