The Trinity
- Thread starter JacobMartinMertens
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Gen. 22:2 says that Isaac was Abraham's only-begotten son. But Ishmael was born first and was a son of Abraham. Do you think it is possible that only-begotten could mean something as an idiom, rather than being a term that is to be taken literally?
Gen. 22:2 says that Isaac was Abraham's only-begotten son. But Ishmael was born first and was a son of Abraham. Do you think it is possible that only-begotten could mean something as an idiom, rather than being a term that is to be taken literally?
Propitiation is "the act of pleasing and making calm a god or person who is annoyed with you:
The purpose of these sculptures was propitiation of the gods.
Though he might have accepted her gesture as propitiation, he was still indignant."
PaulThomson said:
Do you realise that we have no mention of the idea of penal substitution as an explanation for the crucifixion until Anselm introduced it into the church around AD 1100?
Do you have a citation to go with that assertion? I could be mistaken. Show me.
Do you realise that we have no mention of the idea of penal substitution as an explanation for the crucifixion until Anselm introduced it into the church around AD 1100?
Do you have a citation to go with that assertion? I could be mistaken. Show me.
No. The term is only in the NT in Greek. What you refer to is a reference to his only legitimate son by his wife. His other child was not from a wife.
It does seem apparent that the etymology of the word would be relatively speaking toward that of whom a son has been 'gotten' from as much as whom she bore him to. For example, perhaps Ishmael would also be considered Abraham's only begotten son from Hagar.
And when further considering the comparison to the Virgin Mary bearing God's only begotten Son, she gave consent saying, "let it be unto me...," and that scripture doesn't specify whether Hagar was necessarily a consenting party in bearing Ishmael to Abraham might be another qualification with possible application.
And when further considering the comparison to the Virgin Mary bearing God's only begotten Son, she gave consent saying, "let it be unto me...," and that scripture doesn't specify whether Hagar was necessarily a consenting party in bearing Ishmael to Abraham might be another qualification with possible application.
in Context to Abraham he fathered Isaac 100 years old and Sarah was 99. Isaac was a child by the will of God through the flesh
Jesus was God brought forth not but the will of man or the flesh.
Listen, please.
there is a thin red thread that starts in Genesis through Revelation. That is Jesus
Jesus was the promised Lamb God said he would bring forth when he stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son.
The Prophet Isaiah wrote of Him in 42, 53 chapters. Pslam Daniel Spoken of Him. There was many as there are today
, who attacked the Lord Jesus as God. it started in the Gnostic age, and Paul dealt with it. It raised up its ugly head after John died about 100 years. The Church Fathers addressed it and, with the help of the word of GOD, laid the foundational truth of The Lord Jesus as God fully and man fully. Not as an abstract, that His Resurrection was literal, not only spiritual.
You are looking at the effects. not the Cause of "penal substitution doctrine." FYI, many of the doctrines(teaching) were established from what is given in the word of God. And all doctrines must be judged by the word of GOD.
The foundational truth of Jesus as God is well-seen.To ensure He doesn't say to us, " I never knew you." WE must know Him as God. and worship him as God.
Sin there is short for the longer term "sin sacrifice".
2Co_5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Christ wasn't "made sin" he was made to be the sin sacrifice or sin offering. That's what Paul means and this same thing is used in the OT, "sin" being shorthand of "sin offering".
Lev 4:29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
H2403
????? ?????
chat?t?a^'a^h chat?t?a^'th
khat-taw-aw', khat-tawth'
From H2398; an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender: - punishment (of sin), purifying (-fication for sin), sin (-ner, offering).
Here "sin offering" is actually just one word that means sin (similar to the single word "sin" in 2Co_5:21), but it is meant to be understood as the offering for sin not sin itself and Paul being Jewish would know and use shorthand way of speaking of the offering for sin.
The verse should be understood as "For he hath made him to be a sin offering for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
(TLV) He made the One who knew no sin to become a sin offering on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
(Williams) He made Him who personally knew nothing of sin to be a sin-offering for us, so that through union with Him we might come into right standing with God.
Barnes:
2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us - The Greek here is, ‘for him who knew no sin, he hath made sin, or a sin-offering for us.’
Clarke:
2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us - He made him who knew no sin, (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us.
Matthew Henry:
He was made sin; not a sinner, but sin, that is, a sin-offering, a sacrifice for sin.
I appreciate the explanation. It doesn't change my point. The poster was arguing against substitutionary atonement. Your explanation confirms it.
Depends on that definition because there was a substitution involved because a man took place the place of an animal as a sin sacrifice.
Actually, the animal, for the longest time, was taking the place of the man.
This brings me back to the meditation upon His been made a little lower than the angels, which I have been wondering whether is a state that is actually lower than man, and only a little higher than animals. Because that fallen angels left their first estate and were cast out of heaven, and have come down to earth, it seems only an assumption that they are 'higher' in rank when juxtaposed against man. However, they left their service to God, which was a position in service to men, wasn't it? If so, that makes their rank, as servers of men, below man and it is that man gave over his authority to the serpent (at least holding its word as though it were of more esteem) that got us where we are.
right, the sought to usurp men rather, so that men would serve them.
And to the first thought, becoming as a lamb, in order to serve the nourishment of man, and willingly. That is, it wasn't 'His job' (although that might be argued...: P).