Jesus' last words

No one has faith the size of a grain of mustard seed. Humans have doubt. You can have no doubt at all.

Anyways, Just wanted to offer this as an apologetics explanation. There are many others. Look them up and have faith or not. Your issues are not my concern.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/do-jesu...have-you-forsaken-me-mean-that-god-the-father

 

Two problems with that idea: Matthew himself was the translator, and Mark translates it the same way.

 

Any particular reason that they both could not be wrong? Or that those who translated what they supposedly said got it wrong?

Too many translations and interpretations over the years to take it for granted that this is what was said.

 

Yes, that's what I'm referring to. I'm confidant that both the Hebrew word used in Psalm 22:1 and the Aramaic word used in Matthew 27:46 are correct, and that both connote a similar meaning, but that the English translation of those words is not correct.

It takes some time to explain why it's wrong, but if anyone is interested I could give it a try. What I can say is that the Aramaic root is (Sh-B-Q), a word used over 200 times in the New Testament, and the only time it's ever translated as "forsake" is in reference to Jesus's final moments on the cross. So that alone should raise some eyebrows as to the word's appropriateness.

 

The Bible was written in Latin, the Hebrew is a translation.

 

Hence the altered meanings of the story.

 

I might be, if you were to start with the "correct" translation, and tell us how Matthew and Mark both managed to make the same error.

 

Herd mentality and for future power would be my guess.

Or perhaps they have just been "translated" incorrectly.

 

So what do you figure is the proper translation ?

 

Most christians read the gospels with a natural presumption that “taken together” .... these books present a unified picture... a picture not captured in any single gospel. After all, this MUST A BE the reason to have four different versions.... to give the complete picture.

there is a different, and IMO more logical way to look at the gospels: these books were written by four different authors because each of those authors felt there were inadequacies in the otherwise available versions of “the story”

so in this way of looking at the gospels.... they are different versions of the story written by different authors with different agendas in terms of what the story is, and what is the significance of that story

to give an example of an area of discontinuity.... take the gospels attitudes toward the jews. Initially, jesus presented himself as a jewish preacher who was teaching jews. Gentiles were simply not a part of Jesus preaching. And within that context.... the earliest followers were jews whoo looked at themselves as entirely within the jewish traditions. And, unsurprisingly, the first gospel (mark) did not emphasize blaming the jews... the jews were compatriots if mark

but, over time, the “good news” was increasingly marketed to the gentile community. The jewish sect if Christianity became increasingly secondary.... since most jews were not so interested in joining this fringe jewish group. And, over time, the gospel message (Last gospel of john) took on an anti jewish tone. Jews became christ killers who chose to save barabas instead of jesus.... people who said the blood of jesus should be on their hands, and the hands of their children. In fact, Pilot even becomes a sympathetic figure who does not want to execute jesus except for the insistence of the jews that jesus must die


You can see the acme of this anti jjewish hysteria in MEL Gibsons film where jews are hateful torturers of jesus as he trudges towards his crucifixion

If you actually look at the four gospels in parallel, it is quite easy to see how the story shifted over time. This shift WAS NOT to give a more complete picture..... it was because different authors had different agendas they wished to promote

 

If a person reads the biblical fairy tale very carefully he will see that the Jesus character is a false prophet according to the other stories. He has all of the negative attributes that it says a deceitful person has.

BTW, the Bible itself blames the Jews for killing Jesus so Mel Gibson had that part right. And the Talmud says that the Jews used five different methods to kill Jesus but that wasn't in the film.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relinquish

: to withdraw or retreat from : leave behind

* For which is easier to say, Your sins have been relinquished, or to say, Arise and walk?
* Then the master of that servant had pity, so he released him, and relinquished his debt.
* Because of this, a man shall relinquish his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.
* So they immediately relinquished their nets and went after him.

* Eli, Eli, to what this thou relinquish me? - Matthew 27:46.

All the above are derived from the same Aramaic root word (Sh-B-Q), and there are many more of a similar nature. Does "forsake" also fit the context of the above verses? I don't think so.

 

I still do not understand why you think the translation should be relinquish. Posting a dictionary definition of the word "relinquish" in no way shows that "relinquish" should be the proper translation.

Further .. I don't see how using the term relinquish - "given up" changes the meaning of Jesus last words. My God, My God, why have you given up on me .. is quite similar to forsaken me.

Lastly - either way - Jesus last words refute the man made Trinity dogma.

 

His last earthly words were "It is finished". However at the time Jesus, humbled Himself to the likeness of man, Who was without sin, took on the sins of the World, God the Father, being Holy, had to turn His Back on the Son until the sacrifice was complete

 

It should be "relinquish" because "relinquish" fits the contexts for (Sh-B-Q) consistently. Forsaken doesn't. To be fair, "dismiss", and "remit" are also close fits, but I think "relinquish" fits best. Tell me this, how does "forsake" look to you in the verses I list below? Not so good, IMO.

* For which is easier to say, Your sins have been forsaken, or to say, Arise and walk?
* Then the master of that servant had pity, so he released him, and forsook his debt.
* Because of this, a man shall forsake his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.
* So they immediately forsook their nets and went after him.

* Eli, Eli, to what this thou forsake me? - Matthew 27:46.

A translation can only be faithful if it faithfully translates each root word consistently, or at least as consistently as possible. If a translated word does not fit the contexts it's used in consistently, then chances are, you're using the wrong word.

 

who the hell cares

That is unintelligible.

So what are the chances that two contemporaries of Jesus both got it wrong?

 

Context matters .. and some words differ in meaning on this basis. since your examples are not the same context .. the meaning could be different.

I am not saying you are necessarily wrong .. just not really convinced you are right either. The thing about bad translations - and there are many in the Bible - The use of the term "word" rather than "Logos" in John for example or use of the word fornication - is that there is usually a reason behind the bad translation. That reason is most often because a proper translation would conflict with modern dogma/doctrine.

There is no such reason for this verse - in fact - you would expect the translators to use your translation as it would not be such a blatant negation of the Trinity Doctrine.

 

Only those with the honesty to post a complete post and the honesty to actually think about it.

Apparently that excludes you.

 

I think "relinquish" is better than "forsake", but I'm not locked in on it. Here's a chance for you to decide. Which word do you think best fits the 5 verse concordance below: "relinquish", "dismiss", "forsake", or some word of your own choice? Remember, we're looking for just one word that best fits all five verses, not a separate word for each verse.

* For which is easier to say, Your sins have been relinquished, or to say, Arise and walk?
* Then the master of that servant had pity, so he released him, and relinquished his debt.
* Because of this, a man shall relinquish his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.
* So they immediately relinquished their nets and went after him.
* Eli, Eli, to what this thou relinquish me? - Matthew 27:46.

* For which is easier to say, Your sins have been dismissed, or to say, Arise and walk?
* Then the master of that servant had pity, so he released him, and dismissed his debt.
* Because of this, a man shall dismiss his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.
* So they immediately dismissed their nets and went after him.
* Eli, Eli, to what this thou dismiss me? - Matthew 27:46.

* For which is easier to say, Your sins have been forsaken, or to say, Arise and walk?
* Then the master of that servant had pity, so he released him, and forsook his debt.
* Because of this, a man shall forsake his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.
* So they immediately forsook their nets and went after him.
* Eli, Eli, to what this thou forsake me? - Matthew 27:46.

 

As said in the previous post .. context matters .. in the case of Jesus last words .. forsaken is likely what was meant .

 

So you admit that you don't know for certain, yet wish to argue about it. Seems illogical.

 

If something is known for certain - arguing about it is illogical. It is only when there is uncertainty - that argument is logical.

 

I realize the nuances of biblical translation are confusing to most. The five verses are the context for (Sh-B-Q). So if a translated word doesn't fit all five of them, then it probably shouldn't be use in any of them, IMO. Such is the case with "forsake".

After looking at it again, I think "dismiss" might be the best fit for the Aramaic word (Sh-B-Q).

 

Each of the verses you quote is a different context .. dismiss/ forsake mean the almost the same thing. It would be good to find scholar familiar with the Ancient Aramaic ... Michael Heiser for example. Here is an example of some of his work.. http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf he has a website as well and you could probably email him the question and he might even respond.

 

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. There are about 150 verses in the Bible that discuss the idea of being forsaken =

Deuteronomy 31:6 (TLB) = Be strong! Be courageous! Do not be afraid of them! For the Lord your God will be with you. He will neither fail you nor forsake you.

Deuteronomy 31:17 (NKJV) = Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, ‘Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?’

So, as the Jesus character is wiggling on the cross isn't it logical that he would think that his God has broken his promise and failed him in his time of desperate need? In just a few previous passages two of his disciples thought that they could call down fire from the heavens to consume their enemies. So what happened to their magic?