Jesus' last words

It's fascinating how atheists and agnostics spend so much time and energy on attacking the faith of Christians while defending the beliefs of muslims. Margot is a prime example.

 

I don't know if anyone else has brought this up but I thought that Jesus' last words were:
"Consummatum est"

 

No, I think it's just the opposite. I never see the unbelievers like Margot attacking muslims in the same way they do Christians. You appear to be in that same mold. What is it about Islam that makes you guys afraid to attack them in the same manner as you do Christians?

 

NOTE. An apologist is basically someone who tries to show how everything in the Bible fits together and and conveys an inexorable transcendent meaning.
There are innumerable “apologists” for the Bible
unfortunately, these innumerable apologists also have innumerable, and often conflicting explanations

so, what ever the Bible is.... it winds up being filtered through lots of human minds in order for it to make sense and to explain all of the problems and contradictions in the book

What does “the word of god mean when you have this superabundance of often conflicting explanations of “what it means?”

the case of the last words of Jesus provides an illustration of the problems. Anyone who reads the four gospels in parallel will notice that there are four substantially different versions of the story. Only one gospel quotes Jesus as asking why god has forsaken him! That is such a remarkable quote that one would expect that ALL the gospels, or at least MOST of them would agree on this dramatic quote

so as we try to rationalize this quote, we have to begin by wondering about the significance of having four DIFFERENT stories about probably the most important event in Christianity.

The Christian apologists will typically smush all the stories together with the excuse that the combined four stories give us the “whole” story. This is a logical “interpretation” if you start with the presumption that this was the intention of “the Holy Spirit” who was inspiring each of the four authors.

there is a different, and I think more reasonable interpretation. You have four different authors with different takes on the significance of these events. They wrote a different times and with different agendas about what happened and what it all meant.

And BECAUSE you had different authors with different agendas.... they added and subtracted elements of the story in order to serve their agenda. This is just what you would see in a normal human event. Let’s say that a husband and wife have a big argument and the police are called to find out what happened. The husband will have a version, the wife will have a version, the neighbors will have yet different versions, friend of the husband will have a version, friends of the wife will have a version, and each of the children will have yet different versions.

THIS is what I think happened with Jesus crucifixion. You have lots of different stories from different people.,.. not a single Holy Spirit inspired story told through four different authors.

specifically, the agonized question about why god forsook Jesus....was only quoted by the earliest gospel writer, MARK. I personally think that was most likely to be accurate. And I think these are the words of a MAN who really did think that he was sent by god... a man who would have felt very confused and betrayed by his treatment DESPITE being gods messenger,

later gospels reflect the evolution of the significance of Jesus.... he is increasingly seen as divine. And as such, he needs to be increasingly shown as triumphant in the face of death.... a death that he was cognizant of as a fulfillment of gods “plan”. And as such, it made no sense for Jesus to lament that god had forsaken him..... because those words on Jesus lips would conflict with the evolving Christology of the nascent church.

Of course we are all now subsumed in seeing Jesus as the fulfillment of god’s grand plan.... rather than as a very human prophet who was agonized about how god could allow him to be cruelly executed. As such, Christian apologists are left struggling to come up with alternative explanations for Jesus last words about god having forsaken him.

 

since we are in a Christian culture.... our discussion of these topics would necessarily focus on a Christian context as opposed to contexts with which we are less familiar.... like Muslim

concerning Margot... I am sure she can comment for herself about her views. But from what I have seen, she does not speak to endorse the Muslim religion.... but rather to endorse their fundamental humanity in response to hyperbolic and ill informed suggestions that they are inherently contemptible because they are Muslim and not christian.

there are certainly wonderful people of all sorts of religious conviction. And I think that atheists in general do not specially hate anyone for their religious conviction. We do, however, equally resist the certain religious claims of each this religions as being without foundation

 

Yes - and the Bible itself is also a product of those filters Some of the reason for contradictions and other issues is that the Bible is the product of numerous authors - through numerous time periods - The OT was spliced together by Jewish Scholars and Politicians - round 500 BC - under the Persians. The material used to put together the OT came from at least 4 different sources - from different authors writing at different time periods. - Jawist, Deuteronomist, Priestly, Elhoists. Some of the OT was also created during this time.

So all kinds of different sources .. and different perspectives. We don't have any copies of the original but we have some stuff from ~200 BC to Common Era. The process of filtering prior to creation of the oldest extant texts - Septiguint ( LXX) and 4DeutQ (Qumran Text) - has already been significant.

The filtering does not stop there .. comparing these older texts to the Masoretic Text (created 700-900BC) shows that some further artistic licence - (Pious Fraud) - interpolation, edits, additions, omission has occurred. These changes were most often made to make the text conform better to the dogma of the day.

In some cases the original meaning of the Text is completely changed or lost. See Page 7 for a comparison of one passage Deuteronomy 32:43 - in 3 different Bibles. .
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf

"What does “the word of god mean when you have this superabundance of often conflicting explanations of “what it means?”

LOL -- Yes .. That is the a key point. We have so many conflicting depictions of God in the Bible - at least 3 which suggest 3 different Gods. Abraham (El) Moses (YHWH) Jesus (don't know this God's name but it sure as heck is not YHWH)

YHWH is depicted as a xenophobic genocidal irrational God - depicted with with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics. "I am a Jealous God" .. Jealous of what prey tell ? .. what does an Omniscient - Omnipresent - all knowing - eternal God have to be Jealous of ? .. but OK ... .. don't want to nit pick too much on the Jealousy thing.

This flip flopping God makes a law (Children are not to be punished for the sins of their parents) - excellent law - part of the Rule of Law today.

Such a wise Got this is.

This wise God YHWH then turns around and commands the Israelite's to slaughter children and babies - in numerous instances - both foreigners and fellow Israelite's. This slaughter is of children and babies is justified "because of the sins of the parents".

Adulterers are to be stoned - and the smallest violations of "the law" punished in very severe ways. Rigid and Military - Like the War God YHWH is depicted as.

Fast forward to Jesus - and all of a sudden God is "Love Neighbor of self - Judge Not - Forgiveness - Let Ye who is without Sin cast the first stone -

Question - Has God Changed ? - or did the people of peoples perspective of God Change?

Regardless of either - we have two different depictions of God - .. which one does one choose ? Or should we just go with one of the numerous Indian Gods ...

Do we stone the adulterer or not .. chop off hand for theft.. death penalty for a kid who disrespects his parent and homosexuals.

Or - Do we go with the - "take log out of own eye before picking speck out of Brothers" and the claim of Jesus that the rule that sums up the Law and the Prophets - is the Golden Rule "don't do to others what you don't want done to you - treat others how you would be treated" The merciful will be shown mercy .. the unmerciful will not.






the case of the last words of Jesus provides an illustration of the problems. Anyone who reads the four gospels in parallel will notice that there are four substantially different versions of the story. Only one gospel quotes Jesus as asking why god has forsaken him! That is such a remarkable quote that one would expect that ALL the gospels, or at least MOST of them would agree on this dramatic quote

so as we try to rationalize this quote, we have to begin by wondering about the significance of having four DIFFERENT stories about probably the most important event in Christianity.

The Christian apologists will typically smush all the stories together with the excuse that the combined four stories give us the “whole” story. This is a logical “interpretation” if you start with the presumption that this was the intention of “the Holy Spirit” who was inspiring each of the four authors.

there is a different, and I think more reasonable interpretation. You have four different authors with different takes on the significance of these events. They wrote a different times and with different agendas about what happened and what it all meant.

And BECAUSE you had different authors with different agendas.... they added and subtracted elements of the story in order to serve their agenda. This is just what you would see in a normal human event. Let’s say that a husband and wife have a big argument and the police are called to find out what happened. The husband will have a version, the wife will have a version, the neighbors will have yet different versions, friend of the husband will have a version, friends of the wife will have a version, and each of the children will have yet different versions.

THIS is what I think happened with Jesus crucifixion. You have lots of different stories from different people.,.. not a single Holy Spirit inspired story told through four different authors.

specifically, the agonized question about why god forsook Jesus....was only quoted by the earliest gospel writer, MARK. I personally think that was most likely to be accurate. And I think these are the words of a MAN who really did think that he was sent by god... a man who would have felt very confused and betrayed by his treatment DESPITE being gods messenger,

later gospels reflect the evolution of the significance of Jesus.... he is increasingly seen as divine. And as such, he needs to be increasingly shown as triumphant in the face of death.... a death that he was cognizant of as a fulfillment of gods “plan”. And as such, it made no sense for Jesus to lament that god had forsaken him..... because those words on Jesus lips would conflict with the evolving Christology of the nascent church.

Of course we are all now subsumed in seeing Jesus as the fulfillment of god’s grand plan.... rather than as a very human prophet who was agonized about how god could allow him to be cruelly executed. As such, Christian apologists are left struggling to come up with alternative explanations for Jesus last words about god having forsaken him.

 

All that blood and death.....sin is real and the punishment for it is real.

 

Actually, I believe that it was your own soulmate--Moonglow- who initiated the mockery.

If you do not believe this, then please refer to post #6 in this thread, in which Jesus' deity is described as a mere "fairy tale"--and Jesus is depicted as smoking a cigarette (or is it, perhaps, a joint?).

 

I have to say that many non theists (. Like you) seem surprisingly better informed about the bible as compared to a typical theist.... whose expertise often seems as limited as, for example, Donald Trump

 

That they did .. Mark is the original Gospel - ~65 AD. Jesus is deified as a man of 30 - No virgin Birth - no lineage back to David - and most importantly - no physical resurrection story - no smoking gun proof that the resurrection actually happened.

The author of Matt is writing at a different time (~80-100AD) - Christianity is new and so ideas are evolving rapidly. There are many different sects of Christianity and it is still a young movement.

The author uses Mark as a source document - all of Mark is found complete in Matt - sans a few passages - passages that the author found derogatory to Jesus and/or the disciples. (artistic license - pious fraud) is already in play. We should keep in mind that this was quite acceptable at the time .. rationalized by different ideas such as - better to lie and save a soul than to tell the truth and loose it.

The divinity of Jesus is evolving .. The author of Matt adds a virgin birth - Jesus is deified at birth... creates a lineage back to David ..and gives us the smoking gun - the evidence that proves the promise of a future resurrection is true. Jesus shows up in the flesh after death.

It is odd that the author of Mark - a gospel of which the point is to suggest the promise of resurrection - would not include that part.

What is also odd - is that Paul - who is writing before and close to the time of the writing of Mark - compares the appearances of Jesus after crucifixion - to his vision - like someone seeing Mary in the Clouds - the proof provided is spiritual - not physical .. zombie Jesus wandering around talking to people. (not trying to be nasty using the term "zombie" - trying to get the distinction between spiritual and physical across)

Clement - leader of the Church 95-100 AD - in his letter to the Corinthians - one in which he is defending - trying to convince them - of the promise of the resurrection.

Clement use examples like the Pheonix of Egypt - which rises from the ashes after death. He talks about the cycle of death and rebirth that we see in nature - explaining that this is how God shows us the promise of the resurrection. He quotes from the OT.

Clement has no knowledge of a Physical Resurrection - he never gives the "smoking gun" Either Matt was not written yet - It was written but not known to Clement - (nor did he know of of stories of physical resurrection in any other scripture that might of existed at the time) - or Clement was familiar with Matt but with a version that did not yet include the Physical Resurrection stories.

By the time we get to John (100-120AD) - a whole lot has happened - the temple of Jerusalem has been destroyed - time has passed and it is a period where their is a heavy tax "fiscus judaicus" on Jews. Jews were not having a good time of it and Christianity was trying to separate itself from Judaism - and Jews in General.

Christianity has evolved and so has the divinity of Jesus - The Author of John fuses Pauline and Hellenist ideology - bringing in more sophisticated ideas .. and also using ideas that are familiar to a Greek audience - which will make Christianity more appealing to a broader audience.

Jesus - originally deified as an adult - then deified at birth - is now pre-existent. Paul introduces the "Logos" concept. (mistranslated as "The Word" - in modern Bibles) Jesus existed along with and alongside God prior to birth. Logos can mean "word" - but in a religious context - to the audience - it means "the emissary between man and God" Jesus was then a representation of "The Word of God" ..

Jesus spoke the word of God through the power of Holy Spirit. This spirit is from God and it resided in Jesus. This idea - that there are emanations that come from the Godhead - is an ideology shared with Gnostics - and other religious sects both Christian and non Christian.

It took another 200 years for Jesus to fully become God , but this is where we are at when the author of John is writing. The Gospel of John expands on the physical resurrection stories in Matt.

What the author also does is change the last words of Jesus. In both Mark/Matt - "My God My God -... why have you forsaken me"

This statement does not well fit with the Logos concept - it does not fit with what Jesus had evolved into.

In John .. the last words of Jesus are "It is Finished" - no mention of the passage in Mark/Matt - which should be well known by the time of the writing of John. This is not a problem of a different version. Perhaps Jesus did say "it is finished" at some point. The problem is the omission of what was established scripture.

Now if Matt/Mark was not established Scripture by 100-120 AD (at least 40 years after Mark - and ~ 20 years after Matt) - this makes the problem even worse as it means Matt/Mark were written after 100AD - 70 years after Christs death .. and Mark was then not written by a student of Peter.

 

I believe I am a Theist : - I believe in spiritual things - and have a concept of God. I just don't believe in all of the various constructs that have been created by humans about God. Some I do believe in ! - but certainly not all.

 

Thx. I stand corrected

 

From what you have written, i am curious what you do believe. For instance, do you believe in a hell that will be my fate for my disbelief?

 

Hell is a man made construct - who knows if such a place exists - and how one ends up there ? Christianity hasn't figured out the "How" part yet either. Roughly 1/3 of Christians (most Protestant denominations) believe in "Sola Fide" - salvation by faith alone. No good deeds or lack of doing bad deeds required.

The rest of Christianity Orthodox and Catholic - believe in a works/deeds requirement. Then you have the various beliefs found in other religions - many of which are just as plausible as Christianity. Judaism for example does not believe the Christian Hell concept.

Other religions are rife with descriptions of the various horrors that await those who do bad deeds.

I am partial to the idea of Karma but who gets to determine what the punishment should be for the crime ? and what is that determination. That stuff is all well beyond my pay grade.

First I have would have to have figured out who God is - in order to make a guess in relation to what God has in store for you... and I make no such claim ... at least not defacto.

What I believe is that the idea that entrance into Hell or Paradise as some black vs white paradigm is flawed to begin with.

Even if this were the case - the idea that one gets in - simply on the basis of "faith in God" and that faith must be in "The Right God" - is preposterous nonsense on steroids IMO. I would have to believe that God was consumed with vanity ..

It also defeats the purpose of having a brain. Why would God bother giving humans a brain -.. if all he/she cared about was continuous worship - hour after hour, day after day - eon after eon ... for infinity.

To me that sounds like God is in Hell .. Imagine waking up in the morning - and when you go outside everyone that you meet does nothing but worship you .. day in day out .. hour upon hour - continuous worship - for eternity.

Sounds like death by boredom to me.

 

Thx

 

Jesus says "God is spirit" in the passage. I have not contradicted this.

You then go on to claim how I do not understand how a man could pray to his God on the cross. This is a falsehood . I have never said or inferred anything of the sort. I fully understand how a man could prat to his God on the cross.

You then go on to accuse me of a whole bunch of other things - none of which I am guilty - and none of what you post addresses any of the claims made in my post.

Your post is unadulterated fallacy and mindless gibberish. ?!

 

You obviously didn't know the Scripture that said God is a Spirit because you asked me to provide it. I'm beginning to see a pattern here of a pathetically infantile bait and switch.

 

Yet another nonsense allegation - all you have done is bait and switch so far - this is the fourth or fifth false or baseless allegation you have made ... and you have done nothing else but engage in fallacious "demonize the messenger" gibberish .. with no attempt to address what was stated in my post. .

Quit projecting your issues onto me

 

That is certainly a very interesting observation.

I am both a rationalist--and a very strong one, at that!--and a Christian.

Some people (apparently) view the two as being incompatible.

This view remains a mystery to me...

 

Addressing your reflection in the mirror are you now ? Humor

 

Certainly intransigence might be considered preposterous in the face of a patently compelling argument along with compelling responses to clear counterarguments. Seeing I've encountered neither in this thread, I can be pretty sure the problem lies elsewhere.

 

Maybe you're not a good communicator.