praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I know them by heart. I still would like to know exact what you mean by wrong word. Are you talking about the Greek words you're referencing?
The 10 most Commonly referred to points against PSA
- Thread starter Bronson
- Start date
Johann
Well-known member
Penal substitutionary atonement is woven into the fabric of the NT. Peter, drawing on Isaiah 53, declares, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree; so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed” (1 Pet. 2:24).
The emphasis-incorrectly-is on orge and thumos-Ketzef - af hagadol and incidentally- Christus Victor and PSA goes hand in glove in Scriptures and since you know it and cannot be separated.
One last comment-the LXX "soften the tone" on the penal aspect of Mashiach.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I guarantee you that there is no one on this forum that promotes the LXX more than I do. However, 1st and 2nd Maccabees is not anything like 3rd and 4th Maccabees. I would be extremely reluctant to try to establish an argument solely based upon 4th Maccabees.
The innocent are important to God. However, trying to establish their death at the hands of the wicked as being "purposefully good".... is another thing all together.
Appealing to the innocent blood of Jesus Christ as being purposeful is well and good. Appealing to the shedding of innocent blood by normal man isn't actually getting you anywhere in the discussion. Only the blood of Christ made such difference.
I'm confused with your references. Are YOU actually denying that Paul taught Jesus is God?
civic
Well-known member
Was Jesus a sinner like you ?
Dizerner
Well-known member
Yeah, he gets a discount code for standing in our place.
I already know the silliness you think.
Johann
Well-known member
You speedread my posts or skim read-
A rebuttal from Shabir-Immam-Shabir Ally.
(2) Shabir denies that Paul composed the letters to Timothy and Titus, otherwise known as the Pastoral Epistles, hence his classifying them as "Deutero-Pauline." He subscribes to the liberal-critical view that these epistles were either written by a disciple of Paul or someone from among the Pauline circle.
Shabir has apparently changed his position since in some of his published works he attributes Pauline authorship to 1 and 2 Timothy:
Many people use Paul’s writings as proof that Jesus is God. But this is not fair to Paul, because Paul clearly believed that Jesus is not God.
In his first letter to Timothy, Paul wrote: ... (Paul Believed That Jesus is not God; source)
Shabir's words
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I did more than skim read. I reread it multiple times. I thought that might be the case but I wanted to make sure. I couldn't tell.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
The LXX has never softened anything relative to a late Hebrew text. It is the extant Hebrew block script that has changed. If you want to discuss we can discuss any aspect of the LXX you like.
Why didn't Peter write 1 Peter in Hebrew? You have no foundation to make such a claim. You are quoting the very words of Peter in Greek.
Johann
Well-known member
My apologies then @praise_yeshua-I am tired 00.4 in the morning and might make mistakes.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Angry at Christ? Or pleased by Christ? You're insisting that there was transference that is not explicitly stated. (Yes. I know the argument you're making). I don't even see the "indirect" aspects of the appeal.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Johann
Well-known member
What claim am I making?
Do me a favor-read Isaiah 53 in Hebrew side by side with the Septuagint and then we can discuss.
And while we are on this-who wrote the LXX?
Many thanks.
J.
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I'm aware of the difference. Consider the DSS "Great Scroll" relative to the MT.
Who translated the LXX???? Jews. Jews much closer to ancient Hebrew than anyone else. We can discuss but the philosophical aspects relative to translation is where the "meat" is.....
Johann
Well-known member
Yes.
Who commissioned the Septuagint?
The full Greek title derives from the story recorded in the Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates that "the laws of the Jews" were translated into the Greek language at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE) by seventy-two Hebrew translators—six from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.
Would you say the LXX is much more accurate than the Masoretic Texts? Think carefully before you answer.
It was during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus that full political and religious rights were granted to the Jews. Egypt also underwent a tremendous cultural and educational program under the patronage of Arsinoe II, spearheaded by the founding of the Museum at Alexandria and the translation of the great works into Greek. It was in that period (c. 250- c. 150 B.C.), that the Hebrew Old Testament was being translated into Greek- the first time it had ever been extensively translated. The leaders of Alexandrian Jewry had a standard Greek version produced, known as the LXX, the Greek word for 'seventy.' It was undoubtedly translated during the third and/or second centuries B.C. and it was purported to have been written as early as the time of Ptolemy II in a Letter of Aristeas to Philocartes (c. 130-100 B.C.)."
The Letter of Aristeas relates that the librarian at Alexandria persuaded Ptolemy to translate the Torah into Greek for use by Alexandrian Jews. As a result six translators were selected from each of the twelve tribes, and the translation was completed in just seventy-two days. The details of this story are undoubtedly fictitious, but the letter does relate the authentic fact that the LXX was translated for the use of Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria." (Ibid., pp. 503-504)
The LXX is a Greek translation, of course, so we would not expect to see it among the DSS. However, it DOES show up in fragments there(!), and since it was translated from a Palestinian Hebrew original, we also find some documents that are related to that original.
Also, it must be remembered that the LXX and MT are not as widely divergent as is commonly supposed:
'The Hebrew text presupposed by the LXX basically represents a tradition which is either close to that of MT or can easily be explained as a descendant or a source of it. In several individual instances, however, the LXX represents a text that comes close to other sources, viz., certain Hebrew scrolls from Qumran and the Sam. Pent.' [Tov, in HI:TCULXX:188]
He points out that 'Several scrolls often coincide with details in the LXX, either with the central manuscript group or with a specific group of its manuscripts' [HI:TCULLXX:188] and he gives examples of 4QJer(b), 4QJer(d,17), 4Qdeut(q), 4Qsam(a), 4QLev(d), 4Qexod(b) [pp.191-195].
Let me be clear about one thing, though. I am NOT suggesting that the Hebrew Text underlying the LXX was itself a major substrate in the DSS; merely, that the various textual traditions at Qumran had knowledge of this strain of text. It is at best a minor aspect of the DSS, as it is a minority piece of the NT quotations (as seen in the previous discussion).
"2. Philo. As an Alexandrian Jew, he even ascribed the highest level of divine inspiration to the LXX (the Pentateuch only), and called the translators prophets! (Life of Moses, II.38-40):
'But this, they say, did not happen at all in the case of this translation of the law, but that, in every case, exactly corresponding Greek words were employed to translate literally the appropriate Chaldaic words, being adapted with exceeding propriety to the matters which were to be explained; (39) for just as I suppose the things which are proved in geometry and logic do not admit any variety of explanation, but the proposition which was set forth from the beginning remains unaltered, in like manner I conceive did these men find words precisely and literally corresponding to the things, which words were alone, or in the greatest possible degree, destined to explain with clearness and force the matters which it was desired to reveal. (40) And there is a very evident proof of this; for if Chaldaeans were to learn the Greek language, and if Greeks were to learn Chaldaean, and if each were to meet with those scriptures in both languages, namely, the Chaldaic and the translated version, they would admire and reverence them both as sisters, or rather as one and the same both in their facts and in their language; considering these translators not mere interpreters but hierophants and prophets to whom it had been granted it their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure spirit of Moses.
'Philo (ca. 25 bc-ad 40) makes the translation an act of divine inspiration, and the translators prophets: although they worked separately they produced a single text that was literally identical throughout.' [WTOT:51]
3. Josephus. Josephus, like Philo, writes in Greek, but is a Palestinian Jew and not Alexandrian. He uses the LXX at places as well.
'Josephus claims to have based his account on the Hebrew text of the sacred writings (Ant. I, 5). This claim appears to hold good for the Hexateuch. In the later books of the bible, however, he has clearly consulted the Septuagint.' [HI:IIW:112-113].
Josephus also used other Greek translations than the LXX, most notably the proto-Lucian texts [WTOT:60, n.38].
--but it is very late now.
Goodnight.
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
Your emphasis is on the wrong word.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
propitiation, sin offering
Atonement, i.e. (concretely) an expiator -- propitiation.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon NT 2434: ἱλασμός
ἱλασμός, ἱλασμοῦ, ὁ (ἱλάσκομαι);
1. an appeasing, propitiating, Vulg.propitiatio (Plutarch, de sera num. vind. c. 17; plural joined with καθαρμοι, Plutarch, Sol. 12; with the genitive of the object τῶν θεῶν, the Orphica Arg. 39; Plutarch, Fab. 18; θεῶν μῆνιν ἱλασμοῦ καί χαριστηριων δεομένην, vit. Camill. 7 at the end; ποιεῖσθαι ἱλασμόν, of a priest offering an expiatory sacrifice, 2 Macc. 3:33).
BDAG- ἱλασμός appeasement necessitated by sin, expiation.
hope this helps !!!
Attachments
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I've study this subject for many many years. I've been around KJVOism my entire life. For a little time, I was one myself. I soon realized the error of such nonsense. I decided to know the subject myself. I do know it well. In fact, I'll prove it....
I call people that hold your position "Hebrew Onlyists" (Amazing how "onlyism" finds its way throughout religious beliefs. Such things do nothing for the truth. They are only used to further self-serving positions). I've mentioned some of this to @dizerner before.
I'm going to take this slow and we can discuss this in another thread but I will summarize your mistake here in your first paragraph....
I don't care one thing about a possibly fake letter "Letter of Aristeas". I don't care what you think you know or reference as the history of the LXX. You're using a guilt by association argument. The fact is, the NT is full of quotes from the LXX. In fact, I believe it is fair to say that over 80 percent of NT quotes come from the LXX stream. That is significant and tangible proof of how the apostles embraced the LXX. So there is no need to try to "muddy the water".
It is unmistakable fact that
1. Jews produced the Greek OT.
2. The apostles used the Greek OT.
3. The canonical books included in the Greek OT have varied throughout history.
4. The canonical books included in the Hebrew OT have varied throughout history.
5. The writers of the NT wrote in Greek. They perfectly used the Greek language they had learned from using the LXX.
6. Hebrew has changed significantly over time. Much MORE SO than Greek. We know because we have the surviving texts of Proto-Hebrew script.
7. The extant Hebrew text is not bad but it is not perfect. Neither is the Greek OT. However, the Greek OT is superior due to the difficulty establishing a connection between Proto-Hebrew script and the modern Hebrew text found in the MT (without including the LXX). Just like a KJVOist, the HebrewOnlyist ascribed perfection to the MT. Which is utterly preposterous.
How is that for dealing with the Greek OT?
BTW.... I do not believe the Greek OT is perfect. It isn't. Which is why I rejected your appeal to 3rd and 4th Maccabees. The Greek OT has varied throughout history. Even more so has the Hebrew OT. We know because of extant text found in the DSS. People love to appeal to the MT from the DSS but the DSS actually prove there isn't a pure pedigree to be found from the OT. We can get close but it is not perfect. There are variant Aramaic texts in the DSS. There are OTHER non canonical Hebrew texts included in the DSS collection that are not part of the MT canon.
Now to deal with the words of Peter that I mentioned earlier.....
Why didn't Peter write in Hebrew? If what you say is true, then Peter should have written in "letters" in Hebrew. Paul should have written in Hebrew. So should Luke. So should Mark. So should James. Jude... Do I need to list them all?
I await your response.
Added.... You should review Josephus again. You will find incorrect information throughout the internet. Please use the words of Josephus himself... and be careful with English translations. People lie. Josephus wrote in Greek. He learned and used Greek to deal with his subject. I wonder why..... < sarcasm.
civic
Well-known member
Excellent !
Johann
Well-known member
You make me smile-quite a feat.
Even if we take hilastērion to carry here its LXX meaning as
opposed to its extra-biblical meaning, Paul is obviously using the
expression metaphorically – Christ is not literally a piece of Temple
furniture!
Taken metaphorically rather than literally, however, the
expression could convey a rich variety of connotations associated
with sacrifice and atonement, so that the sort of dichotomistic
reading forced by literal meanings becomes inappropriate.
Paul
was a Hellenistic Jew, whose writings bear the imprint of
Hellenistic Jewish thought (e.g., the natural theology of Rom 1 or
the Logos doctrine behind Rom 11.36), and he might have
expected his Roman readers to understand hilastērion in the customary sense. At the same time, by borrowing an image from
the Day of Atonement rituals, Paul also conveys to his hearers the
OT notion of expiation by blood sacrifice. Thomas Heicke comments that already in the OT, “by means of abstraction, the ritual
itself turns into a metaphor,” thus building “the basis and starting
point for multiple transformations and further abstractions as well
as metaphorical charging in Judaism ... and Christianity (Rom
3:25: Christ as hilasterion – expiation or sacrifice of atonement,
etc.)” (Heicke 2016).
Christ’s death is thus both expiatory and propitiatory: “Since,
therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be
saved by him from the wrath of God” (5.9).
Given the manifold
effects of Christ’s blood, hilastērion is doubtlessly multivalent in
Paul’s usage, comprising both expiation and propitiation, so that
a vague translation, for example, “an atoning sacrifice,” is about
the best one can give (cf. Heb 2.17; 1 Jn 2.2; 4.10).
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah’s Servant of the Lord
Another significant NT motif concerning Christ’s death is Isaiah’s
Servant of the Lord. NT authors saw Jesus as the suffering Servant
described in Is 52.13–53.12. Ten of the twelve verses of Isaiah 53 are
quoted in the NT, which also abounds in allusions and echoes of this
passage.
I have already mentioned the Synoptic Gospels’ accounts of
Jesus’s words at the Last Supper. In Acts 8.30–35, Philip, in response
to an Ethiopian official’s question concerning Isaiah 53 – “About
whom does the prophet speak?” – shares “the good news about
Jesus.” I Peter 2.22–25 is a reflection on Christ as the Servant of
Isaiah 53, who “bore our sins in his body on the tree.” Hebrews 9.28
alludes to Is 53.12 in describing Christ as “having been offered once
to bear the sins of many.”
The influence of Isaiah 53 is also evident in
Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, I Timothy, and
Titus. NT scholar William Farmer concludes, “This evidence indicates that there is an Isaianic soteriology deeply embedded in the
New Testament which finds its normative form and substance in
Isaiah 53” (Farmer 1998, p. 267; cf. Bailey 1998 and Watts 1998).
What is remarkable, even startling, about the Servant of Isaiah 53
is that he suffers substitutionally for the sins of others. Some
scholars have denied this, claiming that the Servant merely shares
in the punitive suffering of the Jewish exiles. But such an interpretation does not make as good sense of the shock expressed at
what Yahweh has done in afflicting His Servant (Is 52.14–53.1,10)
and is less plausible in light of the strong contrasts, reinforced by
the Hebrew pronouns, drawn between the Servant and the persons
speaking in the first-person plural:
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that made us whole,
and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
(Is 53.4–6)7
7 See Hermisson (2004) and Hofius (2004), who says that substitutionary punishment “is expressed several times in the passage and should undoubtedly be
seen as its dominant and central theme” (Hofius 2004, p. 164).
The Atonement 17
We may compare the LORD’s symbolically laying the punishment of
Israel and Judah upon the prophet Ezekiel, so that he could be said
to “bear their punishment” (Ezek 4.4–6).
Here, in Isaiah 53, the
Servant’s bearing the punishment for Israel’s sins is, however, not
symbolic but real.
The idea of substitutionary suffering is, as we have seen,
already implicit in the animal sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus.
Death is the consequence of sin, and the animal dies in the place
of the sinner.
By the hand-laying ritual that precedes the sacrifice,
the worshipper symbolically indicates his identification with the
animal that he will sacrifice. This identification should not be
thought of in terms of a magical penetration of the worshipper’s
soul into the animal, but in substitutionary terms. The animal’s
death is symbolic of the sinner’s death. Thus, the animal “shall be
accepted for him to make atonement for him” (Lev 1.4). Similarly,
in Isaiah 53 the Servant is said “to make himself an offering for
sin” (v 10).
It is sometimes said that the idea of offering a human substitute
is utterly foreign to Judaism; but this is, in fact, not true. The idea of
substitutionary punishment is clearly expressed in Moses’s offer to
the LORD to be killed in place of the people, who had apostatized, in
order to “make atonement” for their sin (Exod 32.30–34). Although
Yahweh rejects Moses’s offer of a substitutionary atonement, saying that “when the day comes for punishment, I will punish them
for their sin” (v 34), the offer is nonetheless clear, and Yahweh
simply declines the offer but does not dismiss it as absurd or
impossible. Similarly, while Yahweh consistently rejects human
sacrifice, in contrast to the practice of pagan nations, the story of
God’s commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac (whom the
NT treats as a type of Christ) shows that such a thing is not
impossible (Gen 22.1–19). In Isaiah 53, moreover, the idea of the
Servant’s substitutionary suffering is treated as extraordinary and
surprising. The LORD has inflicted on His righteous Servant what He
refused to inflict on Isaac and Moses.
The suffering of the Servant is agreed on all hands to be punitive.
In the OT, the expression “to bear sin,” when used of people,
Jul 2018 at 16:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
typically means to be held culpable or to endure punishment (e.g.,
Lev 5.1; 7.18; 19.8; 24.15; Num 5.31; 9.13; 14.34).
The Servant does
not bear his own sins, but the sins of others (vv 4, 11–12).
Intriguingly, the phrase can be used regarding the priests’ action
of making atonement (e.g., Lev 10.17: “that you may bear the
iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before
the LORD”). But the priests, unlike the Servant, do not suffer in so
doing. The punitive nature of the Servant’s suffering is clearly
expressed in phrases like “wounded for our transgressions,”
“bruised for our iniquities,” “upon him was the chastisement that
made us whole,” “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all,”
and “stricken for the transgression of my people” (vv 5, 6, 8).
civic
Well-known member
No thanks I have done my own homework and self study. I can think and discern just fine without reading a biased doctrinal source. PSA is unbiblical with the Father punishing the Son, pouring His wrath on His own Beloved Son, then finally KILLING His own Son.
That is straight out Paganism.
No Thank you !
hope this helps !!!
That is straight out Paganism.
No Thank you !
hope this helps !!!
