Our Lord Jesus Was Made A Curse?

[Pbminimum]

[And why does it ? Because God's wrath falls on sin and sinners.

That's justice.

Of which Christ became on our behalf.

That's what they said,

Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. Jn.9:24

And since Jesus was lied against and spit on and all the other terrible sins he bore without pouring his wrath out on God haters, the scriptures say,

he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Isa.53:12

So, is man also responsible for us becoming the "righteousness of God" when our places were changed ? No. GOD made Him who knew no sin, to became sin for us, so that we may become the righteousness of God.

God ordained it, God settled the debt, Gods justice was served, and Gods wrath was settled. NOT MANS.  Man had nothing - repeat - NOTHING to do with our justification. Zero.

To imply that he does is a works based gospel. But think what you will. You have been clearly shown the truth.

[journeyman]

So, is man also responsible for us becoming the "righteousness of God" when our places were changed ?

God is responsible for HIMSELF coming to earth.

No. GOD made Him who knew no sin, to became sin for us, so that we may become the righteousness of God.

Yes, I just explained how people counted him a criminal,

And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. Mk.15:27-28

God ordained it, God settled the debt, Gods justice was served, and Gods wrath was settled. NOT MANS.  Man had nothing - repeat - NOTHING to do with our justification. Zero.

To imply that he does is a works based gospel. But think what you will. You have been clearly shown the truth.

I wish you would consider how God teaches us not to persecute the innocent, because breaking that ordination of God in no way serves his justice.

Works based gospel? For crying out loud, I'm the one arguing in favor of God's work alone. He chose to endure the sinful treatment heaped on him. Me? I would have swatted them like bugs. Father, make me more like your Son.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Again, this is relatively simple when one understands Greek noun constructs and basic lexicography.

Hamartia (sin) is a state of being and condition and it’s a privation or negation. It’s a “something” like a void or a hole is a something. Hamartia comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share, part, place) and is the “missing share/part/place” in man from the Edenic event.

Christ took upon Himself this “somethinglessness” according to man’s having no share, part, or place. It wasn’t like a tumor or other result from contagion. Sin isn’t a contagion. It has no substance, but is a lack of substance. The Savior took our lack upon Himself. He took the negation of divine order for mankind upon Himself. And with this He took all resulting acts because He took upon Himself the source OF all resulting acts.

He became the privation of the state of being and condition that is sin. And He took our physical death so that we might live via His resurrection. There wasn’t a “something” put upon Him because sin is a noun in language as a “thing”. It was our entire deficiency at the core of our state of being that He took upon Himself. It was our condition that He made His own by laying down His life for us.

[RandyPNW]

Again, this is relatively simple when one understands Greek noun constructs and basic lexicography.

Hamartia (sin) is a state of being and condition and it’s a privation or negation. It’s a “something” like a void or a hole is a something. Hamartia comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share, part, place) and is the “missing share/part/place” in man from the Edenic event.

Be cautious about relying on the etymological root fallacy!

Christ took upon Himself this “somethinglessness” according to man’s having no share, part, or place. It wasn’t like a tumor or other result from contagion. Sin isn’t a contagion. It has no substance, but is a lack of substance.

When I argue that Sin is a "contagion," I've carefully explained that it is not a physical substance, but rather, a *spiritual contagion!* A contagion is something that spreads like a plague. Sin is depicted as something that spreads like a plague. Thus I define it as like a contagion--not strictly a physical contagion.

1 Cor 5.6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
2 Tim 2.17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene.

The Savior took our lack upon Himself. He took the negation of divine order for mankind upon Himself. And with this He took all resulting acts because He took upon Himself the source OF all resulting acts.

He became the privation of the state of being and condition that is sin.

What does this mean? Who defined sin as a "privation?" Obviously, to sin is to be deprived of God's blessings. But to deny that it is a "contagion" is something else.

When Jesus took sin upon himself, the Scriptures are referring to him becoming a "sin sacrifice," and not a sinful human being. So he did not "become sin" in that sense.

Rather, he became the punishment for sin by suffering from sinful people what should only be visited upon sinful people. Not only that but he suffered *all punishment* for sin, which amounts to suffering leading to death. He took our *punishment!* He did not himself become "deprived," as you seem to be suggesting?

And He took our physical death so that we might live via His resurrection. There wasn’t a “something” put upon Him because sin is a noun in language as a “thing”. It was our entire deficiency at the core of our state of being that He took upon Himself. It was our condition that He made His own by laying down His life for us.

Not a "deficiency," in my estimation, though it might be called a "weakness," a vulnerability to death from sinful men. What he experienced was the *punishment of sin,* so that he could forgive all sin committed against him by the entire human race, in particular those willing to make use of his atonement.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Again, this is relatively simple when one understands Greek noun constructs and basic lexicography.

Hamartia (sin) is a state of being and condition and it’s a privation or negation. It’s a “something” like a void or a hole is a something. Hamartia comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share, part, place) and is the “missing share/part/place” in man from the Edenic event.

Be cautious about relying on the etymological root fallacy!

Christ took upon Himself this “somethinglessness” according to man’s having no share, part, or place. It wasn’t like a tumor or other result from contagion. Sin isn’t a contagion. It has no substance, but is a lack of substance.

When I argue that Sin is a "contagion," I've carefully explained that it is not a physical substance, but rather, a *spiritual contagion!* A contagion is something that spreads like a plague. Sin is depicted as something that spreads like a plague. Thus I define it as like a contagion--not strictly a physical contagion.

1 Cor 5.6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
2 Tim 2.17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene.

The Savior took our lack upon Himself. He took the negation of divine order for mankind upon Himself. And with this He took all resulting acts because He took upon Himself the source OF all resulting acts.

He became the privation of the state of being and condition that is sin.

What does this mean? Who defined sin as a "privation?" Obviously, to sin is to be deprived of God's blessings. But to deny that it is a "contagion" is something else.

When Jesus took sin upon himself, the Scriptures are referring to him becoming a "sin sacrifice," and not a sinful human being. So he did not "become sin" in that sense.

Rather, he became the punishment for sin by suffering from sinful people what should only be visited upon sinful people. Not only that but he suffered *all punishment* for sin, which amounts to suffering leading to death. He took our *punishment!* He did not himself become "deprived," as you seem to be suggesting?

And He took our physical death so that we might live via His resurrection. There wasn’t a “something” put upon Him because sin is a noun in language as a “thing”. It was our entire deficiency at the core of our state of being that He took upon Himself. It was our condition that He made His own by laying down His life for us.

Not a "deficiency," in my estimation, though it might be called a "weakness," a vulnerability to death from sinful men. What he experienced was the *punishment of sin,* so that he could forgive all sin committed against him by the entire human race, in particular those willing to make use of his atonement.

You’re not a linguist. Why would you be trying to “warn” me of something you actually don’t know about? Hamartia isn’t even candidate for a root word fallacy, not that what you’re referring to is what you think it is.  Taking two disparate words like “butter” and “fly” and making it into “butterfly” is one thing. The agglutanitve nature of Greek language structure isn’t that at all.

The word hamartia itself designates that it is a privation. No amount of stubborn declaration otherwise will change that truth and fact.

There appears to be no category of doctrine that you haven’t corrupted with your own interior rationalization. Why do you think your place is to attempt to reformulate all major Christian doctrines and ignore that you don’t even have the abilites to do so? Do you realize what the landscape of the Christian faith would be if every doctrine were left to this kind of personal and individual free-for-all?

I think you may mean well in your own way, but your content on this forum is some of the most alarmingly horrific self-determined hubris I’ve encountered. It reflects a zeal of God but not according to epignosis (knowledge). I’m terribly concerned for your spiritual well-being is why I say this. It isn’t to condescend or condemn, but it is a mild rebuke while hoping you might hear how bad it is.

[RandyPNW]

You’re not a linguist. Why would you be trying to “warn” me of something you actually don’t know about? Hamartia isn’t even candidate for a root word fallacy, not that what you’re referring to is what you think it is.  Taking two disparate words like “butter” and “fly” and making it into “butterfly” is one thing. The agglutanitve nature of Greek language structure isn’t that at all.

No, I'm not a linguist. I raise the issue because my brother studies both Hebrew and Greek, and has cautioned me against using these kinds of fallacies.

Are such fallacies used in bliblical interpretation--all the time! That's why we are warned against using them. If you're a linguist, I apologize--I couldn't argue with you on an equal basis. But your "lexical approach" remains very suspect with me.

The word hamartia itself designates that it is a privation. No amount of stubborn declaration otherwise will change that truth and fact.

Hamartia is just a word that like any other must be determined partly by its original and regular use and partly by its context. To "miss the mark" can hardly be explained simply as a "privation," as I see it. The sense of "missing the mark" has nothing to do with "privation" as far as I can see? Trying to put the literal meaning of the word for "sin" into some kind of alien sense, and then determining that is what it means seems far off the beaten path.

Sin may in effect deprive man of his good relationship with God. But how you mean "privation" is critical, if you wish to argue it. And my claim that sin is a contagion would be as applicable as your claim that it is a privation. Sin is rebelling against God's word. The effect of that may be a spiritual contagion or a privation, or both.

There appears to be no category of doctrine that you haven’t corrupted with your own interior rationalization. Why do you think your place is to attempt to reformulate all major Christian doctrines and ignore that you don’t even have the abilites to do so? Do you realize what the landscape of the Christian faith would be if every doctrine were left to this kind of personal and individual free-for-all?

It is a free world, brother. If you don't like it, ignore it. But I've had questions all my life on virtually all of these doctrines. And if your claim is that I'm contaminating doctrines by corrupting them, you should be able to have an answer to that.

And yet you don't. I've discovered many things in my studies in prophecy, and I've come to understand many difficult problems in theology. In fact I came onto forums like this one about 20 years ago for the very purpose of exploring these ideas, to see if my beliefs can hold up against scrutiny. And I've done very well, thank you.

Often I find this attack on me because of my unorthodox approach, and sometimes I get a good explanation as to why something I believe is suspect. In your case, I get nothing but assault on me as one incapable of arguing the points.

I think you may mean well in your own way, but your content on this forum is some of the most alarmingly horrific self-determined hubris I’ve encountered. It reflects a zeal of God but not according to epignosis (knowledge). I’m terribly concerned for your spiritual well-being is why I say this. It isn’t to condescend or condemn, but it is a mild rebuke while hoping you might hear how bad it is.

Amazing! Yet I sense no rebuke from the Lord at all. I wonder what spirit you're coming from?

And I wonder why you don't argue any of my points in detail, if you wish to prove them false? But if you're so alarmed about my spiritual health, shouldn't you be willing to discuss my concerns, rather than writing my beliefs off as worthless or even harmful?

[RandyPNW]

Hamartia (sin) is a state of being and condition and it’s a privation or negation. It’s a “something” like a void or a hole is a something. Hamartia comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share, part, place) and is the “missing share/part/place” in man from the Edenic event.

You’re not a linguist. Why would you be trying to “warn” me of something you actually don’t know about? Hamartia isn’t even candidate for a root word fallacy, not that what you’re referring to is what you think it is.  Taking two disparate words like “butter” and “fly” and making it into “butterfly” is one thing. The agglutanitve nature of Greek language structure isn’t that at all.

Here's the problem. What you say about "Harmartia," separating it into its parts, "a" and "meros," and then applying that as a meaning to "Sin" is exactly some kind of fallacy, as I see it. Maybe I am not using the right fallacy, but it does seem to be some kind of "root fallacy?"

You're taking the component parts of a word and then insisting that the origins of this word must dictate its meaning and how it applies biblically. It may have originated from the loss of Eden as a home--doesn't matter. That may just be the origin of the word. It's actual meaning, in context, appears to be rebellion against God's word, which was the *cause* of Adam and Eve losing Eden.

So applying the word "Hamartia" as a "privation," based on the origins of the word seems to be a stretch--certainly not a justified "lexical approach" towards defining the word.

I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but for now, that's just how I see it.

[journeyman]

,,,,Hamartia (sin) is a state of being....

The most important thing to remember here is that it was some of the religious leaders and others who falsely accused our Lord of being in a state of sin. His Father didn't see him that way,

And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? Lk.5:21

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. Jn.8:29

[Athanasius]

No, I'm not a linguist. I raise the issue because my brother studies both Hebrew and Greek, and has cautioned me against using these kinds of fallacies.

Are such fallacies used in bliblical interpretation--all the time! That's why we are warned against using them. If you're a linguist, I apologize--I couldn't argue with you on an equal basis. But your "lexical approach" remains very suspect with me.

He's not committing an etymological fallacy because he's dealing with the Greek as it was understood at the time of the NT's authorship. That's what's relevant, by the way: the word as it was understood by the Biblical authors. All CONSPICULLUM is doing is explaining how the word is constructed, and what it means, and meant in the first century (and following). This is no more a fallacy than it would be to explain the parts of the word 'CONSPICULLUM'.

This isn't an instance of the fallacy your brother would have cautioned you against. There's nothing suspect about what CONSPICULLUM has written thus far. Your contagion language, on the other hand...

[RandyPNW]

No, I'm not a linguist. I raise the issue because my brother studies both Hebrew and Greek, and has cautioned me against using these kinds of fallacies.

Are such fallacies used in bliblical interpretation--all the time! That's why we are warned against using them. If you're a linguist, I apologize--I couldn't argue with you on an equal basis. But your "lexical approach" remains very suspect with me.

He's not committing an etymological fallacy because he's dealing with the Greek as it was understood at the time of the NT's authorship. That's what's relevant, by the way: the word as it was understood by the Biblical authors. All CONSPICULLUM is doing is explaining how the word is constructed, and what it means, and meant in the first century (and following). This is no more a fallacy than it would be to explain the parts of the word 'CONSPICULLUM'.

This isn't an instance of the fallacy your brother would have cautioned you against. There's nothing suspect about what CONSPICULLUM has written thus far. Your contagion language, on the other hand...

Sorry, the way he breaks up the word to force a particular meaning upon it is precisely what the fallacy suggests to me. I don't care how the component parts were grouped together to form the word originally. It is how the *word is used* that defines what it means--not its origins.

Humbly, I could be wrong. I just can't ask my brother right now. He's beyond reach, but I did email him about it. I'll let you know what he thinks, as well. Thanks.

As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!

[Athanasius]

Sorry, the way he breaks up the word to force a particular meaning upon it is precisely what the fallacy suggests to me. I don't care how the component parts were grouped together to form the word originally. It is how the *word is used* that defines what it means--not its origins.

He's not breaking the word up to 'force a particular meaning'. It's a Greek word, and he's discussing how the Greek language constructs words, and what that word meant to the people who used it in the first century, and thus, what it means to us. That's just the nature of exegesis. Theologically, the word doesn't change. We want to know what the word originally meant so that we don't end up with a theological understanding of the word 'sin' that's improperly grounded.

If you wanted to discuss some kind of etymological fallacy then maybe you could entertain such a notion by contrasting Aristotle's use of the word in Poetics with the use of the word in Paul's writings. But no one is doing such a thing. The only way you can arrive at an etymological fallacy like the one you're concerned with is by affirming that the word can mean different things to different people, and for this to be theologically unproblematic. But that is very problematic indeed.

As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!

Yes, and in 1999 Neo was the near-literal second coming of Christ according to most North American churches. But without having Google'd what I'd expect to find are a number of articles discussing how particular sins are 'contagious', and this is hardly controversial if some kind of social phenomenon is in view. But 'contagious' still isn't the right word. 'Contagion' isn't the right word. It carries the wrong connotations and doesn't describe the reality of sin.

[RandyPNW]

He's not breaking the word up to 'force a particular meaning'. It's a Greek word, and he's discussing how the Greek language constructs words, and what that word meant to the people who used it in the first century...

But how it was used in the 1st century, as "missing the mark," is not how the brother is implying it was used, as a "privation." The origin of the word, which seems to have emerged from a banishment from the Garden, explains the origins of the word, but not its meaning.

There is a long distance from "banishment from the Garden" to "missing the mark," and even from missing the mark to "rebelling against God's word." One explains the origin in which Sin took place. But Sin itself is historically the act in which Adam and Eve transgressed the word of God.

Therefore, Sin means to "rebel against God's word," and has nothing to do with the environment in which the word was originated. That is, it does not mean to "lose place in the Garden." It is not a "privation" in that sense, and never did mean that, in my opinion.

But I'm not going to prolong the discussion, because at this point I think we know where we stand. To me, the brother is, in fact, seeming to use a "Root Fallacy."

Whether it's an attempt to use an archaic meaning of the word as "losing the Garden," or trying to compose a new meaning of the word as "missing the mark," the idea is neither. It is "rebelling against God's word," and certainly not just "missing the mark."

This is as I see it a "Root Fallacy," or even a "Totality Fallacy," transferring somebody else's meaning of "Sin" into the standard NT meaning of the word.

As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!

Yes, and in 1999 Neo was the near-literal second coming of Christ according to most North American churches. But without having Google'd what I'd expect to find are a number of articles discussing how particular sins are 'contagious', and this is hardly controversial if some kind of social phenomenon is in view. But 'contagious' still isn't the right word. 'Contagion' isn't the right word. It carries the wrong connotations and doesn't describe the reality of sin.

I respect, and almost enjoy the way your ingenious mind weasels its way out of anything I throw at you. But I sincerely and humbly disagree with it.

Sin has the characteristics of a contagion. If you want to define "contagion" as a strictly physical phenomenon, then you would have a point. But I'm referring to a "spiritual contagion."

And Sin has every mark of a contagion, even though it is spiritual. It is passed on, it affects others, and it has a nasty impact. It spreads and kills. Thus, it is a contagion *in my opinion!*

https://www.christianity.com/theology/sin/cured-from-the-contagion-of-sin.html
As scary as infectious diseases are, there’s a more deadly virus that you and I already have – the sin virus. As the 16th Century Reformer John Calvin wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, “all of us, who have descended from impure seed, are born infected with the contagion of sin.”

[CONSPICILLUM]

No, I'm not a linguist. I raise the issue because my brother studies both Hebrew and Greek, and has cautioned me against using these kinds of fallacies.

Are such fallacies used in bliblical interpretation--all the time! That's why we are warned against using them. If you're a linguist, I apologize--I couldn't argue with you on an equal basis. But your "lexical approach" remains very suspect with me.

He's not committing an etymological fallacy because he's dealing with the Greek as it was understood at the time of the NT's authorship. That's what's relevant, by the way: the word as it was understood by the Biblical authors. All CONSPICULLUM is doing is explaining how the word is constructed, and what it means, and meant in the first century (and following). This is no more a fallacy than it would be to explain the parts of the word 'CONSPICULLUM'.

This isn't an instance of the fallacy your brother would have cautioned you against. There's nothing suspect about what CONSPICULLUM has written thus far. Your contagion language, on the other hand...

Exactly correct and brilliantly concise.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Sorry, the way he breaks up the word to force a particular meaning upon it is precisely what the fallacy suggests to me. I don't care how the component parts were grouped together to form the word originally. It is how the *word is used* that defines what it means--not its origins.

He's not breaking the word up to 'force a particular meaning'. It's a Greek word, and he's discussing how the Greek language constructs words, and what that word meant to the people who used it in the first century, and thus, what it means to us. That's just the nature of exegesis. Theologically, the word doesn't change. We want to know what the word originally meant so that we don't end up with a theological understanding of the word 'sin' that's improperly grounded.

If you wanted to discuss some kind of etymological fallacy then maybe you could entertain such a notion by contrasting Aristotle's use of the word in Poetics with the use of the word in Paul's writings. But no one is doing such a thing. The only way you can arrive at an etymological fallacy like the one you're concerned with is by affirming that the word can mean different things to different people, and for this to be theologically unproblematic. But that is very problematic indeed.

As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!

Yes, and in 1999 Neo was the near-literal second coming of Christ according to most North American churches. But without having Google'd what I'd expect to find are a number of articles discussing how particular sins are 'contagious', and this is hardly controversial if some kind of social phenomenon is in view. But 'contagious' still isn't the right word. 'Contagion' isn't the right word. It carries the wrong connotations and doesn't describe the reality of sin.

Very well said, Brother.

[RabbiKnife]

No, I'm not a linguist. I raise the issue because my brother studies both Hebrew and Greek, and has cautioned me against using these kinds of fallacies.

Are such fallacies used in bliblical interpretation--all the time! That's why we are warned against using them. If you're a linguist, I apologize--I couldn't argue with you on an equal basis. But your "lexical approach" remains very suspect with me.

He's not committing an etymological fallacy because he's dealing with the Greek as it was understood at the time of the NT's authorship. That's what's relevant, by the way: the word as it was understood by the Biblical authors. All CONSPICULLUM is doing is explaining how the word is constructed, and what it means, and meant in the first century (and following). This is no more a fallacy than it would be to explain the parts of the word 'CONSPICULLUM'.

This isn't an instance of the fallacy your brother would have cautioned you against. There's nothing suspect about what CONSPICULLUM has written thus far. Your contagion language, on the other hand...

Sorry, the way he breaks up the word to force a particular meaning upon it is precisely what the fallacy suggests to me. I don't care how the component parts were grouped together to form the word originally. It is how the *word is used* that defines what it means--not its origins.

Humbly, I could be wrong. I just can't ask my brother right now. He's beyond reach, but I did email him about it. I'll let you know what he thinks, as well. Thanks.

As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!

It should not be a surprise that I have little difficulty dismissing Calvin.

Although Calvin and Hobbes will forever be numero uno