Why did Jesus say ‘My God, My God why have you forsaken me? Did the Father forsake the Son?

[Diserner]

the question is what do those words really mean ?

I would argue they mean their more straightforward, plain and literal interpretations, as Christ was talking to God.

There was no justice but injustice in His death.

You're looking at it like there is only one layer to it. It's multifaceted.

Scripture clearly says we were crucified with Christ, our body of sin, old man, or nature of the first Adam.

Scripture says Jesus was not just murdered there, but bore our sins on his body in the tree to reconcile us to God.

The essential harmonizations are found through the principles of authority and union. What if, in some mystical way, PSA is actually the criminal himself paying the price—even though it doesn't look like it. Now I urge you to search out every Scripture describing our mystical union to Christ, that we are his Body, that anyone joined to the Lord is one spirit with him, that we are actually and really crucified with Christ. You may be tempted to try to water down these words somehow, but I urge you to really attempt to show them the utmost respect—Paul really did believe he was crucified with Christ, it was not a euphemism of some kind. He constantly talks about dying with Christ, being one in his death, on and on. So if God has the authority to establish what values his justice, and there is not a Karmic Justice above God that holds him guilty of a thing, and if God really can become one with the criminal, such that we are not speaking in abstract terms, you will actually find a way God can fulfill his own justice on our behalf—not legal "fiction" as some way, or just an approximate figurative parallel. We intuitively know in our conscience, that the evilness of sin should really get exactly what it deserves, and a cheap and sloppy passive forgiveness by God that takes no real account of crime against him, does not at all in truth uphold his Law or his character, but makes it a bit of a joke. We can have a one-to-one system of substitution, with Christ's infinite nature experiencing the exact infinite amount of suffering we all deserve for our sins, against the infinitely holy God. And, being the absolute core of the Gospel, and the human heart being by nature deceitful, I do urge real, earnest and prolonged prayer about what Christ really did on that Cross. You could start with the simple prayer, "God, why did you picture a snake on the pole when Jesus was the one dying on the Cross."

 

[civic]

Scripture does indeed say he who knew no sin became sin, as depicted by a serpent on a pole.

However, "had to look away" is highly idiomatic language, and it is better stated as a negative relation, or wrath.

So now the serpent Moses help up was sin?

 

[civic]

Scripture does indeed say he who knew no sin became sin, as depicted by a serpent on a pole.

However, "had to look away" is highly idiomatic language, and it is better stated as a negative relation, or wrath.

Another verse ripped from its context , try reading the context. Your view contradicts the verses before 5:21.

2 Corinthians 5:18-21
18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19;that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20;We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

The above is the atonement which is a covering, Passover , sacrifice providing forgiveness of sins as Jesus taught. The Just for the unjust, the Righteous for the unrighteous, the Holy One for the unholy , the Sinless One for the sinner.

God( the Father) was in Christ( interdwelling of Trinity) reconciling the world to Himself. God says twice in the passage He was doing the reconciliation along with the Son.

 

[civic]

I would argue they mean their more straightforward, plain and literal interpretations, as Christ was talking to God.



You're looking at it like there is only one layer to it. It's multifaceted.

Scripture clearly says we were crucified with Christ, our body of sin, old man, or nature of the first Adam.

Scripture says Jesus was not just murdered there, but bore our sins on his body in the tree to reconcile us to God.

The essential harmonizations are found through the principles of authority and union. What if, in some mystical way, PSA is actually the criminal himself paying the price—even though it doesn't look like it. Now I urge you to search out every Scripture describing our mystical union to Christ, that we are his Body, that anyone joined to the Lord is one spirit with him, that we are actually and really crucified with Christ. You may be tempted to try to water down these words somehow, but I urge you to really attempt to show them the utmost respect—Paul really did believe he was crucified with Christ, it was not a euphemism of some kind. He constantly talks about dying with Christ, being one in his death, on and on. So if God has the authority to establish what values his justice, and there is not a Karmic Justice above God that holds him guilty of a thing, and if God really can become one with the criminal, such that we are not speaking in abstract terms, you will actually find a way God can fulfill his own justice on our behalf—not legal "fiction" as some way, or just an approximate figurative parallel. We intuitively know in our conscience, that the evilness of sin should really get exactly what it deserves, and a cheap and sloppy passive forgiveness by God that takes no real account of crime against him, does not at all in truth uphold his Law or his character, but makes it a bit of a joke. We can have a one-to-one system of substitution, with Christ's infinite nature experiencing the exact infinite amount of suffering we all deserve for our sins, against the infinitely holy God. And, being the absolute core of the Gospel, and the human heart being by nature deceitful, I do urge real, earnest and prolonged prayer about what Christ really did on that Cross. You could start with the simple prayer, "God, why did you picture a snake on the pole when Jesus was the one dying on the Cross."

No I’ve attacked the heretical teaching of PSA from all angles beginning with Gods nature and character and tying that into every aspect of the atonement. I left no stone unturned. I covered every objection and dealt with every passage used by PSA advocates.

 

[Diserner]

So now the serpent Moses help up was sin?

It represented the punishment, or curse, of sin, from the poison seeping the veins of those bitten.

It seems you yourself have been bitten by something.

No I’ve attacked the heretical teaching of PSA from all angles beginning with Gods nature and character and tying that into every aspect of the atonement. I left no stone unturned. I covered every objection and dealt with every passage used by PSA advocates.

I'm really not trying to mock, but your pasted together and cobbled non sequiturs you call "arguments" are strikingly poor.

The above is the atonement which is a covering, Passover , sacrifice providing forgiveness of sins as Jesus taught. The Just for the unjust, the Righteous for the unrighteous, the Holy One for the unholy , the Sinless One for the sinner.

Amen, substitution is completely unavoidable.

And just as God made us his real righteousness in Christ—so is that a direct comparison to Christ being made our sin.

 

[civic]

It represented the punishment, or curse, of sin, from the poison seeping the veins of those bitten.

It seems you yourself have been bitten by something.



I'm really not trying to mock, but your pasted together and cobbled non sequiturs you call "arguments" are strikingly poor.



Amen, substitution is completely unavoidable.

And just as God made us his real righteousness in Christ—so is that a direct comparison to Christ being made our sin.

God was in Christ reconciling ( not turned away from Him) the world to Himself. It was the Tri- Unity of the Godhead working together where the reconciliation took place in the atonement.

 

[civic]

It represented the punishment, or curse, of sin, from the poison seeping the veins of those bitten.

It seems you yourself have been bitten by something.



I'm really not trying to mock, but your pasted together and cobbled non sequiturs you call "arguments" are strikingly poor.



Amen, substitution is completely unavoidable.

And just as God made us his real righteousness in Christ—so is that a direct comparison to Christ being made our sin.

Became sin means a sin offering not sin. This coincided with Paul’s teaching below. My view harmonizes scripture whereas yours does not.


Romans 8:3-4
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, / so that the righteous standard of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

 

[civic]

Even the Calvinist Barnes agrees:

To be sin - The words 'to be' are not in the original. Literally, it is, 'he has made him sin, or a sin-offering' ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν hamartian epoiēsen . But what is meant by this? What is the exact idea which the apostle intended to convey? I answer, it cannot be:

(1) That he was literally sin in the abstract, or sin as such. No one can pretend this. The expression must be, therefore, in some sense, figurative. Nor,

(2) Can it mean that he was a sinner, for it is said in immediate connection that he "knew no sin," and it is everywhere said that he was holy, harmless, undefiled. Nor,

(3) Can it mean that he was, in any proper sense of the word, guilty, for no one is truly guilty who is not personally a transgressor of the Law; and if he was, in any proper sense, guilty, then he deserved to die, and his death could have no more merit than that of any other guilty being; and if he was properly guilty it would make no difference in this respect whether it was by his own fault or by imputation: a guilty being deserves to be punished; and where there is desert of punishment there can be no merit in sufferings.

But all such views as go to make the Holy Redeemer a sinner, or guilty, or deserving of the sufferings which he endured, border on blasphemy, and are abhorrent to the whole strain of the Scriptures. In no form, in no sense possible, is it to be maintained that the Lord Jesus was sinful or guilty. It is a corner stone of the whole system of religion, that in all conceivable senses of the expression he was holy, and pure, and the object of the divine approbation. And every view which fairly leads to the statement that he was in any sense guilty, or which implies that he deserved to die, is "prima facie" a false view, and should be at once abandoned. But,

(4) If the declaration that he was made "sin" (ἁμαρτίαν hamartian) does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering - an offering or a sacrifice for sin; and this is the interpretation which is now generally adopted by expositors; or it must be taken as an abstract for the concrete, and mean that God treated him as if he were a sinner. The former interpretation, that it means that God made him a sin-offering, is adopted by Whitby, Doddridge, Macknight, Rosenmuller, and others; the latter, that it means that God treated him as a sinner, is adopted by Vorstius, Schoettgen, Robinson (Lexicon), Dr. Bull, and others. There are many passages in the Old Testament where the word "sin" (ἁμαρτία hamartia) is used in the sense of sin-offering, or a sacrifice for sin. Thus, Hosea 4:8, "They eat up the sin of my people;" that is, the sin-offerings; see Ezekiel 43:22, Ezekiel 43:25; Ezekiel 44:29; Ezekiel 45:22-23, Ezekiel 45:25.