Man imputed Jesus with sin on the cross, not God.

[ATG]

Your basic understanding of imputation is flawed. You are conflating imputation to ascription.

In Scripture, there is no difference. We must preach words as used by Scripture, to define them and their use.


1Sa 22:15
Did I then begin to enquire of God for him? be it far from me: let not the king impute any thing unto his servant, nor to all the house of my father: for thy servant knew nothing of all this, less or more.

Lev 17:4
And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:

Isa 53:3
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Imputing/ascribing sin or righteousness to another is to esteem/reckon them as sinful or righteous. Man can do so wrongly, but God's judgment is perfect and true.

The Scripture is clear that man wrongly imputed Jesus with sin and esteemed Him sinner smitten of God as by law.

God did not impute ascribe, esteem, or reckon Jesus with sin of blasphemy.

We can ascribe to God things that are true of Him, and even falsely ascribe things to Him. We cannot, however, impute things to Him. For example, we can ascribe holiness to God, but we cannot confer holiness upon Him. We have no such power.

Thanks.

As you now confirm to impute sin or righteousness is to confer sin or righteousness upon the soul, which makes them a sinner or righteous.

if God imputes sin, the person is made a sinner. If God imputes righteousness, the person is made righteous.

If Jesus was not made a sinner by God imputing Him with our sin, then we are not made righteous by God imputing us with His righteousness.

And so as you show, as does the Scripture, that Jesus was not made a sinner by man imputing Him with sin, nor are we made righteous by any man imputing us with righteousness.

 

[pinebeach]

Don't y'all miss that x that was so often used?

 

[pinebeach]

In Scripture, there is no difference. We must preach words as used by Scripture, to define them and their use.

When ya gonna start?

 

[ATG]

You said it yourself. I provided the dictionary definitions of the words. You redefine them to make them suitable to your mind.

I said it myself, that you trust in men's own word definition, and I trust in God's definition by use of the word in Scripture.

And so we see that false traditions of men are with words defined by men, and the one true tradition of God is with words defined by His scriptural use.

Therefore false men argue over word defintions by their own defining pride:

1 Tim 6:3
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

False tradition is a lie, live by it and die.

2Pe 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

 

[ATG]

how do you get around this clear statement?

2 Corinthians 5:21 – “For our sake he (God) made him (Jesus) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Interpreting it by the first clear prophecy of Jesus's sufferings on the cross:

Isa 53:3
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Only men imputes Jesus with sin, and esteems Him guilty and smitten of God. Not God.

This verse is central to the doctrine of imputed sin, showing that God made Jesus “sin” (imputed sin) so that believers could receive His righteousness

The verse is mistated by you, in order to reinterpret it by your own false tradtion: A circular lie.

2 Corinthians 5:21 – “For our sake he (God) made him (Jesus) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

God made Jesus to be sin, not made Him sin. Jesus was made to be sin to men at the cross, He was not made a sinner man on the cross.

A further lie to cover the first lie, is that God did not make Jesus a sinner. By saying that God imputing sin to a man and so made sin, does not make the man a sinner.

Which of course is false traditon of symbolism: Neither imputing sin nor righteousness is only symbolic, and does not make the soul sinful nor righteous.

Otherwise, God imputing us with Jesus' righteousness, does not make us righteous; If God imputing Jesus with our sin, does not make Him sinful...

 

[Cameron143]

In Scripture, there is no difference. We must preach words as used by Scripture, to define them and their use.


1Sa 22:15
Did I then begin to enquire of God for him? be it far from me: let not the king impute any thing unto his servant, nor to all the house of my father: for thy servant knew nothing of all this, less or more.

Lev 17:4
And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:

Isa 53:3
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Imputing/ascribing sin or righteousness to another is to esteem/reckon them as sinful or righteous. Man can do so wrongly, but God's judgment is perfect and true.

The Scripture is clear that man wrongly imputed Jesus with sin and esteemed Him sinner smitten of God as by law.

God did not impute ascribe, esteem, or reckon Jesus with sin of blasphemy.

Thanks.

As you now confirm to impute sin or righteousness is to confer sin or righteousness upon the soul, which makes them a sinner or righteous.

if God imputes sin, the person is made a sinner. If God imputes righteousness, the person is made righteous.

If Jesus was not made a sinner by God imputing Him with our sin, then we are not made righteous by God imputing us with His righteousness.

And so as you show, as does the Scripture, that Jesus was not made a sinner by man imputing Him with sin, nor are we made righteous by any man imputing us with righteousness.

You're something else. The first 2 quotes have God imputing. The third has Jesus smitten of God. Hence, it is the activity of God. You have yet to show any imputation by man. All you have is man ascribing things to Jesus.

As I said, you are conflating imputation with ascription.

 

[ATG]

2 Corinthians 5:21 – “For our sake he (God) made him (Jesus) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

This verse is central to the doctrine of imputed sin, showing that God made Jesus “sin” (imputed sin)

Isa 53:3
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

And so, since we know by prophecy of Scripture, that God did not despise His Son, nor impute Jesus with sin, nor esteem Him guilty of death by sin, then we must interpet the Scripture fulfilling prophecy in another way, than the false common tradition:

God making Jesus to be sin, is firstly not making Jesus sin: The Scripture is changed, so that the false doctrine can be taught, that God makes Jesus sin by imputing Him with sin.

And of course God never seeks to make any man sin, especially not His own beloved Son, who sinned not for any man. No man could make Jesus sin on the cross, and so God could not impute Him with sin at all: for He had nor knew any sin.

What we also know by record of Scripture, is that when man imputed Jesus with sin and condemned Him to death, they therefore made Him to be a sinful cursed sinner in their own sight hanging from a tree:

Isaiah{50:5}
The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

Psa 22:16
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Act 2:23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Sinful man certainly made Jesus to be sin to themselves: In their own eyes, they saw a cursed sinner on the cross, not as righteous man, and certainly not the righteous Son of God with power equal to God.

Jhn 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jhn 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

How then did the Father make the Son to be sin on a cross? By commanding His own Son to willingly submit Himself into the hands of sinful men, who obediently did so as the Lamb of God, unto the suffering and crucifixion of His own body on a tree.

While men imputed Jesus with sin and guilty, and esteemed Him justly smitten of God by law, the righteous and innocent Son was only obeying His Father's own will as a lamb to the slaughter:

Isa 53:7
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

The Father by obedience to the commandment, made the Son to be seen to men, and in the sight of all men while hanging on a tree.

Why? Not only that He would by our sin against Him, but also die for our sin to be seen in His own body, for repentance of all sinning against Him.

Once again, Jesus certainly did die by man sinning against Him, and certainly not by God hands striping His body and nailing Him to a tree.

 

[ATG]

2 Corinthians 5:21 – “For our sake he (God) made him (Jesus) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

This verse is central to the doctrine of imputed sin, showing that God made Jesus “sin” (imputed sin) so that believers could receive His righteousness

And finally why did God command Him to submit to sinners, and be seen as a cused sinner on a cross? So that we can all see the full guilt and evil of any sinning against God and His Christ; Beginning with the transgression of Adam, by which the Son must come in the flesh to die for sin.

Rom 7:13
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

And in that He also died for our sin, then He not only died by and for the sins of them that slew Him, but also for and by our own sinning against Him; So that all men that sin against Him should be made guilty of His death, the jew first also the Gentile. And can see our own sinning in His on body of the cross, and repent:

Rom 4:25
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Only because He raised His marred and dead body from the grave, are all men that sinned against Him now able to repent and recieve mercy and forgiveness and justification in His righteousness.

If Jesus body had remained dead, as that of righteous Abel, then His own innocent shed blood would be added to Abel's crying from the earth against all men sinning against Him.

Gen 4:10
And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Heb 12:24
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Though Jesus' body was unjustly killed by wicked sinners, as Abel's by Cain, yet by His resurrection from the dead, His blood can now be sprinkled on the souls that repent, and make the atonement of the Lamb of God for sin, to be cleansed from our pure consciences.

This is the gospel of Jesus Christ according to the prophecy of Scripture, and it's recorded fulfillment by Jesus wickedly hung by sinners on a cross, and His bodily resurrection from the dead to justify them that repent for His name's sake;

1 Cor 15:2
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Jesus was made by God to submit to sunful men, who imputed and made Him as a sin and curse on a tree to all men, that He may rise again from the dead for believers that repent, should recieve His righteousness.
No man that repents not of His death nor sinning against Him, is imputed any righteousness of the innocent lamb of God. Beleiving the truth alone is not justified with God, but doing the truth justifies a man by the faith of repentance:

Mark{1:15}
The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Cor {7:10}
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of:

Jhn 3:20
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

James{1:22}
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

 

[Dino246]

I said it myself, that you trust in men's own word definition, and I trust in God's definition by use of the word in Scripture.

You mean... your understanding of the word as it is used in Scripture.

 

[ATG]

You're something else. The first 2 quotes have God imputing. The third has Jesus smitten of God.

You're standard false teacher, nothing special:

The first two quotes have a king imputing, and the LORD imputing. The 3rd has men imputing.

Isa 53:3
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Men despised and rejected Him. We hid our faces from Him. We esteemed Him stricken of God.

But then, this is the manner of false tradition about Scripture with it's own believers, that it blinds them to the very words written in Scripture.

Mat 6:23
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

Hence, it is the activity of God.

Hence in the first prophecy of Jesus on a cross, it's the activly of men falsey putting Him to grief in the name of God.

God's activity was commanding the Son to submit to their false handling of Him, and the activity of the Son obediently submissive to their evil in the name of God.

Did they falsely accuse Jesus of blasphemy? Yes. Did they falsely esteem Him worthy of death by law of God? Yes. Did they therefore falsley have Him beaten and smitten on a cross in God's name? Yes.

Was He rightly accused, esteemed, and smitten of God? No. He was no smitten of God by law, but only smitten of men as being of God, contrary to the law...

But then, this is only Scriptural teaching of benefit to them who seek and believe the prophecy and doctrine of God, which of course must begin with at least reading the plain words of God as written...

You have yet to show any imputation by man. ]

The first two prove God uses impute to esteem someone guilty. Impute in Lev 17:4 is esteem in Is 53:3.

God imputes the sinner guilty rightly by law. Men esteem the righteous guilty contrary to law.

All is 53:3 has is man imputing and esteem Jesus Christ the righteous guilty of death, as by law of God, not by God Himself.

All you have is man ascribing things to Jesus.

And of course, we have false tradition inserting a word and definition into the Scripture, where they're not written, in order to that change the definition of the words that are written.

You are correct, that ascribing in scripture is not imputing and esteeming, but you err by putting ascribing in Scripture, where only imputing and esteeming is written.

Deu 32:3
Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

Job 36:3
I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness to my Maker.

Psa 68:34
Ascribe ye strength unto God: his excellency is over Israel, and his strength is in the clouds.

Only ascribing is to describe about someone, without power to make them be it.

Only imputing and esteeming makes someone to be sinful or righteous by power of law.

Acribing is in the above Scriptures. Only Imputing and esteeming is in the other three Scripture quoted for the present right teaching of Scripture.

So, first you put ascribing where it doesn't belong, in order to dismiss imputing and esteeming as only ascribing.

And by so doing, you change ascribing from being only descriptional in the Scripture, which is from where you moved it. In order to make ascribing the power of God and law in the Scripture, which is where you moved it to.

And remove power of God and law from imputing and esteeming, where it's written in Scripture, in order to only make it ascribing where it's not written.

In Scripture of God, only ascribing is descriptive without power to make or change. Whereas in Scripture, only imputing and esteeming has power to make or change by law of God.

First, false tradition blinds it's own followers to the words written in Scripture, and then also blinds them to switching words of scripture, where they don't belong.

It's the mystery of iniquity in Babylon the great lying whore of all false tradition, prophecy, and teaching twisted from Scripture:

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[PaulThomson]

who else imputed our sins to christ? How else did he who knew no sin become sin for us?

Where in scripture do you find the statement that our sins were imputed to Jesus?

God made Jesus sin (as a noun) for our sakes, by commanding Jesus to accept the designation of men that He was a sinner, without Him defending Himself. He did this for humanity's sake, so that we would realise how wicked we are, when we look back on how unjustly and terribly we had abused someone who had only done good to and loved us to death undeservedly.

It's like an abused wife who is counselled that she could leave him, but that if she is able to respond to her husband's abuse and gaslighting criticism with only humble loyal service, kindness, long-suffering and forgiveness, he may one day realise that he is loved by her without limit and wanting only the best for him and this realisation may spark repentance and reform. So, she bears his sin against her for his sake, until one day in a fit of resentful rage, he abuses her to death. Then it hits him, once she is gone, how beautiful and kind she was, and what a scumbag he has been. Broken, he decides to reform his life to mirror hers. Her counsellor, who instructed her to allow her husband to gas-light her who was exemplary in character and deed, in order to win his redemption from his evil ways, made her to be sin (in her husband's eyes) for her husbands sake.

That is how else he who knew no sin became sin for our sakes.

 

[ATG]

You mean... your understanding of the word as it is used in Scripture.

I mean my simple understanding of the words plainly written in Scripture where they are written.

You mean...your understanding of the words used in Scripture, by plainly moving them where they aren't written.

You take descriptive ascribing in Scripture, that has no power to make or change the person, and move it to the Scripture, where there is power of God by law to make and change the person.

You then take inmpute and esteem in Scripture, that has power to make or change, and move it to the Scripture, where it has no power but only to describe...

Neatly done, but plainly wrong. The serpent is subtil, but plain readers aren't necessarily stupid. Decietful subtelty only works where blind reading is in play...

Your playing with blind reading. I'm just reading what's plainly written, where it's written.

So, unless you now want to read the fulfillment of prophecy in the NT, according to the prophecy as first written in the OT, then you have your own traditional reading, and I have my plain reading.

In any case, thanks for the challenges. Strange but still productive.

 

[Cameron143]

You're standard false teacher, nothing special:

The first two quotes have a king imputing, and the LORD imputing. The 3rd has men imputing.

Isa 53:3
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Men despised and rejected Him. We hid our faces from Him. We esteemed Him stricken of God.

But then, this is the manner of false tradition about Scripture with it's own believers, that it blinds them to the very words written in Scripture.

Mat 6:23
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!



Hence in the first prophecy of Jesus on a cross, it's the activly of men falsey putting Him to grief in the name of God.

God's activity was commanding the Son to submit to their false handling of Him, and the activity of the Son obediently submissive to their evil in the name of God.

Did they falsely accuse Jesus of blasphemy? Yes. Did they falsely esteem Him worthy of death by law of God? Yes. Did they therefore falsley have Him beaten and smitten on a cross in God's name? Yes.

Was He rightly accused, esteemed, and smitten of God? No. He was no smitten of God by law, but only smitten of men as being of God, contrary to the law...

But then, this is only Scriptural teaching of benefit to them who seek and believe the prophecy and doctrine of God, which of course must begin with at least reading the plain words of God as written...





The first two prove God uses impute to esteem someone guilty. Impute in Lev 17:4 is esteem in Is 53:3.

God imputes the sinner guilty rightly by law. Men esteem the righteous guilty contrary to law.

All is 53:3 has is man imputing and esteem Jesus Christ the righteous guilty of death, as by law of God, not by God Himself.



And of course, we have false tradition inserting a word and definition into the Scripture, where they're not written, in order to that change the definition of the words that are written.

You are correct, that ascribing in scripture is not imputing and esteeming, but you err by putting ascribing in Scripture, where only imputing and esteeming is written.

Deu 32:3
Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

Job 36:3
I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness to my Maker.

Psa 68:34
Ascribe ye strength unto God: his excellency is over Israel, and his strength is in the clouds.

Only ascribing is to describe about someone, without power to make them be it.

Only imputing and esteeming makes someone to be sinful or righteous by power of law.

Acribing is in the above Scriptures. Only Imputing and esteeming is in the other three Scripture quoted for the present right teaching of Scripture.

So, first you put ascribing where it doesn't belong, in order to dismiss imputing and esteeming as only ascribing.

And by so doing, you change ascribing from being only descriptional in the Scripture, which is from where you moved it. In order to make ascribing the power of God and law in the Scripture, which is where you moved it to.

And remove power of God and law from imputing and esteeming, where it's written in Scripture, in order to only make it ascribing where it's not written.

In Scripture of God, only ascribing is descriptive without power to make or change. Whereas in Scripture, only imputing and esteeming has power to make or change by law of God.

First, false tradition blinds it's own followers to the words written in Scripture, and then also blinds them to switching words of scripture, where they don't belong.

It's the mystery of iniquity in Babylon the great lying whore of all false tradition, prophecy, and teaching twisted from Scripture:

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Some people can't be taught. You've been shown your error.

Grace and peace.

 

[Dino246]

I mean my simple understanding of the words plainly written in Scripture where they are written.

You mean...your understanding of the words used in Scripture, by plainly moving them where they aren't written.

You take descriptive ascribing in Scripture, that has no power to make or change the person, and move it to the Scripture, where there is power of God by law to make and change the person.

You then take inmpute and esteem in Scripture, that has power to make or change, and move it to the Scripture, where it has no power but only to describe...

Neatly done, but plainly wrong. The serpent is subtil, but plain readers aren't necessarily stupid. Decietful subtelty only works where blind reading is in play...

Your playing with blind reading. I'm just reading what's plainly written, where it's written.

So, unless you now want to read the fulfillment of prophecy in the NT, according to the prophecy as first written in the OT, then you have your own traditional reading, and I have my plain reading.

In any case, thanks for the challenges. Strange but still productive.

Meaningless bafflegab.

 

[CS1]

What is foolish is the insistence that the words scripture uses can only be understood in one possible way, and that you have that only correct way.

Jesus is the only way .John 14:6

 

[PaulThomson]

No.. He is just denying the gospel and the fact that Jesus bore our sins, meaning they were imputed onto Christ. He bore our punishment.

You can follow the op from now until the stars don't shine but both you and he and anyone who agrees with you are wrong and nothing will ever change that fact.

YOU are the one impugning God's character by disagreeing with His plan of salvation.

There is no one who, to be saved, is required to believe that Jesus was punished for our sins in our place. We are required to put our faith in Him to be saved, and that He died on account of our sins, and was raised back to life again, and that He is Lord. Yes, he bore our punishment, in that He bore the punishment we unjustly inflicted upon Him.

 

[DavidLamb]

There is no one who, to be saved, is required to believe that Jesus was punished for our sins in our place. We are required to put our faith in Him to be saved, and that He died on account of our sins, and was raised back to life again, and that He is Lord. Yes, he bore our punishment, in that He bore the punishment we unjustly inflicted upon Him.

Yet Isaiah prophesied:

NKJV Isa 53:4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 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.

Verse 5 there says that He was bruised, wounded, and chastised.

 

[Yissachar]

Romans 7:1

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Deuteronomy 24:1

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

3And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

YHWH Divorced Israel for playing the harlot.

It is an abomination to re-marry a wife that was divorced.

Unless the Husband dies, Then this Law is no longer is in effect. And the wife (Israel) is free to re-marry Him that was raised from the dead

Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: Jeremiah 3:14

YESHUA died, layed down His Life For Israel, that He could be married her without breaking His own Law regarding marriage and divorce.

 

[PaulThomson]

Our sins were imputed to Christ whether or not you think so. It says so in scripture but apparently you think otherwise.


The actual problem here, is that scripture says it as I shall post below, BUT you in your lack of understanding, do not understand it and to you and everyone like you, including the op, it means, therefore, that scripture does not say it.

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. II Cor. 5:21

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. I Peter 2:24

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. Hebrews 9:28

For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
Romans 5:19

So, scripture does not say "our sins were imputed to Christ."
It says things that you interpret as meaning the same thing as "our sins were imputed to Christ."
1 Cor. 5:21 What does scripture say? "God made Jesus to be sin on behalf of us / for our sakes." This does not need to entail imputing/crediting/accounting our sins to Christ. It means that God commanded Jesus to allow himself to be designated by men as a sinner for some result that would benefit us. There was no imputing of sins mentioned here or needed.

1 Pet 2:24 "Jesus bore our sins in his body onto the tree (epi to xulon) , so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness." We (i.e. humanity) through the humans of Jesus' day (we being in their loins) by our practising sins issuing out of our perverse hearts, afflicted Jesus' body as he went from Gethsemane to the cross. There is no imputing of sins mentioned here or needed.

Heb. 9:28 So Christ, after once being led/brought toward (prospherO) [death] for to carry/bring up (anapherO) [onto the cross at Calvary hill] the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Since it is give to men once to die and then judgment, Jesus was brought by his human enemies toward His death which was inflicted on Him by humans at Calvary. And He brought up their sins onto the cross. What does it mean that Jesus brought up our sins onto the cross?
When someone is being bullied at school. to keep the school rules they may bear patiently the mistreatment during the school day, but there comes a day where he is playing football against another team from his school, a team that has the bully on it. In that context, he is allowed to hit the bully, and hit him hard. So, he takes the sum of the bully's offences against him onto the football field, and whenever the bully gets the ball, he takes the opportunity to tackle him as hard as is legal on the field. He is not being imputed with the bully's offences. Rather than responding to the bully's offences immediately at the time they were committed, he is bringing those offences to a legal venue, and delivering his response there. This is the sense in which Jesus brought onto the cross in his body our sins that we had inflicted upon Him. And what was His delayed response to the sum of our abuse of Him?
"Father forgive them, they don't know what they are doing." There is no imputing of our sins to Christ mentioned in this verse.

Rom 5:19 "By Adam's disobedience, many were set down / made (kathistEmi) sinners, in the same way by Christ's obedience many shall be set down / made (kathistEmi) righteous. The word kathistEmi describes putting something down. The picture is of a person being paced in a collection of persons who belong together. This one is sorted and placed down with others who are sinners, and this one is sorted and placed down with others who are righteous. There is no imputing of our sins to Christ mentioned in this verse.

You have been primed to see imputation wherever your theology needs to see imputation to validate itself. But it is not there in the actual words or texts you are citing.

 

[PaulThomson]

Yet Isaiah prophesied:

NKJV Isa 53:4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 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.

Verse 5 there says that He was bruised, wounded, and chastised.

Yes, He was bruised, wounded and chastised... by men... not by God.