Penal Substitutionary Atonement

[Free]

Free,
I would like to ask again that when your line of questioning is finished, you would respond to the posts I mentioned.
I would like to say I know exactly where this is going. I want you to know that I have had this type of conversation before on this site and not once was the scripture I cited explained by the person disagreeing with me. I don't mean this as a slur in any way. I didn't see it for thirty years. I sat in church and didn't really question why. I was told why. This is what happened to me

Which verse in which post? You've given more than one.

It began when Adam and Eve discovered not listening to God caused shame...then fear and other thoughts they never had.

What was it called that they did?

They got booted and were subjected to what heaven was like when you know who went off the rails. But...they could return...not to the earthly one...but the one you know who fell from.

Please explain this. I don't understand anything of what you're saying.

Mercy...and then some.

What Adam and Eve did was called mercy?

 

[st_worm2]

I agree. People take scripture sush as,

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” Gal.3:13 NKJV

and turn it upside down. Paul is citing Deu.21:23, but that statute is only according to law if,

a man has committed a sin deserving of deat Deu.21:22 NKJV

Paul is saying our Savior allowed himself to be defamed, had his true characted maligned. Those who testified bore false witness against him so he taught,

Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Mt.5:11


being defamed, we entrea 1Cor.4:13 NKJV

even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, 1Pet.31 NET

Hello again Journeyman, sadly, I have to run again, but I thought that I'd ask you for a little help before I go as I'm not understanding the point that you are making above. I highlighted the part of v13 that speaks of the Lord Jesus acting as a substitute for us, but rather than just guessing at what you are getting at, please tell me why you believe that Christ "becoming a curse for us" should not be understood as Him acting in our stead/on our behalf, IOW, as a "substitute" for us

Thanks!!

Hopefully I will get back early enough to respond if you have the time to do so tonight. If not, there is always tomorrow (Dv)

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - perhaps it would help me understand if you also told me why you believe the West's teaching of a substitutionary atonement is so very wrong, so please tell me what your main problem/problems with it are (I don't want this to take up much more of your time, so something short/concise will do nicely, again, if and only if you have the time to do so .. thanks again ).

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Which verse in which post? You've given more than one.

Post 5 this thread.

What was it called that they did?

Sinning in ignorance, for which the later written law says a sinner may be forgiven.

if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. Num.15:28

The NT agrees, even in the case of a Pharisee who thought persecuting Christians was a good thing,

a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 1Tim.1:13

Paul sinned against God, because he went after the Apostles. He thought Jesus was a blasphemer and these renegade Jews were also. But Our Savior said,

Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?Act.9:4

So persecuting believers is persecuting God himself.

The law says Jews and faithful gentiles have the same law,
Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.
Num.15:28

Jesus taught the commandments to Jews only as Moses did, but told his followers to spread it to the world and they did.

this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations Mt.24:14

(Side note: That statement by our Lord is an amazing prophecy as it's a miracle the faith didn't die out. In fact no ither religion in the world has one specific prophecy fulfillment . The Bible contains many.)

The Bible also says "intentional sins will jot be forgiven,

But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him. Num.15:30-31

The NT agrees.
Please listen to this next part because here's where the problem is. God knows we struggle. Even becoming angry without cause can be forgiven. Any sin can be forgiven if repented of,

For we do not havea High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Heb.4:3

But if God gives us time to repent and we decide to sin because we think Jesus will forgive us...no matter whatwe're headed for damnation. Jesus never taught that. Here's what the Messiah taught,

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God under foot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? Heb.10:26-29

He fulfilled this law to the T because He was merciful to sinners. He's returning as God so believe it now.

Free:
Please explain this. I don't understand anything of what you're saying.
What Adam and Eve did was called mercy?

No, they learned mercy from their Father. This earth was perfect, a mirror of the Heavenly realm, but Eden was the plaxe within it where God communed with Adam. And here's something I won't post the.many scriptures on because i'm too tired but I will if you want.

Our first earthly parents were expelled from Eden, where they spoke to God in person, in the flesh, which no human has done since, except One. But they werem't bannished from him in Spirit. Adam and Eve believed in God and he let them know by what he said to each that they could one day dwell in his very presence.

The counterpart is when angels with knowledge of good and evil knowingly sinned in Gods presence, he cast them to the earth with no hope of repentance. [/B]
Our parents left Eden with faith hope.
So the Bible tells us sinners who have faith and follow Jesus are stronger than any fallen angel. It's because Jesus dominated him. He knocked him out in both realms without punch... just because of who he is.
The only place in scripture where it says, "Satan rules this word" is from the testimony of Satan.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Hello again Journeyman, sadly, I have to run again, but I thought that I'd ask you for a little help before I go as I'm not understanding the point that you are making above. I highlighted the part of v13 that speaks of the Lord Jesus acting as a substitute for us, but rather than just guessing at what you are getting at, please tell me why you believe that Christ "becoming a curse for us" should not be understood as Him acting in our stead/on our behalf, IOW, as a "substitute" for us
Because showing mercy to sinners for murder doesnt mean murder is ok with God. Jesus bore the sin of murder against himself. You've been taught the OT sacrifice was a substitute. He wasn't. When Moses offered sacrifice he was commanded to repent.
quote]st_worm2:
Hopefully I will get back early enough to respond if you have the time to do so tonight.

Now where have I heard that before? Oh... now I remember... you said that yesterday!
I really love you David.

If not, there is always tomorrow (Dv)
God bless you!!

--David

Not to be disagreable but, "you do not know what will happen tomorrow." Jas.4:14 NKJV
I'm sure we agree,
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brethren to dwell together in unity! Psa133.1

p.s. - perhaps it would help me understand if you also told me why you believe the West's teaching of a substitutionary atonement is so very wrong, so please tell me what your main problem/problems with it are (I don't want this to take up much more of your time, so something short/concise will do nicely, again, if and only if you have the time to do so .. thanks again ).

I knew before I was saved that injustice is wrong. God knew it first,
Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you. Jas.5:6
The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. Isa.57.1
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: Pro.6:16

I couldn't reconcile this, because in killing his Son, God is doing something he despises.
So one night in prayer I asked why and I then had a thought, my own voice in my head but not thinking it the answer was exactly this,

I didn't. Mankind did.

That thought never occured to me. I was no where near that thought. Then hoping for another answer I said, "What does that mean?" No answer. A little while later l met this Jewish guy who believed in Jesus and new the OT very well. He explained to me very patiently that Christians had poor understanding of Pauls' connecting Messiah to the Torah.
And now I don't tiptoe through the TULIP.

Btw, why is your screen name connected to scripture?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Free,

Not every JW teaching though.

JWs teach that Jesus' death was substitutionary, but possibly not Penal. I believe that Jesus' Sacrifice was as our Representative. Who is closer to the JWs on this subject of the Atonement? Guilt by association? I belong to a different denomination pigeon hole, and we were established before the JWs. I prefer to discuss a Bible subject rather than advertising my denomination.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Hopeful 2,

The death in question is the second death.
Without Christ's intercession all would die a second time.

I am not sure how you substantiate such an idea. Does Jesus swap his death for our death? And if so, why was Jesus raised again? I prefer the concept of Representative, and we become united with Jesus in his death and resurrection by an affectionate belief in what he accomplished within himself first, and an affectionate uniting with him and participation with him by baptism in water Acts 8:5-6,12.

He suffered to bring glory to God: not for himself or for any others.

Yes, the story revealed in the Book of Job does bring glory to God, but I suggest that there is a larger picture involved. The outworking of the Book of Job brought Job closer to God, and the process humbled him. It also brought the three friends to submit to God and recognise that they had spoken incorrectly against Job. A major error held by the friends and partly by Job was thoroughly answered. This error was a fallacious syllogism: Suffering is the result of sin. Job was suffering greatly. Therefore Job must be a great sinner. But relevant to this topic, there is no hint that Job is a substitute. Rather the Book of Job is a precursor, a pattern of the sufferings of Jesus.

The same could be said about the sufferings of Joseph. His life was typical of the sufferings and exaltation of Jesus. His sufferings ultimately brought the 10 brothers into subjection to God. One of my favourite passages that seems to use this whole historical transaction as a basis for future events is the following:
Isaiah 29:22–24 (KJV): 22 Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. 23 But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel. 24 They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.
I consider this to be giving a picture of Jacob, anxiously awaiting for the return of his sons including Benjamin from Egypt. Unknown to him God had been at work through Joseph to bring the sons of Jacob into repentance and submission. Jacob was rewarded with not only the return of Benjamin, but the realisation that Joseph was also still alive and that God had blessed him and prepared the way for their deliverance from famine and death. This does not speak of Substitution, but the whole process brings education, repentance and submission.

Concerning your mention of giving glory to God, I like the following concerning the crucifixion of Jesus, and in a way your comment on the Book of Job shows that the pattern is a constant theme throughout Scripture, and this demonstrates that the Atonement is Representative, not Substitution.
John 12:23–28 (KJV): 23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. 26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour. 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
Jesus as our Representative asks us to follow him, and die with him to bring glory to God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Hopeful 2]

Greetings again Hopeful 2,

I am not sure how you substantiate such an idea.

As even the vessels of the repentant...(non-sinners)..still "die", the death Jesus took for us has to be the second death.

Does Jesus swap his death for our death?

I think Paul says it best in 1 Cor 15:3..."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;"
The death we would have received for our sins is the second death.
Paul also wrote..."For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom 6:23)
As even the repentant...(non-sinners)...still "die", our vessel's physical death is not the death of Romans 6:23.

And if so, why was Jesus raised again? I prefer the concept of Representative, and we become united with Jesus in his death and resurrection by an affectionate belief in what he accomplished within himself first, and an affectionate uniting with him and participation with him by baptism in water Acts 8:5-6,12.

I think you are just getting too wordy.
Who cares how it is labeled, as long as it occurred.
Romans 6:3-7 are better verses to explain our unification by water baptism into Christ at His/our death to sin.

Yes, the story revealed in the Book of Job does bring glory to God, but I suggest that there is a larger picture involved. The outworking of the Book of Job brought Job closer to God, and the process humbled him. It also brought the three friends to submit to God and recognise that they had spoken incorrectly against Job. A major error held by the friends and partly by Job was thoroughly answered. This error was a fallacious syllogism: Suffering is the result of sin.

Where is it written that suffering is for sin ?
Or did you forget the correct punctuation to imply that "Suffering is the result of sin." was the false syllogism ?
Of what sin can a 3 year old cancer victim be charged with ?

Job was suffering greatly. Therefore Job must be a great sinner.

But he wasn't a sinner.

But relevant to this topic, there is no hint that Job is a substitute. Rather the Book of Job is a precursor, a pattern of the sufferings of Jesus.

Job suffered to show that even in the face of major heart-ache, he didn't loose faith.
That is the pattern he illustrated.

The same could be said about the sufferings of Joseph. His life was typical of the sufferings and exaltation of Jesus. His sufferings ultimately brought the 10 brothers into subjection to God. One of my favourite passages that seems to use this whole historical transaction as a basis for future events is the following:
Isaiah 29:22–24 (KJV): 22 Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. 23 But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel. 24 They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.
I consider this to be giving a picture of Jacob, anxiously awaiting for the return of his sons including Benjamin from Egypt. Unknown to him God had been at work through Joseph to bring the sons of Jacob into repentance and submission. Jacob was rewarded with not only the return of Benjamin, but the realisation that Joseph was also still alive and that God had blessed him and prepared the way for their deliverance from famine and death. This does not speak of Substitution, but the whole process brings education, repentance and submission.

You seem to be focused on "substitution".

Concerning your mention of giving glory to God, I like the following concerning the crucifixion of Jesus, and in a way your comment on the Book of Job shows that the pattern is a constant theme throughout Scripture, and this demonstrates that the Atonement is Representative, not Substitution.
John 12:23–28 (KJV): 23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. 26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour. 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
Jesus as our Representative asks us to follow him, and die with him to bring glory to God.

Kind regards
Trevor

If He is asking us to do something, isn't He God's representative ?

 

[st_worm2]

Now where have I heard that before? Oh... now I remember... you said that yesterday!
I really love you David.



Not to be disagreable but, "you do not know what will happen tomorrow." Jas.4:14 NKJV
I'm sure we agree,
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brethren to dwell together in unity! Psa133.1

Hello again Journeyman, while I ALWAYS appreciate being loved , I honestly don't remember asking you for clarity about post #5 prior to my last message to you (in fact, I felt a bit guilty for not getting to it sooner after you pointed out to me that I hadn't done so).

Also, as far as the following goes..................................

st_worm2 said:​

If not, there is always tomorrow (Dv) ​

God bless you!!​

​

--David​

..............................I guess I'm dating myself (as really old) by using "Dv" and expecting that X, Y and Z's would know what it means. Interestingly, there was a time (not all that long ago) when its use was commonplace on both personal and business correspondence, on event invitations (like wedding invitations), and the like. "Dv" is an abbreviation for two Latin words, "Deo volente" (which in English means, "Lord willing"). We used it as a reminder of the admonition of James 4:15, as well then, of the Lord's sovereign rule over our lives.

Sadly, this is but one example of how much has changed, of how different things were in the world that I grew up in (50's - 70's), and how much more commonplace God was in our minds and hearts back then (and far more a part of our daily lives).

I'll give you one more example of this. This one from a primetime TV show called "Dragnet" from back in the late 50's to mid-60's. Dragnet was a police drama, and in the episode that I am thinking of, the two leading characters (both policemen) argue with a young, professional couple about the dangers of marijuana. The young married couple uses the Bible to argue why it's ok to use it, and then the policemen use it as well, to explain to them why their interpretation of the Scriptures was incorrect.

And both the young, married couple AND the policemen do so from memory, both citing Chapter and Verse, as well, again, from memory.

We saw this kind of exchange and thought nothing of it, because (as I just said) it was considered normal back then, even on primetime TV.

Just FYI, when I was born, there were only 48 States in the Union, basically no one had A/C, phones were landlines with a dial, not buttons, there were no cell phones or internet, and TV was in black and white with basically two kinds of shows, news and big-time wrestling Oh, and there no "malls" to shop in, and a "milkman" delivered our milk to us each week in glass bottles.

I knew before I was saved that injustice is wrong. God knew it first,
Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you. Jas.5:6
The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. Isa.57.1
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: Pro.6:16

No matter what your view of the Atonement is, there is no question that God the Father sent His Son here to die for us, and that the Lord Jesus obeyed Him willingly. Both chose to do so because they loved us, and because if they hadn't, not even a remnant of us would have survived to be the Lord Jesus' bride, as all of us would have ended up spending eternity in the Lake of Fire.

What you call "injustice", God calls "love", especially in regard to the greatest act of love of all time, IOW, what He and His Son chose to do for us/to save us

John 15​

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. ​

And that is exactly what the Lord Jesus did, yes!

Btw, why is your screen name connected to scripture?

It just seemed like the thing to do Actually, it's most directly associated with a Latin quote of Martin Luther's, simul justus et peccator ("at the same time just and sinner").

God bless you!!

--David

edit: It looks like I cut out part of your post (towards the end) from my reply. Sorry about that. For now, I'll just leave John 15:13 as my reply to it as well. I'm not sure how any of this stands in opposition to the Reformers and T.U.L.I.P., but I'll leave that for another thread.

 

[Free]

Post 5 this thread.

Okay. We'll get there.

Sinning in ignorance, for which the later written law says a sinner may be forgiven.

if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. Num.15:28

And they were forgiven on the basis of the sacrifice and the shedding of blood from an unblemished animal.
https://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Num.15.28

The NT agrees, even in the case of a Pharisee who thought persecuting Christians was a good thing,

a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 1Tim.1:13

Paul sinned against God, because he went after the Apostles. He thought Jesus was a blasphemer and these renegade Jews were also. But Our Savior said,

Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?Act.9:4

And how was Paul forgiven?
https://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Acts.9.4

The law says Jews and faithful gentiles have the same law,
Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.
Num.15:28

Jesus taught the commandments to Jews only as Moses did, but told his followers to spread it to the world and they did.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations Mt.24:14

And what is the gospel?

The Bible also says "intentional sins will jot be forgiven,

But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him. Num.15:30-31

The NT agrees.
Please listen to this next part because here's where the problem is. God knows we struggle. Even becoming angry without cause can be forgiven. Any sin can be forgiven if repented of,

For we do not havea High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Heb.4:3

Of course. And, remember, Jesus was without sin, that is, without blemish.

But if God gives us time to repent and we decide to sin because we think Jesus will forgive us...no matter whatwe're headed for damnation. Jesus never taught that. Here's what the Messiah taught,

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God under foot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? Heb.10:26-29

Be careful with this one. This is speaking of a specific sin which comes from the three verses prior to those:

Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.
Heb 10:24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,
Heb 10:25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? (ESV)

This is speaking of being fearful and so denouncing the faith (vs 23) and no longer gathering with believers (vs 25). The deliberate sin of vs 26 is, as M. R. Vincent states, "the abandonment of Christianity for Judaism."

It's also worth noting verse 19: "Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus" (ESV).

How were the priests in the OT able to enter the Holy Place? Through the blood of a bull, in part (Ex 29: 10-12; Lev 16:3) and a ram (Ex 29:19-21). Why? To make atonement (Ex 29:36-37). And this is what Heb 9 talks about:

Heb 9:6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties,
Heb 9:7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. (ESV)

And then it shows how this relates to Christ:

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
...
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. (ESV)

He fulfilled this law to the T because He was merciful to sinners. He's returning as God so believe it now.

Merciful how? What does "merciful" mean, biblically?

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Hello again Journeyman, while I ALWAYS appreciate being loved , I honestly don't remember asking you for clarity about post #5 prior to my last message to you (in fact, I felt a bit guilty for not getting to it sooner after you pointed out to me that I hadn't done so).

Also, as far as the following goes..................................

st_worm2 said:​

If not, there is always tomorrow (Dv) ​

God bless you!!​

​

--David​

..............................I guess I'm dating myself (as really old) by using "Dv" and expecting that X, Y and Z's would know what it means. Interestingly, there was a time (not all that long ago) when its use was commonplace on both personal and business correspondence, on event invitations (like wedding invitations), and the like. "Dv" is an abbreviation for two Latin words, "Deo volente" (which in English means, "Lord willing"). We used it as a reminder of the admonition of James 4:15, as well then, of the Lord's sovereign rule over our lives.

Thanks for the info David. I had no idea Dv meant "Lord willing." I better write that down. I never learned Latin. I think its because I went to public school after 1st grade and didn't get a bilingual Bible.
In the early church the gift of foreign langeages was given to believers to spread the gospel. Today nobody needs to learn a foreign language or even go to church to know what Jesus said. As long as they can read and have a dictionary if needed.
I hope you find that when we speak I'm relating my life to what the Bible says. That is what God says about my life.

Sadly, this is but one example of how much has changed, of how different things were in the world that I grew up in (50's - 70's), and how much more commonplace God was in our minds and hearts back then (and far more a part of our daily lives).

I'll give you one more example of this. This one from a primetime TV show called "Dragnet" from back in the late 50's to mid-60's. Dragnet was a police drama, and in the episode that I am thinking of, the two leading characters (both policemen) argue with a young, professional couple about the dangers of marijuana. The young married couple uses the Bible to argue why it's ok to use it, and then the policemen use it as well, to explain to them why their interpretation of the Scriptures was incorrect.

And both the young, married couple AND the policemen do so from memory, both citing Chapter and Verse, as well, again, from memory.

We saw this kind of exchange and thought nothing of it, because (as I just said) it was considered normal back then, even on primetime TV.

Just FYI, when I was born, there were only 48 States in the Union, basically no one had A/C, phones were landlines with a dial, not buttons, there were no cell phones or internet, and TV was in black and white with basically two kinds of shows, news and big-time wrestling Oh, and there no "malls" to shop in, and a "milkman" delivered our milk to us each week in glass bottles.

I think I see what happened here. My profile used to say I was born in 1980. I lied, but not for any devious reason. I simply don't trust the internet with people hijacking information. The email address I used when I joined got hacked. I haven't used that since.
When the leadership asked to join, I read the rules and there was something about giving false information about yourself disqualifying a person from being a moderator. I told them I lied and why. They took it ok, but I understand their position. Nobody wants a sex offender lurking around.
I now understand all laws for the general heart of them, If I went by the letter of the law we might be cell mates.
We have so much in common. I remember everything you mentioned except the Latin.
I loved Joe Friday. Like Jesus, he taught crime doesn't pay. At least not in the long run like Jesus taught. If you got in Friday and Gannons' way they would not set you free.
I started my career off that way.....you criminals can't get away from the long arm of the law!!! But over time (thanks in part to my mentor who btw was named David ), I saw criminals as sinners who needed to Christ. He makes sinners free, even if they're behind bars.
I enjoyed having sinners in the back of my car, because I could share Christ with them. One guy thought if he converted in the back seat I'f let him go home. That was funny.
From my Christian police officers' (now retired) perspective, Please read ny testimony below for what I believe laws are made for. Especially Moses law.
Every word of this story is true before God.

I was watching a drug house one night when a woman exited the side door. When she was few doors away, I pulled up with my lights off. startled her and she threw the drugs on the ground. My partner recovered it and while I was cuffing her she said, "My baby is home alone."
When we got to her house the baby wasn't alone. A guy and girl from a town 30 miles away were there looking anxious.
Her house was immaculate. I picked the
baby (Kyrel) up from his playpen to see if
he had any visible marks of child abuse. I found a child who seemed well cared for. He smiled at me and laid his head on my chest.
I put him back in his playpen and told the girl to give me the number of a responsible family member who could the watch her son.
I told the visitors to get walking because my partner impounded their car for parking an unregistered car on a city street.
When her trial came uo her lawyer tried to have her found not guilty by saying I had no probable cause stop her in the first place and have the drug evidence thrown out. The judge said to me, "Officer, you saw her throw the drugs on the ground? You didn't find them on her person?"
I replied, "Your honor, I don't think this defendant is a criminal. She's a drug addict. Yes, she committed a crime, but I don't believe she belongs in jail. She needs counseling and if she doesn't get it, she's going to wind up a street tramp and her precious son is doomed." This courtroom was packed and you.could here a pin drop.
Then I tilted my head on the stand because the defense attorney blocked my view of his client and addressed her (which a point of law...a witness questioning a defendant) that is not allowed and said in a very loud voice, "Do you hear me?
She was staring at me crying, slightly nodding and buried her face in her hands.
The district attorney was staring at me with a quizzical look. Her court appointed defender who looked like he just graduated from law school looked stunned and the judge who smiling then called a 3 man huddle and surprise she got court ordered yada and probation, which is what the court would have given her regardless.
I just wanted the baby safe and for her to know what was going to happen if she didn't get help.
As I was waking past her after the judge dismissed me she lept from her chair and hugged me. I whispered in her ear, "Hiney, just obey the judges' order and everything will be fine."
I looked back at the judge who was still smiling and I smiled back. U'd been before him a number if times and I liked him. He always tempered the law with mercy...but not not anywhere near how our Lamb did.

No matter what your view of the Atonement is, there is no question that God the Father sent His Son here to die for us, and that the Lord Jesus obeyed Him willingly. Both chose to do so because they loved us, and because if they hadn't, not even a remnant of us would have survived to be the Lord Jesus' bride, as all of us would have ended up spending eternity in the Lake of Fire.

I agree, but for a completely polar reason. Also I disagree with the traditional doctrine of never ending torment.
Where salvation is concerned, having no hope of redemption is the only difference between angels and humans.

What you call "injustice", God calls "love", especially in regard to the greatest act of love of all time, IOW, what He and His Son chose to do for us/to save us

John 15​

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. ​

And that is exactly what the Lord Jesus did, yes!

No, actually Jesus is exactly as our Father because they both withhold their anger against people in this world who commit horrific sins against them. But you might have seen this better if you read the post.

It just seemed like the thing to do

Well, it did to the people who thought they knew the law best, because they were the ones saying Jesus is accursed. But the Bible says,

Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” 1Cor.12:3 NIV

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Actually, it's most directly associated with a Latin quote of Martin Luther's, simul justus et peccator ("at the same time just and sinner").

God bless you!!

--David

edit: It looks like I cut out part of your post (towards the end) from my reply. Sorry about that. For now, I'll just leave John 15:13 as my reply to it as well. I'm not sure how any of this stands in opposition to the Reformers and T.U.L.I.P., but I'll leave that for another thread.

That's ok. I understand you didn't have time to answer a few comments in your post here or the one yesterday.
I don't need any comment on what I've said here, because it can only lead to another marathon post where I can only offer one example of where the type of Gods' judgment without mercy would apply... but I feel you twisting my arm so I'll tell you.
One day my dad came home with a color tv and I was in happy land because Batman was on that evening. Unbeknownst to me, my sisters knew the t was coming and got moms ok to watch something on another channel. I was subjected to the black and white in the kitchen alone. How could a loving family a ten year old like that?

It would be very helpful if you find time to give me yiur view of what thus means,

In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. Heb.12:4 NIV

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Okay. We'll get there.

No we won't my friend, because I've answered all the questions in your post already, as II've done twice with eddif now. Neither of you have given me yiur interpretation of the scripture I've cited, but only after commenting on the scripture you cited showing how they agree perfectly.

It's ok. As I told you it tool me a long time to see this, so lets forget everything we've said so far and answer me one question.

In your own words, what died thus mean,

Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Heb.12:4

 

[Free]

No we won't my friend

Please don’t say we won’t when I said we will.

because I've answered all the questions in your post already, as II've done twice with eddif now.

There are still questions I’ve asked that you haven’t answered, and I’m asking them for a reason. I want to know more of what you believe, as that will inform my response. Also, as I said, deep, core doctrines have numerous verses that must be taken together. Taking them one at a time in isolation will always lead to wrong conclusions.

A reason why so many get the deity of Christ and the Trinity wrong is precisely because they are taking things piecemeal and not considering everything together at the same time. Their method leads to taking everything out of context.

You seem to think this topic can be solved within a couple of posts, but it simply can’t.

Neither of you have given me yiur interpretation of the scripture I've cited, but only after commenting on the scripture you cited showing how they agree perfectly.

I don’t understand what your point is here.

It's ok. As I told you it tool me a long time to see this, so lets forget everything we've said so far and answer me one question.

See, this is taking things piecemeal and trying to get to answer far too quickly. We can’t forget everything that has been said. It all matters.

In your own words, what died thus mean,

Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Heb.12:4

I think it means what it states:

Heb 12:4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. (ESV)

They had not yet striven against sin as Christ had in the garden of Gethsemane just prior to his arrest. Likely because they had not yet had to; they had not yet faced the highest test—facing death. As such, they were to fight against the sin they did face.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Hopeful 2,

As even the vessels of the repentant...(non-sinners)..still "die", the death Jesus took for us has to be the second death.
I think Paul says it best in 1 Cor 15:3..."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;"
The death we would have received for our sins is the second death.

No, the death sentence in Eden for the sin of Adam was that he would die, and that he could not immediately partake of the Tree of Life so that he would live for ever.
Genesis 3:17–19,22-24 (KJV): 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
As a result of his sin, his disobedience he was going to suffer during his lifetime, and then die and return to the dust. After this sentence of death he was cast out of the Garden, and refused access to the Tree of Life.

Paul also wrote..."For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom 6:23)
As even the repentant...(non-sinners)...still "die", our vessel's physical death is not the death of Romans 6:23.

No, this reveals a sequence. We die the death because of sin, but God has provided and opened the way to eternal life, given the gift of eternal life, through Jesus, through faith, through forgiveness to those who believe the Gospel and live the crucified/resurrected life.

I think you are just getting too wordy. Who cares how it is labeled, as long as it occurred.

I am not sure what words you object to.

Where is it written that suffering is for sin ?

Suffering Genesis 3:19, and death Romans 5:12.

Of what sin can a 3 year old cancer victim be charged with ?

A sick child partakes of the whole environment introduced by the sin of Adam. Some children die, others are healthy.

But he wasn't a sinner.

But he was accused of being a sinner, and Jesus was similarly accused.

You seem to be focused on "substitution".
If He is asking us to do something, isn't He God's representative ?

Both words have a different meaning when speaking on the subject of the Atonement. Also "For us" can mean on our behalf (as a representative), while some would suggest that "for us" means instead of us (as a substitute). Christ suffered and died for us, on our behalf, for our benefit.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[journeymanisnothing]

I

think it means what it states:

Heb 12:4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. (ESV)

They had not yet striven against sin as Christ had in the garden of Gethsemane just prior to his arrest.

The text of Heb.12 doesn't refer to blood from sweat, but by the way he,

endured the cross, Heb.12:2

By the way he,

endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, Heb.12:3

How could the way he died (vs.2)
be contradiction by sinners against him? (vs.3)

The purpose of fighting against sin is to defeat death, which is caused by sin.

Jesus said his blood was shed

for the remission of sins. Mt.26:28
Our sins are forgiven...because sinners who contradicted him..spilled his blood.
.
That's the meaning of Heb.12:4.

So I'm asking you if Jesus is our substitute, if Jesus did what no man could do, for a purpose no man could fulfill, why does a believer have to strive against sin at all?

Likely because they had not yet had to; they had not yet faced the highest death. As such, they were to fight against the sin they did face.

Penal substitution means penalty substitution, If God ordained all sin placed on Jesus, and Jesus voluntarily accepted all that sin placed on him, why was he striving against his Fathers will?

There is no "contradiction" of his Father against himself. The contradiction was by sinners against himself.

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

They knew God in flesh was a sinner? That's a contradiction by sinners against himself. Heb.12 is referring to senselessness, like this,

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Mt.26:55-56

Why are we disagreeing that Jesus was falsely accused of committing a crime for which a man under Moses law was deemed cursed? God said,

Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the peoples hall say, Amen. Deu.27:26

How could Jesus who kept the whole law by cursed? That's a contradiction.

Look at the type of contradiction Jesus endured,

Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen. Deu.27:27

When paul says Jesus became a curse for us, he means Jesus was lied about. That's why Paul said,

no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed 1Cor.12::3

The rulers said Jesus was cursed. That's a contradiction of sinners against himself

 

[Free]

The text of Heb.12 doesn't refer to blood from sweat,

It is, imo, the best understanding of the verse.

but by the way he,

endured the cross, Heb.12:2

That’s one possible understanding. I have given another.

By the way he,

endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, Heb.12:3

Start at verse 1. Believers are told to “lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely” (ESV). That is sin, not sinful people. Likewise, when we get to verse 4, it is talking about personal sin, not people who oppose us.

Notice also in verse 1 that the analogy is used of running a race in front of a crowd; which Is likely an allusion to Greek games. In verse 4, the word for “striving” is also likely a reference to boxing, where boxers would often be covered in blood. We are to fight sin to that extent.

How could the way he died (vs.2)
be contradiction by sinners against him? (vs.3)

You do know that “contradiction” means “hostility,” yes?

The purpose of fighting against sin is to defeat death, which is caused by sin.

For Jesus, yes, and only then by remaining free from sin and then rising again. The purpose for believers to fight against sin is our sanctification; sin puts distance between us and God.

Jesus said his blood was shed

for the remission of sins. Mt.26:28
Our sins are forgiven...because sinners who contradicted him..spilled his blood.

Well, yes, his blood had to be spilled, since there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22). But there is more to it than that.

.
That's the meaning of Heb.12:4.

How so? Your understanding strongly suggests that believers need to shed their own blood, by being killed by sinners, in order to be saved. There are a number of things wrong with that.

So I'm asking you if Jesus is our substitute, if Jesus did what no man could do, for a purpose no man could fulfill, why does a believer have to strive against sin at all?

A strange question given how much the NT shows that believers still struggle against the flesh, the world, and the devil; all of which cause us to sin. True believers are in the process of being changed, we are not yet perfect.

It’s also a strange question because it seems to imply that anyone can do what Jesus did. This again leads one to believe they need to shed their own blood so they can be saved.

In your view, why are believers told to strive against sin? And what does it mean to do so to the point shedding one’s own blood?

Penal substitution means penalty substitution, If God ordained all sin placed on Jesus, and Jesus voluntarily accepted all that sin placed on him, why was he striving against his Fathers will?

Because he was also human. What do you think the drops of blood were about? What do you think his praying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” was all about?

There is no "contradiction" of his Father against himself. The contradiction was by sinners against himself.

The Bible says both are true.

Why are we disagreeing that Jesus was falsely accused of committing a crime for which a man under Moses law was deemed cursed?

We’re not.

God said,

Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the peoples hall say, Amen. Deu.27:26

How could Jesus who kept the whole law by cursed? That's a contradiction.

Your argument is against Paul, and ultimately God:

Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— (ESV)

Look at the type of contradiction Jesus endured,

Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen. Deu.27:27

When paul says Jesus became a curse for us, he means Jesus was lied about.

No, he doesn’t. He clearly appeals to the law about being hung on a tree (Deut 21:22-23).

That's why Paul said,

no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed 1Cor.12::3

That doesn’t fit the context, at all, which is about spiritual gifts and the Corinthians’ former paganism. Start there instead.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Greetings again Hopeful 2,
No, the death sentence in Eden for the sin of Adam was that he would die, and that he could not immediately partake of the Tree of Life so that he would live for ever.

Had Adam not sinned, he may have lived forever.
At least I think he would have.
But there is still the second death to consider.
Even if the vessel dies physically, it is still subject to the final judgement and the second death.

As a result of his sin, his disobedience he was going to suffer during his lifetime, and then die and return to the dust. After this sentence of death he was cast out of the Garden, and refused access to the Tree of Life.

He still has a final judgement to endure.
If his life was unfaithful after leaving the garden, he will be given a second death.
Rev 21:8..."But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

No, this reveals a sequence. We die the (first) death because of sin,

You haven't taken into account those that have quit sinning. The truly repentant.
Their sinless vessels still perishes.

but God has provided and opened the way to eternal life, given the gift of eternal life, through Jesus, through faith, through forgiveness to those who believe the Gospel and live the crucified/resurrected life.

True, but that life doesn't include our vessels.

I am not sure what words you object to.

"Representative".
It doesn't connotate the oneness we experience in Him at our baptism into His death and burial.

Suffering Genesis 3:19, and death Romans 5:12.

We have to make it clear then that some sufferings are not because of our own sins.
Job didn't sin, but suffered.

A sick child partakes of the whole environment introduced by the sin of Adam. Some children die, others are healthy.

If it was because of the sin of Adam, what don't all children suffer alike ?

But he was accused of being a sinner, and Jesus was similarly accused.

OK.
So suffering occurs without sin being the cause.

Both words have a different meaning when speaking on the subject of the Atonement. Also "For us" can mean on our behalf (as a representative), while some would suggest that "for us" means instead of us (as a substitute). Christ suffered and died for us, on our behalf, for our benefit.

I'll stick with "instead of us".
I might have been more open to the "represent" camp, but the word isn't even in the KJV of the bible.

 

[eddif]

No we won't my friend, because I've answered all the questions in your post already, as II've done twice with eddif now. Neither of you have given me yiur interpretation of the scripture I've cited, but only after commenting on the scripture you cited showing how they agree perfectly.

It's ok. As I told you it tool me a long time to see this, so lets forget everything we've said so far and answer me one question.

In your own words, what died thus mean,

Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Heb.12:4

eddif speaking.
I can make mistakes.

Hebrews 12:4 to be honest I have that scripture on hold. I have agonized about it. Sometimes I have waited 20 years on understanding a particular scripture. I could invent an answer.

I have some pet scriptures I would discuss with you but I do not agree with your statement. The discussion might do more harm than good to others. I have been amazed at some of your posts, and shaker my head at others you make. But
Some of the head shaking might not be you but me.

Be anxious for nothing. We are talking about severe anxiety. Are we concerned?Yes.

Let us give us all some some time to think. Drop by the Understanding the Law thread. Tell me nicely eddif you are wrong. Talk with me.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[journeymanisnothing]

It is, imo, the best understanding of the verse.


That’s one possible understanding. I have given another.


Start at verse 1. Believers are told to “lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely” (ESV). That is sin, not sinful people. Likewise, when we get to verse 4, it is talking about personal sin, not people who oppose us.

Notice also in verse 1 that the analogy is used of running a race in front of a crowd; which Is likely an allusion to Greek games. In verse 4, the word for “striving” is also likely a reference to boxing, where boxers would often be covered in blood. We are to fight sin to that extent.


You do know that “contradiction” means “hostility,” yes?


For Jesus, yes, and only then by remaining free from sin and then rising again. The purpose for believers to fight against sin is our sanctification; sin puts distance between us and God.


Well, yes, his blood had to be spilled, since there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22). But there is more to it than that.


How so? Your understanding strongly suggests that believers need to shed their own blood, by being killed by sinners, in order to be saved. There are a number of things wrong with that.


A strange question given how much the NT shows that believers still struggle against the flesh, the world, and the devil; all of which cause us to sin. True believers are in the process of being changed, we are not yet perfect.

It’s also a strange question because it seems to imply that anyone can do what Jesus did. This again leads one to believe they need to shed their own blood so they can be saved.

In your view, why are believers told to strive against sin? And what does it mean to do so to the point shedding one’s own blood?


Because he was also human. What do you think the drops of blood were about? What do you think his praying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” was all about?


The Bible says both are true.


We’re not.


Your argument is against Paul, and ultimately God:

Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— (ESV)


No, he doesn’t. He clearly appeals to the law about being hung on a tree (Deut 21:22-23).


That doesn’t fit the context, at all, which is about spiritual gifts and the Corinthians’ former paganism. Start there instead.

Yes it does, because after casting out demons they said,

He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. Mk.3:22

The scribes said that, the teachers, people of Luthers' and Calvins' status.

eddif speaking.
I can make mistakes.

Hebrews 12:4 to be honest I have that scripture on hold. I have agonized about it. Sometimes I have waited 20 years on understanding a particular scripture. I could invent an answer.

I have some pet scriptures I would discuss with you but I do not agree with your statement. The discussion might do more harm than good to others. I have been amazed at some of your posts, and shaker my head at others you make. But
Some of the head shaking might not be you but me.

Be anxious for nothing. We are talking about severe anxiety. Are we concerned?Yes.

Let us give us all some some time to think. Drop by the Understanding the Law thread. Tell me nicely eddif you are wrong. Talk with me.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

Thanks for the responses Free and eddif but for the sake of not having to keep repeating the same answers, please go to post 10 in the Christian growth forum, "Prioritizing our love as a Christian" thread which properly explains the reformers bastardized misunderstanding of Isiah 53.

(My post from Prioritizing Our Love as a Christian thread)
Dear God if anyone ever attacked a member of my family the way Gods' Son was, I would kill them and no one on earth would stop me. I think we're all becoming more like him though. That's why Isa.53 says,

the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. vs.12

That's chastisement, which brings peace

Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. Heb.12:11

And our dear Jesus didn't exempt himself from his Fathers' teaching, even though he's not the One who needed it.

People wonder why the innocent suffer. I believe it's because God suffers more deeply than we can imagine,

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now......we ourselves groan within ourselves,.....Likewise the Spirit.... itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Rom.8:22-23,26

Our Father rejoiced that his Son loved sinners who thought of him as a criminal and hurt him terribly,

He shall see of the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied Isa.53:11

Satisfied by the travail of Someone who loves those causing his pain,

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. vs.12

Thank you Lord Jesus

 

[Free]

Yes it does, because after casting out demons they said,

He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. Mk.3:22

I have no idea what your point is or what you're addressing in my post.

The scribes said that, the teachers, people of Luthers' and Calvins' status.

I have no idea what your point is here.