Jesus' last words

He wouldn't...

...but it makes plenty of sense that the Son would perceive it otherwise under the circumstances.

Only way that could resonate with me is if I knew how the hell you get from "to what this thou" to "why do you".

I'm afraid the idea of posing a rhetorical question in those circumstances leaves me cold.

 

Why you posted this - I have no clue.

You are asking the wrong question. Why would God make a rule ( a good rule) stating that Children should not be punished for the sins of their parents - then turn around and command the Israelite's to kill children and babies - because of the sins of their parents.

The Bible is full of mindless irrational things.

Regardless - the proper question is why did "Jesus" think that his God had abandoned him. Perhaps Jesus expected that God would rescue him in a blaze of glory ? Perhaps Jesus did not have - "enough faith" ?

If we are getting into questioning Gods motives - If God wanted humans to follow his way/rules/codes - having some dude crucified is a silly way to go about it .. Crucifixion was a regular occurrence in those days. Seeing another person being crucified is not going to convince anyone that the person being crucified was the son of God.

If God had come down - Rescued Jesus and hurled a few lightning bolts - now that would get peoples attention.

The crucifixion story itself makes no sense. The only part of the story that does make sense is Jesus last words.

Now people will say ... "Yes but Jesus returned in the Flesh after death - that is how we know Jesus really was the Son of God"

Unfortunately - no one seemed to know that Jesus returned in the flesh until some 70 years or more after the death of Jesus.

There is no "Jesus returning in the Flesh" story in Mark - the first and earliest Gospel - (~65 AD) Marks Gospel ends with and empty tomb and the reader is left to wonder what happened to Jesus.

Paul likens the claims of Jesus appearing to people after his death to his vision .. he has no knowledge of Jesus showing up in the Flesh.

Clement - sometimes called the first Pope - leader of the Church around 95-100 AD - knows nothing of the physical resurrection. We know this because of his writings to the Corinthians where he is trying to defend the promise of a resurrection after death. He quotes some OT passage - talks about the story of the Pheonix which rises which rises from the ashes after death - he talks about the change of seasons - how God shows the resurrection in the continued cycle of death and rebirth in nature.

If Clement had the smoking gun - he would have stated it. Not a mention of the physical Resurrection.

Also in Mark Jesus is deified as an adult of 30.. there is no virgin birth - and no lineage back to David.

The first we hear of the Physical Resurrection is in Matthew. (80-100 AD) The problem here is that Matthew uses all of Mark as source material - leaving out only a few passages. Thing is though - the passages he leaves out are ones that the author thinks are derogatory to Jesus and/or the disciples. (in other words - artistic license - pious fraud - the sin of omission)

This was common back in the day and quite acceptable .. justified by "if it would bring more into the fold - and save them" The author ads a virgin birth .. a lineage back to David . and of course the stories of Jesus returning in the flesh after death "The Smoking Gun".

Now either Clement had never read Matt - Matt was not yet written - or Matt was written but the original version did not contain the physical resurrection stories.

Christianity was evolving with time -and with it the divinity of Jesus. John comes even later (100-120) and the divinity of Jesus has evolved further .. Jesus is not preincarnate - divine prior to birth.

The author of John borrows heavily from Hellenistic tradition - he uses the Logos concept to try to describe the divinity of Jesus. This makes sense as his audience would all have had a good understanding of the logos concept which would make Christianity more appealing.

Luke comes long after Mark and uses Mark/Matt as a source document. What is interesting is that the resurrection stories get longer with the telling of the story in both John and Luke.

 

There are numerous examples in the Bible where fathers crapped on their sons. It is what they did because they were lousy parents. Look at how the scum-sucker Abraham treated Isaac and Esau.

 

"To what this thou relinquish me" is a literal translation from the Aramaic. "Why do you relinquish me" was offered because you seemed not to understand the first one.

Both resonate with me, apparently neither resonate with you. That's now your problem, not mine.

 

Maybe God got confused.

 

That is pretty much what one has to believe in order to take the crucifixion story at face value - and maintain believe in the Trinity doctrine.

The idea that it was God - (The Father) - disguised the form of Jesus hanging there on that cross - is a preposterous absurdity.

That God - in some kind of masochistic delirium - forgot who he was and started calling out to himself - "My God My God why have you forsaken me". This is pathological mind bending nonsense on steroids. This is true regardless of the translation of the actual meaning of the world that is universally translated as "forsaken".

This is also true with respect to the OT depiction of God. A flip flopping irrational xenophobic genocidal God, with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics. A God that makes a rule "Children are not to be punished for the sins of their parents" .. who then turns around and commands the Israelite's to kill children, babies and pregnant women (fetuses) because of the sins of their parents.

Then 1000 years later - God is all of a sudden this loving caring - Judge not, love neighbor as thyself, ye who is without sin cast the first rock - character.

This is God we are talking about ... 1000 years is a fraction of a trillionth of a millisecond on the God timescale.

So 1) I refuse to believe in a depiction of God as this flip flopping irrational xenophobic genocidal maniac .. and 2) if this depiction is correct - that in 1000 years God has had some huge personality transition is even more preposterous.

 

Because from Genesis on it was prophesied that God would offer a sacrificial lamb, his only begotten Son, so that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Matthew 27:46 was simply the fulfillment of that prophecy, and in no way was it an "abandonment" or a "forsaking" of the Son.

As Jesus himself said. The Father and I are One. - John 10:30.

 

It was prophesied from Genesis forward? Do you have a verse or two?

 

Would you see it if you saw it? Skeptics are often blinded by their own skepticism.

Genesis 22

 

Oh hell. Its about Isaac not Jesus.. and you know in the earlier version Abraham kills Isaac and comes down from the mountain alone.

 

As I said, skeptics are often blinded by their own skepticism. They can't see the forest for the trees.

 

The expectation of a messiah comes late in Judaism.. They expected an anointed warrior king like David who would defeat their enemies and oppressors. Very different kettle of fish. Cyrus was considered a messiah because he delivered the Jews from exile in Babylon.

 

I don't know about the prophecy - whether that was an abandonment or not ... but the word we are discussing .. there was an abandonment and/or a forsaking ..

The other options you had come with previously suggested abandonment as well. In any case - you have made a fallacy .. non sequitur. (It does not follow that because A is True that B is True)

You have suggested that because there was no abandonment/forsaken in the prophecy in Genesis - that this somehow dictates that there can be no abandonment /forsaken in the crucifixion story.

Where is your response to the rest of the post ? which gets into the question of abandonment and forsaking ..

 

Into what? RandomEnglishwordgeneratorese?

No one understands the first one, as it's gibberish. As for the second, I didn't ask why you offered it, I merely noted that you failed to explain how it can be extracted from the first.

It's only a problem for me if you're correct, and I've been presented with nary a shred of evidence to that effect - not to mention that I've provided clear evidence to the contrary that you've utterly ignored.

 

If it's gibberish in your mind, that's your problem, not mine. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.

 

Which topic are you trying to address, the Genesis 22 foreshadowing of things to come, or the Matthew 27:46 translation? Mixing the two of them together does a disservice to both.

 

You were the one that tried to mix the two .. Now you are being disingenuous and projecting your actions on to me. I specifically separated the two and specifically pointed out your fallacy related to mixing them.

 

You make the mistake that others often make about the Triune God. Jesus said God is a Spirit. God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Do you understand what omnipotent and omnipresent mean?

 

Seeing it wasn't my mind that generated that preposterous excuse for a translation, obviously it's not my problem.

And a horse led to brackish water does well not to drink.

 

The above is a strange post.

1) I did not say God was not Spirit - so the mistake you accuse me of I did not make.

2) Where does Jesus say that God is a spirit ? - if you are making a specific claim with respect to the words of Jesus then cite verse.

3) Almost no one makes the mistake of not understanding that the Trinity doctrine includes the spirit as part of God.

So neither I .. nor others in general make the mistake you are attributing to them.

What does any of the above have to do with one of my claims with respect to the crucifixion ? Was it "God, God the Father , or was it not hanging on that cross ?

and what would you like to say about the spirit with respect the claim you had in mind. Which of my claims are you trying to attack btw ?

A strange post indeed.

I do understand .. why would you think I did not ?

This is getting redundant ... 2 fat strawman fallacies (attributing stuff to me that I did not say or infer) in a post containing only a few sentences.

Do you have something to say or is building strawmen the extent of your abilities ?

 

Jesus said God is Spirit in the Gospel of John 4:24. What I'm attacking is your apparent lack of understanding that there was a man hanging on the cross that could pray to his God. Your obvious confusion about the character of God is because you don't understand the covenants of God. God is a loving God, and He also judges sin. He has made a way out, but if you don't take it, then you can't blame God. If I toss you a life raft and you reject it and drown, that's not my fault. I wouldn't be a hateful genocidal person because you refused my life raft. Actually, YOU would be a fool.

 

You shouldn't change scripture..or rewrite Jewish scripture to mean something else. Its deceitful.

 

You are deceitful and an outright liar for even suggesting such a thing. Are you hallucinating on something?

 

It's your mind that generates your preposterous intransigence on the subject, not mine.