Our Lord Jesus Was Made A Curse?

[CONSPICILLUM]

Every one of the blind men and the elephant were blind

Why do you presume Christians are blind when they’re given oida/eido knowledge/sight? I’ve never really seen the parallel to the 3 guys and the elephant. We don’t use our physical senses to know God. That was the fruit in the garden, you know. It was the tree of the knowledge (via physical senses) of good AND evil. They already knew good.

I don’t see any scripture or Holy Spirit activity paralleled with the 3 blind dudes. They were just groping a giant mammal. LOL.

[RabbiKnife]

And you are blind groping a man made philosophy cum science that satisfies your sense of correctness in the world.  We all do the same

Any of us relying on our ability to figure it out is no different that the blind guys and the elephant

That was the entire point of the original 18th(?) / 19th century poem about the 5 guys (Hindustan, not Burgers)

All of us “see through a glass darkly”.

All of us believe (that’s a verb) and act (rats, another verb) according to the knowledge (non arthritic noun) and wisdom that God grants to us.  There is nothing wrong with the study of philology but that study is  neither the beginning nor ending of wisdom.  Our ability to read, study, analyze, research etc is at the end of the day an exercise of our biochemical computation quasi hardware positronic mush brain that operates a software that no one understands, but which miraculously God is able to use and to them mysteriously communicate with our non meatsuit part. 

No one here hates philology but then none of us here love gnostic special revelations either

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

[CONSPICILLUM]

And you are blind groping a man made philosophy cum science that satisfies your sense of correctness in the world.  We all do the same

Any of us relying on our ability to figure it out is no different that the blind guys and the elephant

That was the entire point of the original 18th(?) / 19th century poem about the 5 guys (Hindustan, not Burgers)

All of us “see through a glass darkly”.

All of us believe (that’s a verb) and act (rats, another verb) according to the knowledge (non arthritic noun) and wisdom that God grants to us.  There is nothing wrong with the study of philology but that study is  neither the beginning nor ending of wisdom.  Our ability to read, study, analyze, research etc is at the end of the day an exercise of our biochemical computation quasi hardware positronic mush brain that operates a software that no one understands, but which miraculously God is able to use and to them mysteriously communicate with our non meatsuit part. 

No one here hates philology but then none of us here love gnostic special revelations either

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

The whole point of Philology-based understanding is to make sure none of the knowledge and iunderstanding is gnostic special revelation. It’s everything else that’s semi-gnostic, though that likely won’t process for you. How would you say that dealing exclusively with lexicography is “gnostic special revelation”?

That’s the real issue. Everything I’ve said (minus whatever hows and whys you don’t like from me personally) is explicitly the Word as given by infallible and inerrant inspiration. Turning nouns into verbs for theological concepts is problematic even if you can’t or won’t see it (I thought you did. Evidently not.). It takes no gnostic special revelation to spend years comprehending grammar and lexicography while putting aside one’s own interjected opinions that are contrary.

What’s gnostic is individual interpretation. Special revelation is one sect of Evangelicalism’s sacred moo-moos over other sects’ sacred moo-moos. Calvinists and Arminians at each others’ throats over fallacious Ordo Salutis arguments and an atonement false dichotomy. There’s your semi-gnosticism.

There’s no special revelation in actually knowing what a language and its words actually mean and say. English doesn’t do it as well as the original Biblical languages, and it takes a bit of work to find out why there are difficulties. Most simply don’t want to know and they want to read their NIVs on a middle school level while insisting anything more or else is “gnostic special revelation”.

And if you think a cigar is “just” a cigar, then I have some acquaintances (I don’t imbibe personally) who would like to school you on fat tobacco sticks. A cigar is never just a cigar.

[RandyPNW]

The very simple point missed is that hamartia is a noun. English speakers are clueless about anarthrous nouns because English doesn’t have them while ALL Greek nouns are anarthous (to which may be added the definite article). This means English speakers mentally and conceptually convert nouns into verbs by default. Faith becomes believING. Sin becomes sinnING. Repentance becomes repentING.

Despite the fact I'm not well-acquainted with the Greek, this doesn't present a problem for me. I don't automatically turn nouns into verbs. 

Things do. Nouns verb. All action comes from a “thing”. Without “things” (nouns) there would be no acting or resulting acts. Sin (the state of being and condition, which is a lack as privation) is what produces sinning and sins. That which is missing in us is why we can’t bring forth the righteousness of God into action. We can’t even validly try. It’s impossible. The source of all action within us has something missing. Our share in constant communion (spiritual life - zoe) is gone.

Sin can either be a noun or a verb, and we don't have to get them mixed up. What the noun means obviously will relate to what doing it is.

But I don't define the *noun* as a "privation." That is where the original word came from, but its technical meaning, which is what the Bible uses, is defined as opposing the word of God, or disobedience to God's word to our conscience.

Our place in our first estate is gone. Our part in the cosmos as it was originally created is not present within us. We have fallen from those things. They’re missing. Resurrection life in Christ is what provides what is missing, though the full share, part, and place will only finally be restored after this physical life. We have the earnest of the inheritance until redemption of the purchased possession.

While all that is true, it isn't the meaning of "sin." That is what happened when we sinned. "Sin" is not the state of having lost our share in paradise. It is the state of having rebelled against God's word. It is a condition, and, as I call it, a "sickness."

I wouldn't dispute that this sickness has caused us to be kept from a return to paradise. And it's the state of our being sinners that forces us to rely on Christ's grace to put our name back on that inheritance.

SinnING is not hamartia. Hamartia is that state of being and condition from which actING comes that is sinnING. Any resulting post-action act is hamartema. The argument among the masses is always because they presume hamartano and hamartema are hamartia.

Sorry, I don't think the tenses determine the meaning of the noun. And they don't impact the meaning when applied as a verb.

Transgression of the law and rebellion against God are actING. They’re not the noun that is sin. They come FROM that noun, which is the source. That which is not of faith is sin. That’s a source statement in scripture about the nouns, not the verbs.

It doesn't matter, as I said, if we're talking about the noun or the verb forms. They both relate to the meaning of the noun, as you appear to be suggesting.

But the point is, the noun means to rebel against God's word. It doesn't mean a "privation." The word may have evolved in a circumstance in which a privation occurred. Or, the rebellion against God's word may have led to a privation. But "sin" does not mean "privation." It is both a noun and a verb. A sin was committed, and the man sinned.

The arguments against this multi-faceted truth about hamartia are sin. Whatever ponderance that has led up to the denial of sin as a privation is… sin. Every false doctrinal concept is… sin.

I might agree that denial of the reality of sin is itself a sin. It would be a sin because it could be an act of rejecting God's word about sin. But I wouldn't say that disagreeing with your opinion is a sin.

The point I wish to make here is that the act of rebelling against God's word may indicate a verb, or an action. But it can also be expressed as a noun, as an act of sin. Sin, therefore, whether noun or verb, expresses an act of defiance against God's word.

Romans 10:17 is a prime example of anarthrous nouns not being understood. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Hearing is a NOUN. It’s the thing heard; the message, the report. And it’s ARTICULAR (just as faith is in this passage), meaning there’s only THE message/report that brings THE faith. The article is particularizing the vast meaning of each noun’s default semantic range. THIS faith comes out of/from (ek) THIS message, which comes by means of [the] Rhema (anarthrous, not articular) of God.

Well, I like this....a LOT! I don't think it bears any resemblance to what you're saying about hamartia, but it's good nonetheless and is worth thinking about.

There is a profound difference, as you suggest, between the message of faith and simply listening to God. You can listen all you want, but it doesn't mean beans if you don't get the message.

But as far as the sin committed in the garden, the action taken is what caused the noun to exist. It was rebelling against God that caused the sin condition.

[RandyPNW]

Before I fly the coop here, I have a simple question (for you AND others, I suppose). Why do you consider entertaining different perspectives to be “what it’s all about”? Why would gathering a diversity of distinct subjective opinions be any kind of priority? It seriously makes no sense to me, so this is a legit information question (lest you think it’s sarcasm).

Why would anyone in any field want to entertain endless differing perspective on their field of study or expertise or other endeavor? It’s baffling to me. Though I’ve thoroughly studied other religions, I don’t want to hear any of their proponents speak on the topic. Why would I want to know someone’s opinion instead of facts and truth?

That’s my write-in to the newspaper column for the week.

Goodness, who would disagree with you? In an ideal world, we spend five minutes, and we all sing, "We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord."

But this is a real world, and I'm hoping for congeniality, as we weave our way through our own stupid pride. We have a condition called "sin," and we have the grace to maneuver through it.

But it takes time. I'd be pleased if you stuck around, but the Lord's will be done.

[Athanasius]

I’ll take Nietzsche over many in the landscape of the modern western “church”, and that’s sad (though obviously an exaggeration). Why do you hate Philology? It’s the foundation for everything you’ve ever thought, said, read, or written. I don’t think you understand what Philology is if you have disdain for the discipline.

Nope, no Feser yet. I should read him tonight before it slips to a lesser priority by my forgetfulness.

I was referring to your repeated mention of hamartia being an anarthrous noun, suggesting that this is driving you mad - like another, famous philologist who was driven made (not really, but that's not the point) by his own work. I think philology is fascinating (the attitude you've brought with you, not so much), but weren't you flying the coop? You're free to change your mind if you play nice, but if you're going to say that you're going, then stick to your guns and go.

[CONSPICILLUM]

I’ll take Nietzsche over many in the landscape of the modern western “church”, and that’s sad (though obviously an exaggeration). Why do you hate Philology? It’s the foundation for everything you’ve ever thought, said, read, or written. I don’t think you understand what Philology is if you have disdain for the discipline.

Nope, no Feser yet. I should read him tonight before it slips to a lesser priority by my forgetfulness.

I was referring to your repeated mention of hamartia being an anarthrous noun, suggesting that this is driving you mad - like another, famous philologist who was driven made (not really, but that's not the point) by his own work. I think philology is fascinating (the attitude you've brought with you, not so much), but weren't you flying the coop? You're free to change your mind if you play nice, but if you're going to say that you're going, then stick to your guns and go.

I was just closing out existing convos that contained questions. I’m out.

[journeyman]

So does anyone agree with me, that our Lord Jesus became "sin", in the sense of being thought of as sinful, or a law breaker in the minds of some (not all) of the Sanhedrin. And that he wasn't anything truly sinful to his Father?

[RabbiKnife]

So does anyone agree with me, that our Lord Jesus became "sin", in the sense of being thought of as sinful, or a law breaker in the minds of some (not all) of the Sanhedrin. And that he wasn't anything truly sinful to his Father?

Nope, I don't think anyone agrees with that at all  that has posted so far on this forum.

[RandyPNW]

So does anyone agree with me, that our Lord Jesus became "sin", in the sense of being thought of as sinful, or a law breaker in the minds of some (not all) of the Sanhedrin. And that he wasn't anything truly sinful to his Father?

I haven't really been following your arguments on this subject lately, so I'm not sure what you're saying? But I'll repeat what I believe, and you can compare with what you believe.

Clearly, the Scriptures indicate Jesus, in some way, "became sin." I personally think that is just writers' liberty and a manner of speaking. To be "made sin" is to either be made into a sinner, guilty as the rest of us, or to be a substitute for the punishment of sin. I think it is the latter, obviously, since Jesus was sinless and could never become an actual sinner.

Certainly, Jesus was a sinner in the minds of the Jewish leaders. He did not follow the Law in a conventional way, and they rejected the idea that Jesus could follow the Law as the Messiah, since they rejected the idea that he was the Messiah.

Jesus clearly had freedom above a Law that applies fixes for sinners, since he himself was not a sinner. He had no legal need to observe rituals of purification or rituals of atonement. He was the final atonement for sin, to provide a means for eternal life.

Seeing Jesus as a sinner clearly was not what Paul meant when he said Jesus "became sin." Paul was speaking of the act of atonement, in which Jesus stood in for sinners and experienced what they deserved to be punished for so that he could forgive all sin.

[journeyman]

Nope, I don't think anyone agrees with that at all  that has posted so far on this forum.

Originally posted by RandyPNW
I haven't really been following your arguments on this subject lately, so I'm not sure what you're saying? But I'll repeat what I believe, and you can compare with what you believe.

Clearly, the Scriptures indicate Jesus, in some way, "became sin." I personally think that is just writers' liberty and a manner of speaking. To be "made sin" is to either be made into a sinner, guilty as the rest of us, or to be a substitute for the punishment of sin. I think it is the latter, obviously, since Jesus was sinless and could never become an actual sinner.

Certainly, Jesus was a sinner in the minds of the Jewish leaders. He did not follow the Law in a conventional way, and they rejected the idea that Jesus could follow the Law as the Messiah, since they rejected the idea that he was the Messiah.

Jesus clearly had freedom above a Law that applies fixes for sinners, since he himself was not a sinner. He had no legal need to observe rituals of purification or rituals of atonement. He was the final atonement for sin, to provide a means for eternal life.

Seeing Jesus as a sinner clearly was not what Paul meant when he said Jesus "became sin." Paul was speaking of the act of atonement, in which Jesus stood in for sinners and experienced what they deserved to be punished for so that he could forgive all sin.

Thanks for clarifying. I don't understand many vocabulary words past the 70's 12th grade.

[RandyPNW]

Thanks for clarifying. I don't understand many vocabulary words past the 70's 12th grade.

It's difficult regardless of your education. The Bible is an old set of documents, and we're far removed from its culture. The only thing we have in common is the spirituality and a very long continuous tradition of faith, along with the creeds.

It is a very common problem with Christian interpreters when reading Paul, or really any other authors of the epistles. They freely used language of the time, and it's up to us to translate.

To be "made sin" was likely Paul's way of speaking of how Jesus stood in for us, assuming the penalty as if he was a sinner, in order to forgive those who sinned against him. In this way he became an atoning sacrifice for all people in history, who sin with the same type of depravity as those who sinned against Jesus, in whatever degree we ourselves do that.

I mean we all sin. But every kind of sin was thrown at Jesus, whether greater or lesser, and *all* of it was proven to be forgivable. We only need to repent and follow him.

[journeyman]

It's difficult regardless of your education. The Bible is an old set of documents, and we're far removed from its culture. The only thing we have in common is the spirituality and a very long continuous tradition of faith, along with the creeds.

It is a very common problem with Christian interpreters when reading Paul, or really any other authors of the epistles. They freely used language of the time, and it's up to us to translate.

To be "made sin" was likely Paul's way of speaking of how Jesus stood in for us, assuming the penalty as if he was a sinner, in order to forgive those who sinned against him. In this way he became an atoning sacrifice for all people in history, who sin with the same type of depravity as those who sinned against Jesus, in whatever degree we ourselves do that.

I mean we all sin. But every kind of sin was thrown at Jesus, whether greater or lesser, and *all* of it was proven to be forgivable. We only need to repent and follow him.

I agree with you that all manner of sin was committed against Jesus and that he will forgive the repentant.

It's because all people have sinned against God, no matter what time in history, that we aren't far removed from them, but it's in obeying our Lord that our knowledge of him grows,

 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. Jn.7:17

The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way. Psa.25:9

Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: Hos.6:3

Isa.58:6-14 is how the scriptures are properly interpreted.

Since we are forgiven, any evil thing that unsaved people do to us is for correction, to teach us how our Lord wants us to behave toward the lost. Just as our Savior did, who himself needed no forgiveness. Words are important, but it's in following him that we come to understand more about God.

[RandyPNW]

Amen to that, brother!