Was the crucifixion that Jesus endured the worst possible suffering a human could experience?
- Thread starter VickyK
- 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.
My doctrine? I am not sure what you mean by that. Scripture says:
God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf,
so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
I agree with this from gotquestions:
On the cross, our sin was imputed to Christ. That is how Christ paid our sin debt to God. He had no sin in Himself, but our sin was attributed to Him so, as He suffered, He took the just penalty that our sin deserves. At the same time, through faith, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. Now we can stand before God sinless, just as Jesus is sinless. We are not righteous in ourselves; rather, Christ’s righteousness is applied to us (because Jesus never ceased to be holy, blameless, and pure, for He is the same yesterday, today and forever).
So, “God made him . . . to be sin for us” means that Jesus, although sinless, was treated as if He were not. Although He remained holy, He was regarded as guilty of all the sin in the world. Through imputation of our sin to Him, He became our substitute and the recipient of God’s judgment against sin. Having saved those who believe, He is now “our righteousness, holiness and redemption.”
Jesus was not forsaken in quoting Psalm 22. In the final analysis, those who refuse
to accept His shed righteous blood as a covering for their sin will be forsaken.
wanting Jesus to become sin beyond what is scriptural is cursing Christ, those who feel inclined to believe this are the ones who put the crown of thorns on his head and who mocked him. there is some very sick doctrine around these days. do i need to be the only one to say it? an idiot like me can see this is wrong, "becoming sin" means to "bear our sins" not literally become sin beyond a certain point, he took this upon himself, he didn't become what he took on. he destroyed it. if he destroyed it, what sense is there to say he has become it? none - only enemy lies. wake up
So you do agree that Jesus became sin on the cross.
Alright then, we agree on something at least.
Some of us are just reading and understanding 2 Corinthians 5:21 literally.
Christ became sin on the cross, as a noun. He did not become sin on the cross because he did any sin, as a verb.
Because he became sin, we took his perfect righteousness as imputation, some like Derek Prince calls it "the divine exchange". That is how some of us understand what Paul was explaining in Romans 5:12-19.
We were sinners because of Adam's sin
Therefore, we are now righteousness because of Christ's obedience.
A sinless God cannot turn into sin, as a noun or as anything.
Clearly becoming sin is short hand for "sin sacrifice".
I do understand that there are people who love to interpret sin as "sin offering", that is what they also did with the word "sin" that God spoke to Cain in Genesis 4:7.
I am fine actually, they could be correct. It is non-salvific issue anyway, so I will take Paul's advice there (Romans 14:5) on such matters.
For me I prefer to understand the KJV literally instead of trying to substitute other words for it.
That will lead to errors like thinking the Trinity can forsake itself or that a sinless God can become literal sin. It's always best to try to understand when something is literal or if it's figurative and also to understand figures of speech or short hand ways of saying things.
To me, its a simple understanding Romans 5:12-19.
The first Adam became sin (noun) thru his disobedience (verb), condemning all of us to be sin (noun)
The final Adam became our sin (noun), thru his obedience at the cross (verb), giving all of us the opportunity to take his righteousness (noun) in exchange
So if Christ did not become sin at the cross (noun), we could not become righteous (noun).
You have a different understanding of what Paul meant in Romans 5:12-19 then, especially vs 13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
I am guessing that is also why you cannot understand why Jesus had to become sin at the cross.
What I understand is that God cannot become sin. I also understand that The Trinity cannot forsake each other. What I don't understand is why you cannot also understand those things.
Then let me ask you how you understand Romans 5:13-14
Between Adam to Moses, there was no further commandment given by God, other than the one given to Adam.
How did Isaac of Genesis, for example, end up also becoming sin and dying, even when sin was not imputed unto him, because there was no law given?