Where in Christ teachings do we find...?

[prism]

Matthew 20:28 - A Mother's RequestMatthew 20:28 – “The Son of Man came… to give His life as a ransom for many.” This is Isaiah 53 language (“He bore the sin of many”). A ransom is a substitutionary transaction—guilt transferred to the substitute, freedom credited to the captive. That’s sin imputed to Christ and righteousness imputed to those ransomed.

Fine, I'll take this one as a satisfactory answer. It's a shame it took 95+ posts.

 

[EarlyActs]

That's not what I said. Read the whole thing. Quoting only part of it is misquoting it. (That's the problem with proof-texting from Scripture, too.)

I said,

2 Cor 5:21 doesn't say, ".....Our sin was imputed to Christ and His righteousness has been imputed to us.", but the way you quoted what 2 Cor 5:21 does say, but without separating your own comments from the quote, I might've been led to think it actually says the words you 'inserted', had I not known the Bible better than to think so.

The whole post was one statement, and it was a mod note, off-topic to the thread, only speaking of your apparent habit of quoting scripture without identifying what part is scripture and what part is your commentary.

The only way Christ could be made sin (and conversely for sinners to be made righteous) is to be considered as such against fact. Ie, to be imputed such.

The verb in 2 Cor 5 is actually the Leviticus based verb for transferring sin to an animal. So some translations have clarified by saying ‘was made a sin offering’. Obviously the animal in Levitical practice did not commit a human sin.

I still don’t think you know the concept that you are denying existence if. Once you see it, it is clearly in all the places mentioned.

Btw I have a thread here at this forum of examples from Shakespeare, Austen , Cody and even real estate law, where ‘to impute’ means to regard something in a way that is the opposite of fact (because of an unknown or third party factor).

At the Council of Trent the Papacy condemned Reformers who referred to imputed righteousness instead of actual. The odd thing about this was that merits of saints were ‘transferred or credited’ to supplicants , but not Christs!

 

[prism]

Correction it's 3:15.

Matthew 3:15 CSB
Jesus answered him, "Allow it for now, because this is the way for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then John allowed him to be baptized.

Sorry @Hazelelponi beat you to the punch (#95), for the want of a correct reference.

 

[Eleanor]

Fine, I'll take this one as a satisfactory answer. It's a shame it took 95+ posts.

Says and reveals so much. . .

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
That's not what I said. Read the whole thing. Quoting only part of it is misquoting it. (That's the problem with proof-texting from Scripture, too.)

I said,

2 Cor 5:21 doesn't say, ".....Our sin was imputed to Christ and His righteousness has been imputed to us.", but the way you quoted what 2 Cor 5:21 does say, but without separating your own comments from the quote, I might've been led to think it actually says the words you 'inserted', had I not known the Bible better than to think so.

The whole post was one statement, and it was a mod note, off-topic to the thread, only speaking of your apparent habit of quoting scripture without identifying what part is scripture and what part is your commentary.

The only way Christ could be made sin (and conversely for sinners to be made righteous) is to be considered as such against fact. Ie, to be imputed such.

The verb in 2 Cor 5 is actually the Leviticus based verb for transferring sin to an animal. So some translations have clarified by saying ‘was made a sin offering’. Obviously the animal in Levitical practice did not commit a human sin.

I still don’t think you know the concept that you are denying existence if. Once you see it, it is clearly in all the places mentioned.

Btw I have a thread here at this forum of examples from Shakespeare, Austen , Cody and even real estate law, where ‘to impute’ means to regard something in a way that is the opposite of fact (because of an unknown or third party factor).

At the Council of Trent the Papacy condemned Reformers who referred to imputed righteousness instead of actual. The odd thing about this was that merits of saints were ‘transferred or credited’ to supplicants , but not Christs!

I'm saying this as a Mod, lest I be accused of continuing off topic.

Read through the conversation again. You are addressing a non-entity. I am not discussing the facts regarding imputation, I'm discussing how the facts were presented. How many ways can I say this? I am not denying the existence of any concept.

Once again: When one quotes scripture (or anything else, for that matter, but specially, when one quotes scripture) one should be careful to designate what is scripture, and what is one's commentary on it.

Enough of this off-topic discussion. Please return to the subject of the OP.

 

[CrowCross]

Be honest now, is that the same as teaching us that we are declared righteous through faith in Him?

Not quite sure what your now getting at as the previous post was about Christ return at the rapture.

But, our righteousness is Christ righteousness given to us.

 

[Eleanor]

. . .

 

[EarlyActs]

makesends said:
That's not what I said. Read the whole thing. Quoting only part of it is misquoting it. (That's the problem with proof-texting from Scripture, too.)

I said,

2 Cor 5:21 doesn't say, ".....Our sin was imputed to Christ and His righteousness has been imputed to us.", but the way you quoted what 2 Cor 5:21 does say, but without separating your own comments from the quote, I might've been led to think it actually says the words you 'inserted', had I not known the Bible better than to think so.

The whole post was one statement, and it was a mod note, off-topic to the thread, only speaking of your apparent habit of quoting scripture without identifying what part is scripture and what part is your commentary.

I'm saying this as a Mod, lest I be accused of continuing off topic.

Read through the conversation again. You are addressing a non-entity. I am not discussing the facts regarding imputation, I'm discussing how the facts were presented. How many ways can I say this? I am not denying the existence of any concept.

Once again: When one quotes scripture (or anything else, for that matter, but specially, when one quotes scripture) one should be careful to designate what is scripture, and what is one's commentary on it.

Enough of this off-topic discussion. Please return to the subject of the OP.

Yet it is on topic, if the Levitical meaning is followed. If Christ was made a sin offering, then imputation took place. The first theme we have about Christ from John the Baptist is just that: the Lamb of God. That's in the Gospel narratives. That's why imputation is in the narratives, if you know what to look for.

I didn't think Prism was denying the concept, but was so unfamiliar as to not know what to look for, and then say it didn't exist in the gospel narratives (he affirmed it was in Paul).

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yet it is on topic, if the Levitical meaning is followed. If Christ was made a sin offering, then imputation took place. The first theme we have about Christ from John the Baptist is just that: the Lamb of God. That's in the Gospel narratives. That's why imputation is in the narratives, if you know what to look for.

I didn't think Prism was denying the concept, but was so unfamiliar as to not know what to look for, and then say it didn't exist in the gospel narratives (he affirmed it was in Paul).

He wasn't discussing imputation he was asking @CrowCross to format better for better readability (see post #95 for an example of the type of readability he was asking for)

@John Bauer doesn't like over capitalization, teaching it as superstition, also likes the quoter BB code for citations because it makes the quoted citation larger and easier to see.

@makesends just wants italics, quotes and proper citations

@Josheb doesn't think that's enough and wants Scripture in living color -- we settled on purple being the better color for Scripture.

If anyone else has requests they can add them.

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb doesn't think that's enough and wants Scripture in living color -- we settled on purple being the better color for Scripture.

ROTFLMBO!!!!

Is that what color that is? LOL! I thought it was green. I'm red-green colorblind and I do not see colors like most folks. Stop lights look orange, go lights look white and I get them mixed up with streetlights often. I take my wife along or find a mother with kids in the department store when I have to buy a tie. I've been known to by pink and purple shirts thinking they were some other color until my wife sets me straight.

I'm just trying to make the scripture stand out from the rest of the text and italicization isn't sufficient because I italicize regular text for emphasis (fyi).

 

[Hazelelponi]

Is that what color that is? LOL! I thought it was green.

No, I thought you said purple would work better so I have been using purple in the main with occasional use of red.

Are you able to see my posts better? I do the same with italics so I get your point, Scripture pops with color more.

I don't always remember but I do try to.

 

[prism]

It actually didn't. You had already rejected that passage on page 1 when @fastfredy0 posted it, the only thing he missed was an exegetical commentary.

I took you away from parables and towards the more clear reference in (Luke 22:37/Isaiah 53:11-12 reference) as you didn't appear to understand parables or accept them since you had likewise previously rejected the parable in Luke also of the tax collector.

So no, not post #95. All this you had within the first page, to two pages before I ever made my first post.

I'm not very good at deciphering embedded messages; it takes someone like Paul to make clear the mysteries of the Gospel;

Romans 11:25 KJV
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Romans 16:25 KJV
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, (Maybe this is why Jesus did not speak clearly of those things with Eph 3:5-6)
Ephesians 3:5-6 KJV
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; [6] That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

 

[prism]

Not quite sure what your now getting at as the previous post was about Christ return at the rapture.

But, our righteousness is Christ righteousness given to us.

Just give me a quote of Jesus speaking out of the Gospels on imputed righteousness and/or how we are justified and no one gets hurt.

 

[Josheb]

No, I thought you said purple would work better so I have been using purple in the main with occasional use of red.

Are you able to see my posts better? I do the same with italics so I get your point, Scripture pops with color more.

I don't always remember but I do try to.

I make them work.

 

[EarlyActs]

Fine, I'll take this one as a satisfactory answer. It's a shame it took 95+ posts.

I think you will find several answers earlier; again, I don't quite get what you are missing except to confuse one English term 'impute' with a Greek term that calls for several things that need to be explained, and for which there are synonyms that are vital.

A person who really wants to know these things should at least work in a transliteration where you have familiar structure and can see original terms sounded out, without having to know the other language and written form.

 

[CrowCross]

Just give me a quote of Jesus speaking out of the Gospels on imputed righteousness and/or how we are justified and no one gets hurt.

I already gave you a verse...

Does Romans 8 work for you? 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.

The question I ask you is, who's righteousness?

You seem to be going on and on here....perhaps I should ask you, do you believe Christ righteousness is imputed to christians and our sins are imputed to Christ?

 

[prism]

I think you will find several answers earlier; again, I don't quite get what you are missing except to confuse one English term 'impute' with a Greek term that calls for several things that need to be explained, and for which there are synonyms that are vital.

A person who really wants to know these things should at least work in a transliteration where you have familiar structure and can see original terms sounded out, without having to know the other language and written form.

Nothing like quoting my response to another person and then analyzing it

 

[prism]

I already gave you a verse...

Does Romans 8 work for you? 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.

The question I ask you is, who's righteousness?

You seem to be going on and on here....perhaps I should ask you, do you believe Christ righteousness is imputed to christians and our sins are imputed to Christ?

Last time, Romans is not Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, nor is Paul Jesus.

You seem to be going on and on here....perhaps I should ask you, do you believe Christ righteousness is imputed to christians and our sins are imputed to Christ?

That is a pretty infantile question; haven't you been following this thread? I have affirmed it time and again, in the OT, in Paul's and Peter's epistles. etc. I was just not finding it clearly laid out in the Gospel teachings of Jesus, that's all

 

[prism]

The question I ask you is, who's righteousness?

Sorry, I almost overlooked this;
Answer: Christ Jesus and Him Alone.

 

[John Bauer]

Just give me a quote of Jesus speaking out of the gospels on imputed righteousness and/or how we are justified and no one gets hurt.

Jesus never uses Paul's specific vocabulary (logizomai, reckon or credit), but he does repeatedly teach the logic of imputed righteousness—alien righteousness received by faith, a forensic verdict grounded in his obedience and death.

For example, Luke 18:9-14. The tax collector and Pharisee. Here Jesus contrasts a man who trusts in his own righteousness (pepoithotas eph’ heautois hoti eisin dikaioi) with one who simply pleads for mercy: "God, be propitiated to me!" (hilastheti moi). The tax collector goes home "justified" (dedikaiōmenos), not because he has achieved righteousness but because God has declared him so. This justification is apart from works and before any moral reformation is narrated, matching the Pauline logic of Romans 4:5 ("to the one who does not work but believes … his faith is counted as righteousness").

While Jesus doesn't use logizomai, the forensic verdict apart from works is the key point.