Your issues are the result of your human notions, contrary to the word of God.
For those with eyes to see, the "cup" Jesus drank offers redemption only by paying the debt (death) owed for sin, thereby appeasing the wrath of God.
Right. He drank the cup of God's wrath against sin and the sinner.
No indeed ... Psalm 22:1
Presumably you're talking about Ezekiel 18:20
I share @John Bauer's interest. How, exactly, does the premise of transferred wrath violate God's justice?
The devil is in the details.
Since you mention "Pauline" and "sin" and "righteousness" together, I assume you had this in mind:
So Jesus got it wrong (Mt 27:46). . .
Why are you limiting the discussion to the KJV and using that bias to avoid addressing the point of imputation.
Answering questions with other questions is not an answer to anything. You, presumably, have the ability to define terms as you understand them and post that understanding here so that we thereby understand your understanding and how it answers the questions asked without shifting the onus or further obfuscating the discussion.
Or the prior used one verse selectively did not assert the verse in light of all else scripture states on the matter.
No, not a single verse but the entire chapter. The chapter is a discussion from God on GOD's POV and contrasting it with Man's POV on what constitutes "Justice". God and Man were in disagreement on what is "fair" ... "The ways of the Lord are not fair" is the refrain from the people and "It is your ways that are not fair, not My Ways" is the response from God.
I only started with KJV. I got the same results with "NKJV ... NIV ... ESV ..." [was it really necessary to search EVERY translation to make the point?]
Great. You've clarified your reference but not answered the question asked. I posted several verses that explicitly states the exact opposite of Ezekiel 18. The arguments are, therefore, multiple passages in the Bible versus one passage in the Bible. Defining precedent in the Bible verses a subsequent statement removed from its precedent. Surely you agree scripture should not be pitted against scripture in contradiction. I appreciate the clarification, but.....
Let's clarify the point. The concept of "imputation" is, indeed, and theological concept as it applies to the conditions of sin and righteousness. I've defined the term and that definition is either correct and therefore amenable to all or in need for a correct, mutually amenable, and mutually agreed upon definition so either affirm the definition provided or define the term as you mean for us to use it without further delay. The exact word "imputation" does not mean to be used in scripture for the concept to have veracity but if you would like to use a more correct, more accurate, word for what scripture does, in fact use then please do so without further delay.
And I provided one.
Yet YOU are not HIM (unless you are a "sock-pupet" for the person to whom I originally posted), so YOU cannot tell me what HE was thinking.
Post 104 have you read it? What is your understanding of the points made with scripture? https://christcentered.community.fo...nd-the-justice-of-god.2750/page-6#post-129401
Non sequitur. The premise of clandestine collaboration is hilarious given the simple, observable, fact I asked about something new: how are the seemingly disparate texts of scripture to be reconciled?
If they cannot be reconciled then perhaps the original premise should be discarded. If they can be reconciled, then an answer should be forthcoming and not avoided. I even suggested one possibility as an aid. 
People sharing similar points of view does not mean anyone is "tag-teaming." I allowed and invited you to define the term as you think it should be defined (something that should have been done at the outset of the dissent).
