The Righteousness Of God

[Athanasius]

Our Lord and his Apostles declared the ruling religious authority to be wrong.

They weren't declared to be wrong about everything, no. They weren't even declared to be wrong about the totality of their religious and theological beliefs. They were declared to be hypocrites, and lacking love, etc., but that's something different to the concern at hand.

The fact is, to claim that theologians or theologians who write commentaries (except for theologians like Paul) are all, entirely, wrong, isn't responsible. Have you spoken with every theologian? Have you read every commentary? Of course not. And, I suppose the only way to support your claim is to argue something like:

- I've heard from God
- This is what God told me X, Y, Z means
- Therefore, everyone who doesn't agree with me doesn't agree with God and is therefore wrong

I don't dispute that this is entirely reasonable, should it actually be the case that someone hears from God about X, Y, Z. However, it then becomes the responsibility of the person claiming to have heard from God - or to be following the 'Spirit of God' - to demonstrate this claim, while the rest of God's people rigorously examine it.

The theology you're presenting here, which you claim follows from following the 'Spirit of God' (I would be careful about such claims, myself) isn't systematic, nor is it internally consistent. At least, you haven't demonstrated as much.

And it is, without a doubt, an inexcusable fallacy to suggest that because 'Our Lord and His Apostles declared the ruling religious authority to be wrong' this must therefore mean that all religious authorities are wrong, or even trend towards a place of hypocrisy, a lack of love, and so on.

Paul was first schooled by Gamaliel, which is comparable to being taught in a prestigious Bible college. By that knowledge, Paul went about with the intent of killing the followers of Jesus.

If I were you, I would have realised that the claim "theologians haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly" is irresponsible, as it includes people like Paul in it. But no, Paul isn't a problem and he is a problem; ah, the theology of man vs. the theology of God! That's how you want to draw the distinction, right? But then we end up right back where we started: there are theologians who have understood the Spirit-inspired scriptures correctly and you're being irresponsible with your claims.

Then ignore what God said and what Jesus did according to what his Father said.

[journeyman]

With all due respect, I think you're making a mistake here. We do indeed pay a penalty for our sin, and we all therefore die. Jesus doesn't take away that penalty, and does not die to remove our own need to die.

What Jesus did was remove the *eternal penalty* associated with sin, which is eternal death. We do not have to experience that, and neither does Jesus have to  experience eternal death for us.

So you're confusing Jesus eternal atonement with temporary punishments. Jesus suffered a temporal death for our eternal justification. We could not obtain eternal justification on our own, since our own record of sin prohibits us from doing so. Jesus had to do it *for us!*

I just showed you from scripture that one man cannot bare the sins of another man. Each reaps what he sows. That's the righteousness of God.  Since we know Jesus "bore our sins", something is wrong with mainstream Christianitys understanding of how Jesus bore our sins and that's what I'm showing you.

He bore our sins by having them inflicted on himself by mankind. He could not bare sin the way you're suggesting. Scripture doesn't allow it.

[journeyman]

So what was "destroyed" that resulted in God being appeased, so believers will not be destroyed for their sin, when they choose to believe in Jesus?

I said "instead of" destruction. God was appeased by the conduct of his Son, loving people who hated him.

[journeyman]

They weren't declared to be wrong about everything,

I never said they were. I said with respect to this issue. And you've made it clear you have no desire to rigorously examine what Ezekiel said.

[Athanasius]

I never said they were. I said with respect to this issue.

The magic of consistency:

- "I'm following what the Spirit of God says, not what theologians say."
- "Concerning this issue, theologians haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly. Understanding comes from God."
- "That's what the Pharisees thought and it's a mistake to think it couldn't happen again." (In response to my stating that "it's utter nonsense to suggest that 'theologians' as a group 'haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly").
- "Our Lord and his Apostles declared the ruling religious authority to be wrong."

At which point I wrote, "They weren't declared to be wrong about everything...".

But clearly, within the context of this discussion, you are indeed saying that theologians (wait, 'professional' theologians? or theologians who write commentaries?), just like the ruling religious authority in the 1st century, are wrong... about everything. What gets you there is this statement:

"That's what the Pharisees thought and it's a mistake to think it couldn't happen again." You can claim that you haven't explicitly "said they were", but in practice, that's how you construct your replies. You make a claim, I say it's irresponsible or ridiculous, and then you compare that claim to the religious authority of Jesus' day -- it could happen again!

Well, of course, it could, but yes, because "this issue" is that of the whole of theology, rather than some particular view of Ezekiel, unless you want to suggest that theologians are schizophrenic and seemingly able to follow the 'Spirit of God' everywhere except where your theology comes into conflict with accepted teaching.

Which, by the way, is no guarantee that a particular teaching is correct. Refer, for example, to my issues with Augustine's doctrinal formulation of original sin. Except there, unlike here, you'll find a Scripturally sound defence.

And you've made it clear you have no desire to rigorously examine what Ezekiel said.

Why are you assuming I haven't rigorously examined what Ezekiel said? You quoted a couple of verses out of context, made an assertion ("This is the righteousness of God and the gospel of our Savior Jesus Christ.") then invited us to ignore you at our own peril.

Well, there's nothing there to examine as presented. What you're doing is demanding that we agree with you because you claim to be following 'the Spirit of God' and all the theologians are wrong. Okay, good luck with that. Just remember that tin hats amplify radio signals, rather than block them.

[RandyPNW]

With all due respect, I think you're making a mistake here. We do indeed pay a penalty for our sin, and we all therefore die. Jesus doesn't take away that penalty, and does not die to remove our own need to die.

What Jesus did was remove the *eternal penalty* associated with sin, which is eternal death. We do not have to experience that, and neither does Jesus have to  experience eternal death for us.

So you're confusing Jesus eternal atonement with temporary punishments. Jesus suffered a temporal death for our eternal justification. We could not obtain eternal justification on our own, since our own record of sin prohibits us from doing so. Jesus had to do it *for us!*

I just showed you from scripture that one man cannot bare the sins of another man. Each reaps what he sows. That's the righteousness of God.  Since we know Jesus "bore our sins", something is wrong with mainstream Christianitys understanding of how Jesus bore our sins and that's what I'm showing you.

He bore our sins by having them inflicted on himself by mankind. He could not bare sin the way you're suggesting. Scripture doesn't allow it.

It doesn't seem you understand my argument, and this may explain why you take such a non-orthodox approach. Number one, I'm *not* saying that Jesus bore the punishment of other men the way you are describing it. He did not suffer *from his own sin!* And so, neither did he suffer as if he was a sinner.

Rather, he suffered *what he did not deserve,* since he was *not* a sinner! He came down and unavoidably suffered from sinners because he was God entering into a world of sinners. Sinners hate and oppose God!

So Jesus suffered from sinful men what happens to a godly man when he enters into a world of sinners. As such, he suffered what sinners deserve, and not what an innocent man deserves!

That being said, look at the orthodox language as it really means to describe it--not as you think I'm describing it. Jesus suffered the punishment that sinful men deserve, and not what he deserved.

And he did this so that he could bring God's righteousness to those who did not deserve it. To do this he suffered from sinful men what sinful men inflict upon God.

Isa 53.3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. 4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.

Clearly, you are right that Jesus was not actually being "punished by God"--he was only considered as such by those who did not understand that he was a righteous man come to experience these things in order to bring his eternal righteousness and justification to us.

[journeyman]

The magic of consistency:

- "I'm following what the Spirit of God says, not what theologians say."
- "Concerning this issue, theologians haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly. Understanding comes from God."
- "That's what the Pharisees thought and it's a mistake to think it couldn't happen again." (In response to my stating that "it's utter nonsense to suggest that 'theologians' as a group 'haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly").
- "Our Lord and his Apostles declared the ruling religious authority to be wrong."

At which point I wrote, "They weren't declared to be wrong about everything...".

But clearly, within the context of this discussion, you are indeed saying that theologians (wait, 'professional' theologians? or theologians who write commentaries?), just like the ruling religious authority in the 1st century, are wrong... about everything. What gets you there is this statement:

"That's what the Pharisees thought and it's a mistake to think it couldn't happen again." You can claim that you haven't explicitly "said they were", but in practice, that's how you construct your replies. You make a claim, I say it's irresponsible or ridiculous, and then you compare that claim to the religious authority of Jesus' day -- it could happen again!

Well, of course, it could, but yes, because "this issue" is that of the whole of theology, rather than some particular view of Ezekiel, unless you want to suggest that theologians are schizophrenic and seemingly able to follow the 'Spirit of God' everywhere except where your theology comes into conflict with accepted teaching.

Which, by the way, is no guarantee that a particular teaching is correct. Refer, for example, to my issues with Augustine's doctrinal formulation of original sin. Except there, unlike here, you'll find a Scripturally sound defence.

Why are you assuming I haven't rigorously examined what Ezekiel said? You quoted a couple of verses out of context, made an assertion ("This is the righteousness of God and the gospel of our Savior Jesus Christ.") then invited us to ignore you at our own peril.

Well, there's nothing there to examine as presented. What you're doing is demanding that we agree with you because you claim to be following 'the Spirit of God' and all the theologians are wrong. Okay, good luck with that. Just remember that tin hats amplify radio signals, rather than block them.
[/quote]I didn't quote Ezekiel out of context. I wanted you to look at what he said and look at what our Savior did. They match perfectly. You said, "I'm not interested in those claims."

And while I do want people to consider what I'm saying, I'm nobody to demand anything of anyone.

[journeyman]

It doesn't seem you understand my argument, and this may explain why you take such a non-orthodox approach. Number one, I'm *not* saying that Jesus bore the punishment of other men the way you are describing it. He did not suffer *from his own sin!* And so, neither did he suffer as if he was a sinner.

Rather, he suffered *what he did not deserve,* since he was *not* a sinner! He came down and unavoidably suffered from sinners because he was God entering into a world of sinners. Sinners hate and oppose God!

So Jesus suffered from sinful men what happens to a godly man when he enters into a world of sinners. As such, he suffered what sinners deserve, and not what an innocent man deserves!

That being said, look at the orthodox language as it really means to describe it--not as you think I'm describing it. Jesus suffered the punishment that sinful men deserve, and not what he deserved.

And he did this so that he could bring God's righteousness to those who did not deserve it. To do this he suffered from sinful men what sinful men inflict upon God.

Isa 53.3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. 4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.

Clearly, you are right that Jesus was not actually being "punished by God"--he was only considered as such by those who did not understand that he was a righteous man come to experience these things in order to bring his eternal righteousness and justification to us.

I pretty much agree with what you've said here, except that Jesus didn't need to suffer on earth what he long suffered from heaven before that.

[Athanasius]

I didn't quote Ezekiel out of context. I wanted you to look at what he said and look at what our Savior did. They match perfectly. You said, "I'm not interested in those claims."

And while I do want people to consider what I'm saying, I'm nobody to demand anything of anyone.

Heh, I didn't say I wasn't interested in Ezekiel, but in your claims outside of the particular claim that did interest me, which was the conspiratorial view of theologians.