Penal Substitution and the Trinity

That is actually a false statement. But I understand that it is your theory. Work through this illustration with me:

Suppose you punch me in the nose.
Who do I have to punch in order to forgive you? A family member? Myself?

Your tradition makes assumptions about justice, Yeshua1. Maybe they are right. But maybe they are wrong. All we can say is that they are not actually in Scripture.

 

No, silly. It's one of Aesop's Fables.

Library of Congress Aesop Fables

A more contemporary one would be a short story by Pedro Sacristan called "The Wicked Prince". It's a story of a king whose son was a dishonest telltale.

 

Actually none of them are word for word from the LXX. It is more likely they are translated on the fly from the Hebrew Vorlage Text.

 

Or translated on the fly from the LXX.

 

How do you translate from Greek into Greek?

 

Reading a few posts around here I find myself translate English into English all the time. Kinda like that.

(Really, I was relying on something I read of Gordon Fee in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Obviously I have not given it much thought beyond that).

My point is that my position agrees with both the LXX and the Hebrew text. So whether or not the LXX is wrong does not really concern me (insofar as my position goes) as it was not involved in determining my interpretation of the text.

 

No, that verse doesn't really work either. You see, God effects repentance and God forgives the repentant. And the "second death" is a Christ-centered judgment.

 

Jesus did suffer death so that we might live. Insofar as your crime, if you repent God is faithful to forgive.

 

Actually, it doesn't. There is NO, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, instance of an exact word for word quote of the LXX in the Greek New Testament.

 

That's not what I mean. I mean that my position can be reconciled with both the LXX and the Hebrew text. So it doesn't matter to my position which we use.

 

You are mistaking. What you mean to say is that it cannot be reconciled to your satisfaction.

Isaiah 53:10
10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

God loved the world by giving His Son. This was God's will. As Peter noted - it was the predetermined plan of God. The Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief.

Not "the Lord was giddy about pouring His wrath upon Him, nailing Him to the Cross". We affirm the same verses. The difference is that you are reading that God's "crushing" Him, putting Him to grief means God pouring out His wrath for our sins on Him rather than simply God offering Him as a guilt offering.

 

Easy. "You mean to say" is an expression of correction (usually to common falicies).

You said it cannot be reconciled with the Hebrew text (an obvious error as it has been reconciled many times over). An accurate statement is that it cannot be reconciled to your satisfaction.

And the term is more polite than how I learned in grade school. I had one teacher that would make you stand with your back to the wall holding a dictionary parallel with the ground for such errors. Another would look you in the eye and say "are you stupid", and then explain the error. I doubt either'd fly today.

 

That's fine. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

That's my point. The Vorlage text reads quite differently than the Masoretic Text. (IE it is changed.)

The oldest complete copy of the LXX dates to 240 AD so it is difficult to use it to prove a position is "biblical."

 

As this thread is, once again, going off the rails, I am closing it.

Enough is enough!