Our Lord Jesus Was Made A Curse?

[Slug1]

Sinners are brought into communion with God by the mercy Jesus showed them. God didn't pour his wrath out on his Son. Mankind did and Jesus patiently endured the abuse, instead of dropping the hammer.

Do you understand that there are no Catechisms, Statements of Faith, or any of the early church Fathers writings that agree with your view ? This should concern you. Also, when you hold this view you would also need to hold the view that there is no literal hell. Why ? God's wrath ( which is real by the way ) is nowhere in your doctrines, even though it is very, very clear in the scriptures.

If Jesus didn't suffer God's wrath ( no mans ) then He is not just. If it was mans wrath poured out an Christ and not God's, then Christ needed not come at all. This doctrine is a house of cards that doesn't line up with any scripture. It puts man in control of his own destiny and makes us judge. jury and executioner- not God. It also makes grace of no effect because the only one who can offer grace is the one put His own judgment on another.

I mentioned in an earlier post of mine that when one really views Journeyman's theology, it is a "works" based theology.

[Pbminimum]

Sinners are brought into communion with God by the mercy Jesus showed them. God didn't pour his wrath out on his Son. Mankind did and Jesus patiently endured the abuse, instead of dropping the hammer.

Do you understand that there are no Catechisms, Statements of Faith, or any of the early church Fathers writings that agree with your view ? This should concern you. Also, when you hold this view you would also need to hold the view that there is no literal hell. Why ? God's wrath ( which is real by the way ) is nowhere in your doctrines, even though it is very, very clear in the scriptures.

If Jesus didn't suffer God's wrath ( no mans ) then He is not just. If it was mans wrath poured out an Christ and not God's, then Christ needed not come at all. This doctrine is a house of cards that doesn't line up with any scripture. It puts man in control of his own destiny and makes us judge. jury and executioner- not God. It also makes grace of no effect because the only one who can offer grace is the one put His own judgment on another.

I mentioned in an earlier post of mine that when one really views Journeyman's theology, it is a "works" based theology.

It's exactly that. This is where humanism ultimately arrives at.

How many scriptures are in complete opposition to this view ? Christ had to suffer the full penalty of the law before the Old Covenant could be done away with and the new could be ushered in.  For example, under the Old Covenant, why was there ever a need for sacrifice at all ? Because sin brings God's judgment and God's judgment brings death. It satisfied Gods wrath. Galatians 3 and basically the entire book of Hebrews tells us very plainly that only Christ could satisfy the judgment of God. How ? He was judged.

Did it, or did it not please the Father to crush the Son. After all, scripture couldn't be clearer that it did. And if it did, why did it ? Do we honestly believe that Christ, our Champion of heaven, Creator of the Universe, The Almighty God, dreaded the scorn and punishment of men when he was stressed in the Garden to the point of sweating blood ? Surely not. He was humanity was suffering only because He knew for the first time in eternity that He would be separated from His Father, and that He would become sin and the propitiation for it.  Food for thought.

[Slug1]

It's exactly that. This is where humanism ultimately arrives at.

How many scriptures are in complete opposition to this view ? Christ had to suffer the full penalty of the law before the Old Covenant could be done away with and the new could be ushered in.  For example, under the Old Covenant, why was there ever a need for sacrifice at all ? Because sin brings God's judgment and God's judgment brings death. It satisfied Gods wrath. Galatians 3 and basically the entire book of Hebrews tells us very plainly that only Christ could satisfy the judgment of God. How ? He was judged.

Did it, or did it not please the Father to crush the Son. After all, scripture couldn't be clearer that it did. And if it did, why did it ? Do we honestly believe that Christ, our Champion of heaven, Creator of the Universe, The Almighty God, dreaded the scorn and punishment of men when he was stressed in the Garden to the point of sweating blood ? Surely not. He was humanity was suffering only because He knew for the first time in eternity that He would be separated from His Father, and that He would become sin and the propitiation for it.  Food for thought.

I also raised the garden and in his response, all I received was a twisted version of what the verses are saying. Again, this amounts to resisting the truth of the scriptures.


In a nut shell, this is what I can conclude of Journeyman's theology. God the Son came to earth as a man, Jesus, who allowed man to express "their" wrath against Him but as they were killing Him, He expressed mercy and thus, mankind can now be reconciled with God.

[Pbminimum]

It's exactly that. This is where humanism ultimately arrives at.

How many scriptures are in complete opposition to this view ? Christ had to suffer the full penalty of the law before the Old Covenant could be done away with and the new could be ushered in.  For example, under the Old Covenant, why was there ever a need for sacrifice at all ? Because sin brings God's judgment and God's judgment brings death. It satisfied Gods wrath. Galatians 3 and basically the entire book of Hebrews tells us very plainly that only Christ could satisfy the judgment of God. How ? He was judged.

Did it, or did it not please the Father to crush the Son. After all, scripture couldn't be clearer that it did. And if it did, why did it ? Do we honestly believe that Christ, our Champion of heaven, Creator of the Universe, The Almighty God, dreaded the scorn and punishment of men when he was stressed in the Garden to the point of sweating blood ? Surely not. He was humanity was suffering only because He knew for the first time in eternity that He would be separated from His Father, and that He would become sin and the propitiation for it.  Food for thought.

I also raised the garden and in his response, all I received was a twisted version of what the verses are saying. Again, this amounts to resisting the truth of the scriptures.


In a nut shell, this is what I can conclude of Journeyman's theology. God the Son came to earth as a man, Jesus, who allowed man to express "their" wrath against Him but as they were killing Him, He expressed mercy and thus, mankind can now be reconciled with God.

Yeah. That's unfortunate. That theology just takes you around the block and you still end up with mankind's sin and the consequences of it being dismissed instead of being conquered.

[Pbminimum]

It's exactly that. This is where humanism ultimately arrives at.

How many scriptures are in complete opposition to this view ? Christ had to suffer the full penalty of the law before the Old Covenant could be done away with and the new could be ushered in.  For example, under the Old Covenant, why was there ever a need for sacrifice at all ? Because sin brings God's judgment and God's judgment brings death. It satisfied Gods wrath. Galatians 3 and basically the entire book of Hebrews tells us very plainly that only Christ could satisfy the judgment of God. How ? He was judged.

Did it, or did it not please the Father to crush the Son. After all, scripture couldn't be clearer that it did. And if it did, why did it ? Do we honestly believe that Christ, our Champion of heaven, Creator of the Universe, The Almighty God, dreaded the scorn and punishment of men when he was stressed in the Garden to the point of sweating blood ? Surely not. He was humanity was suffering only because He knew for the first time in eternity that He would be separated from His Father, and that He would become sin and the propitiation for it.  Food for thought.

I also raised the garden and in his response, all I received was a twisted version of what the verses are saying. Again, this amounts to resisting the truth of the scriptures.


In a nut shell, this is what I can conclude of Journeyman's theology. God the Son came to earth as a man, Jesus, who allowed man to express "their" wrath against Him but as they were killing Him, He expressed mercy and thus, mankind can now be reconciled with God.

Yeah. That's unfortunate. That theology just takes you around the block and you still end up with mankind's sin and the consequences of it being dismissed instead of being conquered.

I'd also add what I've heard someone preach about concerning this topic. Are we to believe that the champion of our faith were to have done nothing more significant than what many of the martyr's throughout the past couple of thousand years have done ?  After all many have suffered persecution at the hands of this world. None of which can compare to the wrath of God.

[journeyman]

Let's stick to the context of the quote:

"I'm sure the people who wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress felt as you do, until they met Jesus."
Implication: like the people who "wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress" I have not met Jesus.

Otherwise, you're making statements in the view expressed above, not implying it.

Point is, the people who wanted to kill the adulteress wisely changed their minds after reflecting on their own lives. Their encounter with our Lord made them aware of their own wrongdoing.

This is what you're saying elsewhere, not what you said in my quote:

"The support for my view is my own life. I don't need to look any farther than that and neither does anyone who is honest about his own life."

But anyway, what exactly do you think was done to the Son of God that was sinful? There were certainly sinful things done to Jesus, but if you mean the crucifixion then you are at odds with the whole of Christian teaching.

Putting an innocent man to death is sin. I've already cited the scriptures and they were ignored.

You quoted that portion of Scripture to defend your view that self-contempt is commended in Scripture. So, Jesus said to hate one's family, but that actually means sharing the Gospel with them, because God doesn't love everything about people, and so, the Christian is justified in her self-contempt?

Care to connect the dots for me?

Think about your own life in relation to what our Savior taught.

Do you mind explaining what you mean?

I mean, the Father was pleased by how his Son patiently endured sinful treatment, yet continued loving those who abused him,

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied Isa.53:11

Because the Son is exactly as his Father.

[journeyman]

This statement only serves to reveal your resistance to the truth about, "propitiation." Ro 3, Heb 2, 1 John 2 and 4.

when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. 1Pet.2:20

This is what our Lord did. God was pleased to turn his wrath away. That is propitiation.

[Athanasius]

Point is, the people who wanted to kill the adulteress wisely changed their minds after reflecting on their own lives. Their encounter with our Lord made them aware of their own wrongdoing.

Mhmm.

Putting an innocent man to death is sin. I've already cited the scriptures and they were ignored.

Something something what was meant for evil God used for good something something God's plan something something.

Think about your own life in relation to what our Savior taught.

Oh damn, I've never tried that before.

I mean, the Father was pleased by how his Son patiently endured sinful treatment, yet continued loving those who abused him,

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied Isa.53:11

Because the Son is exactly as his Father.

Oh sorry, I had asked you to clarify what you meant by:

"God didn't punish his Son. Mankind did. Because mankind viewed Jesus as sinful. God never saw his Son as sin."

Why you think mankind was in a position to punish the Son, which implies justice not injustice, so an act that isn't sin, but that you consider to be sin, etc. etc. etc.

Not that we'll get anywhere.

[journeyman]

God's wrath ( which is real by the way ) is nowhere in your doctrines, even though it is very, very clear in the scriptures.

It's clear from scripture the wrath of God was not poured out on his obedient Son,

the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: Col.3:6

because the only one who can offer grace is the one put His own judgment on another.

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 2Pet.2:9

[Slug1]

when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. 1Pet.2:20

This verse only serves as "verse isolation" with no context. The words of the "half" verse you posted, has nothing to do with a context of Christ on the Cross as a sin sacrifice.

This is what our Lord did. God was pleased to turn his wrath away. That is propitiation.

This comment only continues to serve as confirmation that you do not understand what propitiation is about.


Did you view the scriptures I listed, of which will help in understanding propitiation?


Key elements of propitiation are 1) God will execute wrath against sin and 2) On whom this wrath is executed, others who sin can be reconciled with God, THROUGH the one who appeased God by receiving ALL God wrath against sin.

[Pbminimum]

God's wrath ( which is real by the way ) is nowhere in your doctrines, even though it is very, very clear in the scriptures.

It's clear from scripture the wrath of God was not poured out on his obedient Son,

the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: Col.3:6

because the only one who can offer grace is the one put His own judgment on another.

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 2Pet.2:9

So how do you explain Isaiah  53:10 ? " Yes it pleased the Lord to bruise Him, He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand."

The Father absolutely was in control and fully delivered the justice and consequence of sin upon Christ, not only on the cross physically, but also spiritual separation. Christ became sin -  2 Cor, 5:21 " God made Him who had no sin TO BE SIN for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God."

It's called the doctrine of substitution. We basically received the righteousness of Christ and the sonship that was due to Him, and He bore our shame and punishment from the FATHER, not men.

There's no biblical stance you can take to back your stance.

[journeyman]

This verse only serves as "verse isolation" with no context. The words of the "half" verse you posted, has nothing to do with a context of Christ on the Cross as a sin sacrifice.

because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 1Pet.2:21

Peter is teaching how Jesus suffered for doing what is right and how pleased God is when believers suffer for doing what's right, following in Jesus's footsteps. That's the context of the passage.

This is what our Lord did. God was pleased to turn his wrath away. That is propitiation.

This comment only continues to serve as confirmation that you do not understand what propitiation is about.

Did you view the scriptures I listed, of which will help in understanding propitiation?

Key elements of propitiation are 1) God will execute wrath against sin and 2) On whom this wrath is executed, others who sin can be reconciled with God, THROUGH the one who appeased God by receiving ALL God wrath against sin.

I've read the passages you cited many times and have even cited a couple of them in this thread, but you didn't comment on them. As for your key elements of propitiation, God's wrath poured out on people who displeased him,

hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: Rev.6:16

Because Jesus is God.

[journeyman]

So how do you explain Isaiah  53:10 ? " Yes it pleased the Lord to bruise Him, He has put Him to grief.

I explain Christ's bruising this way,

My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him, for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Heb.12:5-6

And the Messiah didn't exempt himself from correction, even though he didn't need correction,

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb.5:8

The Son didn't need to learn the longsuffering of his Father, but we do and for this reason, Jesus subjected himself to it.

The Father absolutely was in control and fully delivered the justice and consequence of sin upon Christ, not only on the cross physically, but also spiritual separation. Christ became sin -  2 Cor, 5:21 " God made Him who had no sin TO BE SIN for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God."

The consequence of sin is the death of the one who commits sin. The only ones who viewed Christ as sin were those who falsely accused him.

Believers are conformed to Christ's image, because he's the express image of God, who patiently endures the sins mankind commits against him.

It's called the doctrine of substitution. We basically received the righteousness of Christ and the sonship that was due to Him, and He bore our shame and punishment from the FATHER, not men.

There's no biblical stance you can take to back your stance.
[/quote]

[journeyman]

So how do you explain Isaiah  53:10 ? " Yes it pleased the Lord to bruise Him, He has put Him to grief.

I explain Christ's bruising this way,

My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him, for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Heb.12:5-6

And the Messiah didn't exempt himself from correction, even though he didn't need correction,

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb.5:8

The Son didn't need to learn the longsuffering of his Father, but we do and for this reason, Jesus subjected himself to it.

The Father absolutely was in control and fully delivered the justice and consequence of sin upon Christ, not only on the cross physically, but also spiritual separation. Christ became sin -  2 Cor, 5:21 " God made Him who had no sin TO BE SIN for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God."

The consequence of sin is the death of the one who commits sin. The only ones who viewed Christ as sin were those who falsely accused him.

Believers are conformed to Christ's image, because he's the express image of God, who patiently endures the sins mankind commits against him.

It's called the doctrine of substitution. We basically received the righteousness of Christ and the sonship that was due to Him, and He bore our shame and punishment from the FATHER, not men.

There's no biblical stance you can take to back your stance.

I know what it's called and I just showed you if believers won't receive correction, they won't receive sonship. Look at the passages I cited.

[Slug1]

because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 1Pet.2:21

Peter is teaching how Jesus suffered for doing what is right and how pleased God is when believers suffer for doing what's right, following in Jesus's footsteps. That's the context of the passage.

While I can understand what you just said, it does not relate to how the persecution that man inflicts against, Jesus... will save the sinner.

The only conclusion possible to settle on, based on all you say (your interpretation/theology), is that what man did to Jesus, is the required punishment (killing of Jesus) to appease God, so that sinners can be saved.

Thus, this is a works based theology at the core.

You are only focused on "persecution" of Christ by man. You are resisting the element of "wrath" requirement dealing with propitiation. Mans persecution (man can't execute wrath), man's love, man's worship, etc... can't and never can, appease God. He will punish sin if sin is found in a person who is before Him.

God's wrath however DID execute a final punishment against sin... against His Son (became like sin), this action by God is all that can appease Him... so that man can be reconciled with Him.

God's wrath against sin, Jesus in that moment of hanging on the Cross.

I'll get to your other part once if we can get past this part.