No absolutes?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
tut tut tut tut tut. bad translations dont equal evidence. r u sure the original bible used the word for BIOLOGICAL SON???? wasnt it more the "messiah", a messenger, chosen, anoinyted, follower???? many a times when jesus says SON, in english, it really was the phrase used as u wud say, "we are all children of god". or we are all his sons and daughters. besides, the sign of jonah that jesus mentioned denies that. as do a lot of ambiguous testimony of what is supposedly jesus resurrected. i agree it doesnt support islam and does point towards jesus dying at times{remember that this isnt red letter}, but on equally others they make him out to be a human desperately trying to tell people he isnt a ghost.

really, do not put so much faith into bible thumpers who would invent verses which claim of trinity{when they were never there} and reinterpret things like pots and pans to ANOINTER{suppose to refer to jesus as beleived by ythe general christian public} simply because the act of rubbing is involved.

The New King James Bible is not a bad translation, it is a literal, word-for-word translation which is the best in terms of accuracy.

What do you mean the original Bible? Today's Bible is based on the original manuscript. Jesus was known by a number of titles that describe His mission or status relative to humanity. I don't agree with you concerning what Jesus meant when He said "Son of Man, Son of God, etc." I believe that Jesus meant exactly what He said (don't assume you know what He meant). Jesus definitely did not mean that we are all God's children because the Bible states that only those who received Him (i.e. believe in His Name) have the right to become children of God.

John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Did you see that?

The sign of Jonah denies what? Haven't we been down this road before? I have already expounded the whole "sign of Jonah" issue that you had.

Pots and pans? "Anointer?" What in Bullwinkle's name are you talking about?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
awwwww, your really trying now arent you. lets look back at what JESUS said

now, what do muslims think about crucifixion?????? jesus was RAISED TO THE HEAVENS WHILE THE romans cud not discern that he was replaced by another man of similar looks. forgetting what the NON RED LETTER BIBLE SAYS, {it is the author who creates the connection between death and rising. the author who isnt jesus and seams to be speaking FOR him}. now lets see what muslims think about where he was taken.

hmm, now THIS makes sense doesnt it?

seeing as the muslims beleive that every prophet in their time was for that particular period and civilisation, the WAY TOWARDS GOD.

srry, islam is as credible here if not more than christianity. think up of some REAL contradcitions between the red letter bible and islam please.

You seem to have difficulty interpreting Scripture. Ironically, the same Scripture verse that you took out of its context actually explains what Jesus meant when He made the statement about being lifted up and drawing all peoples to Himself, but you seem to have conveniently omitted that part (it is in the very next verse). Here it is:

John 12:32-34
32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. 34 The people answered Him, “We have heard from the law that the Christ remains forever; and how can You say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this Son of Man?”

Did you see that leonheartmm? It says,

"...This He said, signifying by what death He would die."

In order to understand a passage of Scripture you have to be careful not to remove it from its setting. First examine the passage in its context. Second, study the verses that immediately precede and follow the verse (or verses) that you want to understand. If you had done that you would have known that Jesus was talking about His crucifixion. He was not talking about being lifted up to God (as you assert) because the context states that He said what He said signifying by what death--not being lifted up into heaven while being undiscernible--He would die. Bear in mind the Qu'ran states that Jesus was not killed but that god (Allah) lifted Him up (which is categorically false). Besides Jesus Father is YHWH and YWHW does not mean god no matter what language it is translated into. If Jesus was so undiscernible then how come his mother and discple John recognized Him? They were all standing right there. The whole theory that you espouse is embarrasingly implausible and absurd. I don't know any mother that is incapable of recognizing her own son--imposter/look-alike or not.

John 19:25-27
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

The New King James Bible is not a bad translation, it is a literal, word-for-word translation which is the best in terms of accuracy.

thats why on the outrage of two church denomination, the made up verses mentioning trinity in words were added back to the king james version after being taken out as inauthentic based on the original manuscripts????????

What do you mean the original Bible? Today's Bible is based on the original manuscript. Jesus was known by a number of titles that describe His mission or status relative to humanity. I don't agree with you concerning what Jesus meant when He said "Son of Man, Son of God, etc." I believe that Jesus meant exactly what He said (don't assume you know what He meant). Jesus definitely did not mean that we are all God's children because the Bible states that only those who received Him (i.e. believe in His Name) have the right to become children of God.

yes but to begin with, WHAT DID HE SAY? the current bibles are filled with vague and often mistranslated material which you further use your church denomination and preacher to TRY and understand. and on top of that you deny alternate explanations. and its just that, your BELEIF, nuthing based in evidence, and infact much else of what he said supports an alternate point of view in which the words use are more appropriate for GOD'S CHILDREN as opposed to GOD'S BIOLOGICAL CHILD. as for the last part, which part of the bible states that? surely not the red letter bible. nugh said.

John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Did you see that?

ahan, n i didnt see red.

The sign of Jonah denies what? Haven't we been down this road before? I have already expounded the whole "sign of Jonah" issue that you had.

yeah we have, n if i remember correctly you gave up n said that even YOU had your limits and that you cud not possibly argue with sum1 so unwilling to accept FACTS. or sumthin like that. the argument still remains.

Pots and pans? "Anointer?" What in Bullwinkle's name are you talking about? [/B]

sighu obviously didnt get this the last time either. to ANOINT basically means to RUB. in those days, kings and high ranking officials used to RUB oil on the palms or upper hands of any1 who visited them worthy of being recognised and respected{foreign convoys etc}, mostly it was to show FAVOUR. thus it became traditional to call chosen or special people ANOINTED from which the word ANOINTER came into usage{obviously uve heard it in the bible havent u}. anointer is thought to be used for JESUS as he is apparently FAVOURED BY THE LORD or the anointed prince of heaven, anointed by his father the lord. HOWEVER, bible thumpers, devious as they are{im not referring to u, just people who make millions printing and handling bibles} started using the word anointed{they rationalised that its easier to use the same word for average folk to understand} for EVERYTHING to do with rubbing{including pots and pans n whatnot, this was verifyed by biblical scholars later as they cros referenced translations from the original non english manuscripts}, in so doing it became a repetitive word, and it cud be used in conjunction with any rubbing/chosen/special reference , which made it very easy to string it together where holiness/feats etc were mentioned which had nuthing to do with yeshua. it made it seem like HE was being referenced and that cud often be used to make people think against the scrptures, ad in line with traditonal views of jesus's holiness, being god incarnate, etc. so theres the story,hope u got what i was saying.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
thats why on the outrage of two church denomination, the made up verses mentioning trinity in words were added back to the king james version after being taken out as inauthentic based on the original manuscripts????????

yes but to begin with, WHAT DID HE SAY? the current bibles are filled with vague and often mistranslated material which you further use your church denomination and preacher to TRY and understand. and on top of that you deny alternate explanations. and its just that, your BELEIF, nuthing based in evidence, and infact much else of what he said supports an alternate point of view in which the words use are more appropriate for GOD'S CHILDREN as opposed to GOD'S BIOLOGICAL CHILD. as for the last part, which part of the bible states that? surely not the red letter bible. nugh said.

now is that the RED LETTER BIBLE? 🙄

ahan, n i didnt see red.

yeah we have, n if i remember correctly you gave up n said that even YOU had your limits and that you cud not possibly argue with sum1 so unwilling to accept FACTS. or sumthin like that. the argument still remains.

sighu obviously didnt get this the last time either. to ANOINT basically means to RUB. in those days, kings and high ranking officials used to RUB oil on the palms or upper hands of any1 who visited them worthy of being recognised and respected{foreign convoys etc}, mostly it was to show FAVOUR. thus it became traditional to call chosen or special people ANOINTED from which the word ANOINTER came into usage{obviously uve heard it in the bible havent u}. anointer is thought to be used for JESUS as he is apparently FAVOURED BY THE LORD or the anointed prince of heaven, anointed by his father the lord. HOWEVER, bible thumpers, devious as they are{im not referring to u, just people who make millions printing and handling bibles} started using the word anointed{they rationalised that its easier to use the same word for average folk to understand} for EVERYTHING to do with rubbing{including pots and pans n whatnot, this was verifyed by biblical scholars later as they cros referenced translations from the original non english manuscripts}, in so doing it became a repetitive word, and it cud be used in conjunction with any rubbing/chosen/special reference , which made it very easy to string it together where holiness/feats etc were mentioned which had nuthing to do with yeshua. it made it seem like HE was being referenced and that cud often be used to make people think against the scrptures, ad in line with traditonal views of jesus's holiness, being god incarnate, etc. so theres the story,hope u got what i was saying.

Question: did you mean what you wrote in this post? You see, just as I mean what I say, and you mean what you say, Jesus is no different in that He means what He says as well (whether I believe this or not). So what Jesus says is what He means; therefore, it is not a matter of my belief.

[/i]
You seem to have difficulty interpreting Scripture. Ironically, the same Scripture verse that you took out of its context [b]actually explains what Jesus meant when He made the statement about being lifted up and drawing all peoples to Himself, but you seem to have conveniently omitted that part (it is in the very next verse). Here it is:

no, i explained the raising upto heaven part. or did u miss the last three paragraphs dealing with EXACTLY THAT? n the muslim view on it?????

John 12:32-34
32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. 34 The people answered Him, “We have heard from the law that the Christ remains forever; and how can You say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this Son of Man?”

Did you see that leonheartmm? It says,

"...This He said, signifying by what death He would die."

YEA i saw it. and it wasnt RED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the second part of that verse is NOT SPOKEN BY JESUS, and hence holds no meaning. it is the interpretation of another man trying to reconcile what jesus said with his own beleifs which have become your beleifs but have no truth in what jesus was saying.

ill make it simple

RED=jesus

BLUE= not jesus

In order to understand a passage of Scripture you have to be careful not to remove it from its setting. First examine the passage in its context. Second, study the verses that immediately precede and follow the verse (or verses) that you want to understand. If you had done that you would have known that Jesus was talking about His crucifixion. He was not talking about being lifted up to God (as you assert) because the context states that He said what He said signifying by what death--not being lifted up into heaven while being undiscernible--He would die. Bear in mind the Qu'ran states that Jesus was not killed but that god (Allah) lifted Him up (which is categorically false). Besides Jesus Father is YHWH and YWHW does not mean god no matter what language it is translated into. If Jesus was so undiscernible then how come his mother and discple John recognized Him? They were all standing right there. The whole theory that you espouse is embarrasingly implausible and absurd. I don't know any mother that is incapable of recognizing her own son--imposter/look-alike or not.

sigh, i dont see any red anymore. im not arguing that much of the non red letter bible supports your point of view in one way or another. what i AM saying is that the only parts of bible which CHRISTIANITY {seeing as it isnt paulanity or saintanity} shud shud be based on is christ's words.
so this doesnt do anything for u.

John 19:25-27
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. [/B]

a lil bit of red, o a lot of blue. blue distorts the red. n this verse isnt dealing with the topic.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Question: did you mean what you wrote in this post? You see, just as I mean what I say, and you mean what you say, Jesus is no different in that He means what He says as well (whether I believe this or not). So what Jesus says is what He means; therefore, it is not a matter of my belief.

your wrong. ill give u an example. ill call you sumthing in my mother tongue and give you the literal translation. you try to discern what i said. try n discern its meaning in the manguage. and then try and discern its meaning in context to current lingual trends in my language and the context i said it in. lets see how ar you get.

ullooo kaa pathaa.

ulloo=owl

kaa=of

pathaa=child.

good luck.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no, i explained the raising upto heaven part. or did u miss the last three paragraphs dealing with EXACTLY THAT? n the muslim view on it?????

YEA i saw it. and it wasnt RED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the second part of that verse is NOT SPOKEN BY JESUS, and hence holds no meaning. it is the interpretation of another man trying to reconcile what jesus said with his own beleifs which have become your beleifs but have no truth in what jesus was saying.

ill make it simple

RED=jesus

BLUE= not jesus

sigh, i dont see any red anymore. im not arguing that much of the non red letter bible supports your point of view in one way or another. what i AM saying is that the only parts of bible which CHRISTIANITY {seeing as it isnt paulanity or saintanity} shud shud be based on is christ's words.
so this doesnt do anything for u.

a lil bit of red, o a lot of blue. blue distorts the red. n this verse isnt dealing with the topic.

Your whole red-letter Bible, logic is flawed. Regardless of whether the words of Jesus are red-letter or not they would still have been written by another person.

Do you follow me?

What is Jesus supposed to do sit there and write down everything that He is speaking in real-time just so you know that it was Him Who said it? You are way to obssessed with the whole red-letter fallacy that you don't even see the error in that rationale. I apologize if that offended you but you are just not making any sense at all.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
your wrong. ill give u an example. ill call you sumthing in my mother tongue and give you the literal translation. you try to discern what i said. try n discern its meaning in the manguage. and then try and discern its meaning in context to current lingual trends in my language and the context i said it in. lets see how ar you get.

ullooo kaa pathaa.

ulloo=owl

kaa=of

pathaa=child.

good luck.

Did you mean what you just said? (I am trying to show the fallacy in your statement with regard to meaning what you say.)

We are not discussing linguistics, vernacular, colloquiallism, parlance, jargon, or common speech. The issue is (and let's stay focused on it) is what did Jesus say with regard to His crucifixion. You continue to pull this red-letter card everytime your position is exploded by Bible facts. Again, I am not here to argue with you just to clarify the Word for you whenever I see you bungling its meaning.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Your whole red-letter Bible, logic is flawed. Regardless of whether the words of Jesus are red-letter or not they would still have been written by another person.

Do you follow me?

What is Jesus supposed to do sit there and write down everything that He is speaking in real-time just so you know that it was Him Who said it? You are way to obssessed with the whole red-letter fallacy that you don't even see the error in that rationale. I apologize if that offended you but you are just not making any sense at all.

you just beleive the logic is flawed. and why do u think in testimony, often times the lawer asks the person to JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION and tell what the defendant was saying in DIRECT SPEECH???? its because INDIRECT SPEECH, makes generalisation and interpretation which migh or might not be valid. the DIRECT SPEECH is always the most unadulterated form and can be verified to be pointing towards one thing or another. just u n i are debating about what jesus MEANT based on his real words in direct speech. so can others. if i were to accept every interpretation not made by jesus than thered be no difference in ur views and mine wud it. ill give u another example.

you heard your mother say "HE IS SUCH AN ASS", now when telling that account to me, you say, SHE CALLED ME AN ASS!!!!. wud that be a fair assesment? cudnt she have been referring to sum1 elsem since she used HE and not JIA??? ofcourse i wudnt know that unless i heard her direct speech yelling HE instead of JIA. otherwise i wudv assumed she said JIA IS AN ASS. thats the problem with the non red letter bible.

there is no error in my rationalle other than the fact that is seems to deny your claims. n no, today atleast, im not offended, i think ur a lil silly at times, but prolly no more offensive than self righteousness based in relegion will force you to be 🙂

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Did you mean what you just said? (I am trying to show the fallacy in your statement with regard to meaning what you say.)

We are not discussing linguistics, vernacular, colloquiallism, parlance, jargon, or common speech. The issue is (and let's stay focused on it) is what did Jesus say with regard to His crucifixion. You continue to pull this red-letter card everytime your position is exploded by Bible facts. Again, I am not here to argue with you just to clarify the Word for you whenever I see you bungling its meaning.

your not getting it. i MEANT WHAT I SAID! in my own head, in my own context{which u have to figure out from my words} i completely and utterly MEANT what i said. i wasnt trying to lead you astray. now its your job to find out what it is. now go ahead and try it.{for the sake of argument, i MEAN EVERY WORD please participate}

ullooo kaa pathaa.

ulloo=owl

kaa=of

pathaa=child.

good luck.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you just beleive the logic is flawed. and why do u think in testimony, often times the lawer asks the person to JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION and tell what the defendant was saying in DIRECT SPEECH???? its because INDIRECT SPEECH, makes generalisation and interpretation which migh or might not be valid. the DIRECT SPEECH is always the most unadulterated form and can be verified to be pointing towards one thing or another. just u n i are debating about what jesus MEANT based on his real words in direct speech. so can others. if i were to accept every interpretation not made by jesus than thered be no difference in ur views and mine wud it. ill give u another example.

you heard your mother say "HE IS SUCH AN ASS", now when telling that account to me, you say, SHE CALLED ME AN ASS!!!!. wud that be a fair assesment? cudnt she have been referring to sum1 elsem since she used HE and not JIA??? ofcourse i wudnt know that unless i heard her direct speech yelling HE instead of JIA. otherwise i wudv assumed she said JIA IS AN ASS. thats the problem with the non red letter bible.

there is no error in my rationalle other than the fact that is seems to deny your claims. n no, today atleast, im not offended, i think ur a lil silly at times, but prolly no more offensive than self righteousness based in relegion will force you to be 🙂

We cannot continue any meaningful discussion simply because you are fixated on this red-letter fallacy. There is no such animal. The Bible as it is currently written is the Word of God, and it has recorded in it the Words of Christ in red simply to distinguish what Christ said from what others said. But the Bible is still the Will and Word of God with or without the red ink.

Unless we are both in agreement that the Bible is the Word of God, there is no point discussing it because you dispute everything that doesn't fit your red-letter complex. What in the world does red ink have to do with what Jesus said? Nothing, here is why. The red-letter was still written by someone other than Jesus Himself.

Can't you see this?

Jesus never personally wrote one Scripture so even the red letter was written by someone else. Your red-letter complex has run its course right off the side of a cliff into the abyss of error.

Let it go.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We cannot continue any meaningful discussion simply because you are fixated on this red-letter fallacy. There is no such animal. The Bible as it is currently written is the Word of God, and it has recorded in it the Words of Christ in red simply to distinguish what Christ said from what others said. But the Bible is still the Will of God with or without the red ink.

Unless we are both in agreement that the Bible is the Word of God, there is no point discussing it because you dispute everything that doesn't fit your red-letter complex. What in the world does red ink have to do with what Jesus said? Nothing, here is why. [b]The red-letter was still written by someone other than Jesus Himself.

Can't you see this?

Jesus never personally wrote one Scripture so even the red letter was written by someone else. Your red-letter complex has run its course right off the side of a cliff into the abyss of error.

Let it go.

[/B]

🙂
denial

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you just beleive the logic is flawed. and why do u think in testimony, often times the lawer asks the person to JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION and tell what the defendant was saying in DIRECT SPEECH???? its because INDIRECT SPEECH, makes generalisation and interpretation which migh or might not be valid. the DIRECT SPEECH is always the most unadulterated form and can be verified to be pointing towards one thing or another. just u n i are debating about what jesus MEANT based on his real words in direct speech. so can others. if i were to accept every interpretation not made by jesus than thered be no difference in ur views and mine wud it. ill give u another example.

you heard your mother say "HE IS SUCH AN ASS", now when telling that account to me, you say, SHE CALLED ME AN ASS!!!!. wud that be a fair assesment? cudnt she have been referring to sum1 elsem since she used HE and not JIA??? ofcourse i wudnt know that unless i heard her direct speech yelling HE instead of JIA. otherwise i wudv assumed she said JIA IS AN ASS. thats the problem with the non red letter bible.

there is no error in my rationalle other than the fact that is seems to deny your claims. n no, today atleast, im not offended, i think ur a lil silly at times, but prolly no more offensive than self righteousness based in relegion will force you to be

Originally posted by leonheartmm
🙂
denial

😄

That was all you could say? I guess I will head to my coronation (just kidding I am not here to win anything).

king

I need to go to sleep. Good night.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
😄

That was all you could say? I guess I will head to my coronation (just kidding I am not here to win anything).

king

it seems like your memory resets every 10 minutes or so{50 first dates}, you didnt see the quote did you. nor did u read it the first time. never being able to see that your blatant denial was exactly the thing it was catered to answer.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Thank you for proving that you know nothing about flood anthropology.

Again with the English translation attacks? That's lame.

Exactly my point. Joseph was sold by 11 of his brothers. Benjamin was not involved. I actually don't think he was even born at that point. So that analogy fails.

Again with the misinterpretation attacks? That's lame.

I never said all 12 brothers sold him, just that he was sold by brother Judah, and he had 12 brothers. Swap brother with disciple and the h in Judah with an s, it's the Jesus story.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Care to prove me wrong?

Again with the misinterpretation attacks? That's lame.

I never said all 12 brothers sold him, just that he was sold by brother Judah, and he had 12 brothers. Swap brother with disciple and the h in Judah with an s, it's the Jesus story.

When you don't use context, you will misinterpret. That's what you did.

No it isn't. It's 11 brothers + Joseph. Jesus is 12 disciples pus Jesus. The twelfth wasn't in existence. Therefore, that analogy sucks.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, I'd expect that you wouldn't want to wallow in ignorance. But if you do, I'm not going to stop you.

When you don't use context, you will misinterpret. That's what you did.

No it isn't. It's 11 brothers + Joseph. Jesus is 12 disciples pus Jesus. The twelfth wasn't in existence. Therefore, that analogy sucks.

Misinterpretation is a ridiculous argument. The Bible says Jesus is the light of the world, he is born again, he has a crown of thorns, comes in the clouds etc. That is similar to what the Sun is. I'm not misinterpretating here, I'm showing coincidences that suggest Christianity is based off of Astrology (probably indirectly).

Benjamin is still a brother...

Originally posted by lord xyz
You just say what you use to prove me wrong is ignorance.

Misinterpretation is a ridiculous argument. The Bible says Jesus is the light of the world, he is born again, he has a crown of thorns, comes in the clouds etc. That is similar to what the Sun is. I'm not misinterpretating here, I'm showing coincidences that suggest Christianity is based off of Astrology (probably indirectly).

Benjamin is still a brother...

Once again, the word translated light means "manifest". There is no similarity with astrology there. The crown of thorns is quite literal. Plus, even if you think they represent rays you have to tell me why the rays are going inward into Jesus's head. Comes in the clouds is the closest you can get, but Daniel's vision was at night. Jesus will come like a thief in the night according to the Bible which jeopardizes that analogy. Plus the sun doesn't come in the clouds. I can't think of a single culture or religious belief that suggests that it does. The first sunny and cloudless day would have ruined that belief.

Your point? I have already stated that the twelve disciples are based on the twelve sons by design. Israel used the number twelve a lot because of the twelve sons, however, for your analogy to be true there would have had to have been twelve sons present with one betraying Jesus. Only eleven betray Joseph. Therefore, you are making a large stretch.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
carrying the cross was a common term used to symbolise carrying one's burdens and responsibilities in life{as a prisoner in life wud carry his. crosses were not used just for execution}.

also the jump of logic thatu take from bearing one's burdens{which wud actually imply ACCEPTING YOUR SINS AND WRONGDOINGs as personal baggage and not simply having them vanish because of crucifixion} to being born again symbolically as jesus died and was resurrected in mindboggling. plus the thing under question here is whether the scriptueres support jesus's own divinity and the christian explanation and implication of his sacrifice.

Source for this statement please. The symbolism for carrying one's burden came out of later Christian theology from my understanding. What makes you believe that that the statement was used symbolically that early in history?

The Christian explanation of His sacrifice comes directly out of the Old Testament.

"Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: Yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement which procured our peace was upon Him; and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all."
- Isaiah 53:4-6