My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?

[necrosmith]

I mean, since he was supposedly apart of the godhead, shouldn't he know? If everything happened according to plan, it should be no surprise.

 

Sounds more like to me he was a delusional human being who thought he was god. When it came time to die, he was surprised that he was actually going to die.

 

Even if it was "prophesied" that he would say that, why would they prophesy it?

 

It makes no sense to me.

 

The more I think about it, why no prophesy anything else? Why not have him say ANYTHING but something that harms the credibility of the event?

 

It is finished makes more sense, but even that is suspect to me.

[currentchristian]

I mean, since he was supposedly apart of the godhead, shouldn't he know? If everything happened according to plan, it should be no surprise.

 

Sounds more like to me he was a delusional human being who thought he was god. When it came time to die, he was surprised that he was actually going to die.

 

Even if it was "prophesied" that he would say that, why would they prophesy it?

 

It makes no sense to me.

 

The more I think about it, why no prophesy anything else? Why not have him say ANYTHING but something that harms the credibility of the event?

 

It is finished makes more sense, but even that is suspect to me.

 

I read once that his words, the first sentence of Psalm 22, were calling hearers to read that Psalm, which is quote "prophetic," and quite similar to the experiences of Jesus' death. Just an opinion.

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

Could be prophetic. Indeed.

 

Or it could be that the author had a copy of the Septuagint in his hands as he was writing the story.

 

Also just an opinion.

[Amethyst]

Good question. Jesus was supposed to be god, after all. How can a god forsake himself? Unless that god doesn't exist, or he was just a delusional human, or the character was fictional. My vote is for the latter.

[Mythra]

I think that was the cosmic moment when all of the suffering and pain of the world was put upon the christ, the logos, the eternal Son of God, the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings, the suffering messiah.

 

One of the most important moments in christendom.

 

Mark and Matthew both say that Jesus cried out in a loud voice "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"

 

Funny that John, who was supposedly standing right there, never heard it.

[Amethyst]

Maybe John just had something stuck in his ears. A little ear wax goes a long way.

[Poonis]

Maybe John just had something stuck in his ears. A little ear wax goes a long way.

 

BEER->NOSE->KEYBOARD+MONITOR!#%&!%

 

hahah

[Lycorth]

Or it could be that the author had a copy of the Septuagint in his hands as he was writing the story.

 

That's one way to get all Babblical prophecies fulfilled

 

As for why did Jebus say that? Because people don't always proofread the stories they make up. It's just bad fiction, that's all.

[Ouroboros]

Or it could be that the author had a copy of the Septuagint in his hands as he was writing the story.

hmmm.... nah... that's too easy... no one would ever, ever, ever do something something like that! Would they?

 

Of course the explanation is that they were way to stupid to read or write, so they couldn't read the Septuagint and didn't know that scripture, but of course they couldn't write either because they were these non-scholar fishermen... but hey, miracles do happen (at least so they say), they did write the books after all... even though it was 30 years later.

 

(maybe they went to school in the meantime between the resurrection and writing the first gospel? Just a thought.)

 

Mark - Hey John! What grade are you in?

 

John - I'm in second grade now.

 

Mark - Wow! Cool. So you have learned the whole alphabet now? I'm only on "theta". So what will you write about Jesus?

 

John - I'm thinking that I will start something like "once upon a time", but I don't know... it just doesn't seem right. Kind of too much of fairy tale. I want it to sound true.

 

Mark - Sure, why don't you start with, "in a galaxy, far, far away..." That's pretty cool, don't you think?

 

John - Yeah, that could work. "In a galaxy, far, far away... God sent his word to be flesh."

 

Mark - What? I never heard that before? What you mean God sent his word to be flesh? Who's that?

 

John - Jesus.

 

Mark - Jesus? Dude, he was just a fisherman like us, where did you get that "Uuh.. Jesus was sooo spooky and God made him out of letters and stuff!" Come on. Let's write how it was.

 

John - You mean, we traveled around and visited the clubs and got wasted on wine? No one will believe in Jesus if we tell the truth man! We have to spin the story a bit.

 

Mark - Spin it? Spin it... yeah, maybe you're right. Hey, I have this great idea, let's say he didn't die but got alive again!

 

John - You mean like a zombie?

 

Mark - NO! Not like a zombie, more like a robot, or like a ghost... nah... I don't know. Let's think about this. Maybe we should ask Luke, he's so clever and have all this cool ideas...

 

and so on...

[Amethyst]

 

Well, Jesus is the ultimate Gary Stu, after all. So I can see it.

[white_raven23]

Funny that John, who was supposedly standing right there, never heard it.

 

Kinda busts apart the excuse christians come up with claiming the discrepancies between the gospels are just different perspectives on the same event.

 

While it is true that different people will see different little details about a car crash and choose to expound on certain ones while dismissing others.....

 

Every WORD Jesus said while on the cross would have been remembered and recorded precisely because after the abuse he went through (a la Mel Gibson's The Passion), NO ONE could know which words were going to be his last. He could have died within ten minutes of being put on the crucifix. They couldn't have known.

 

Back to the car accident and it's surrounding diverse viewpoints....a phrase like that one would have been akin to one of the gas tanks catching fire and one of the cars being engulfed in flame.

 

No witness is going to leave out the fire when they talk about the crash later! It's neither realistic, nor is it human. You aren't going to leave out telling others the last words of someone you revered as a prophet.

[necrosmith]

It just occurred to me. Shouldn't Jesus have said, Me, Me. Why have I forsaken myself?

[StewartP]

It just occurred to me. Shouldn't Jesus have said, Me, Me. Why have I forsaken myself?

 

"Us, Us. Why have we forsaken ourselves?"

[Kelli]

It was a misspelling. Jesus had a retriever you see. So when Jesus was crucified and was about to die and the sky darkened and the earth started to shake, the dog realized that Jesus was really God and he ran away. Dogs are man's best friend after all. So jesus cried out "My Dog, my Dog, why hast thou forsaken me?" as ol' Fido was trippin' through the crowd getting the hell outta there to find a new human.

 

This is where the wax in the ears theory really comes into play. And I know there was no goddamned dog in the story, but too fuckin' bad. It's as good a story as any I've heard, and damned touching one to boot.

 

Fido did find new owners. After the crucifixion, he was found walking along the road to Damascus speaking in tongues. Or was that the road to Emmaus? I can't remember. Anyway, he was picked up by a circus as part of their new act and lived happily ever after.

[currentchristian]

Good question. Jesus was supposed to be god, after all. How can a god forsake himself? Unless that god doesn't exist, or he was just a delusional human, or the character was fictional. My vote is for the latter.

 

Who said Jesus was God? Oh, that's right, the Trinity doctrine. Well that's another discussion.

 

So either Jesus did not exist and the cross experience did not happen. Or Jesus did exist but the cross did not. Or Jesus did exist and the cross did happen but he didn't say these words. Or Jesus did exist and the cross did happen and he did say these words and that means he was delusional. Or Jesus did exist and the cross did happen and he did say these words and that means that he was suffering and calling out to his Father and referencing a psalm to which he particularly identified at that dreadful moment. I go with the latter choice.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

I think that was the cosmic moment when all of the suffering and pain of the world was put upon the christ, the logos, the eternal Son of God, the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings, the suffering messiah.

 

One of the most important moments in christendom.

 

Mark and Matthew both say that Jesus cried out in a loud voice "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"

 

Funny that John, who was supposedly standing right there, never heard it.

 

I'm glad each author highlighted different events. What would be the good of having four gospels if they were verbatim copies of each other? Each highlighted the aspect of the Jesus experience that they were most moved by. Sounds perfectly fine to me.

 

I have used this example before: the Gettysburg Address. Ever read the next-day accounts in the nation's various newspapers as to what Lincoln said? Tons of disagreement! Yet we know Lincoln was in Gettysburg on November 19, 1863. We know he spoke.

 

-CC in MA

[Kelli]

I have used this example before: the Gettysburg Address. Ever read the next-day accounts in the nation's various newspapers as to what Lincoln said? Tons of disagreement! Yet we know Lincoln was in Gettysburg on November 19, 1863. We know he spoke.

 

-CC in MA

 

Thus demonstrating that the bible was written by men, not a perfect god, and therefore not infallible.

[currentchristian]

I have used this example before: the Gettysburg Address. Ever read the next-day accounts in the nation's various newspapers as to what Lincoln said? Tons of disagreement! Yet we know Lincoln was in Gettysburg on November 19, 1863. We know he spoke.

 

-CC in MA

 

Thus demonstrating that the bible was written by men, not a perfect god, and therefore not infallible.

 

Bingo. In my view. Jesus is, in my view, the "Word of God," not the Bible.

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

I'm glad each author highlighted different events.

 

Well, it sounds nice. Like watching a parade, and every spectator notices a different aspect of the parade.

 

Same thing with the bible.

 

Take the gospel of Mark, for instance. The first gospel written (with the possible exception of Thomas)

But, if Mark was first, for a time, it was the ONLY gospel. The ONLY gospel.

 

So, what were a couple of the little bitty details that Mark didn't think worth mentioning?

 

Raising of Lazarus

Appearances of the re-animated Jesus

The ascension.

 

I suppose these experiences just weren't enough to get "moved by".

 

I'm sure you have an explanation, cc. Just not one that any truly thinking person will buy.

[currentchristian]

I'm glad each author highlighted different events.

 

Well, it sounds nice. Like watching a parade, and every spectator notices a different aspect of the parade.

 

Same thing with the bible.

 

Take the gospel of Mark, for instance. The first gospel written (with the possible exception of Thomas)

But, if Mark was first, for a time, it was the ONLY gospel. The ONLY gospel.

 

So, what were a couple of the little bitty details that Mark didn't think worth mentioning?

 

Raising of Lazarus

Appearances of the re-animated Jesus

The ascension.

 

I suppose these experiences just weren't enough to get "moved by".

 

I'm sure you have an explanation, cc. Just not one that any truly thinking person will buy.

 

Now, Mythra, that's not like YOU. Are you saying that I am not a "truly thinking person"?

 

-CC in MA

[white_raven23]

I'm glad each author highlighted different events. What would be the good of having four gospels if they were verbatim copies of each other? Each highlighted the aspect of the Jesus experience that they were most moved by. Sounds perfectly fine to me.

 

 

So you just decide to casually ignore my earlier post then? Like that's going to make what I said in it go away?

 

I guess you must ignore some posts if you are going to hold on to your sky daddy while hanging out here.

[mwc]

The words are only mentioned in G.Mark and G.Matthew. G.Matthew, in the Greek, is known for "borrowing" heavily (nearly word for word) from G.Mark. In the text the people, who should have known Aramaic, don't understand what is being said and think jesus is calling to Elijah. This is very unlikely considering it was probably their primary spoken language (over Hebrew, Greek and Latin).

 

G.Luke has jesus asking his god to receive his spirit (how does that even work?) Finally, G.John has him say "All is done" before giving up the spirit.

 

The question at hand is how has his god forsaken him? If his task is to die, which he claims numerous times it is, then how is allowing him to die forsaking him? Would not rescuing him actually be forsaking him in this case? In the context of his stated mission this comment simply makes no sense at all. Could an early tradition, lost to a rewrite, point to the crucifixion being the sad end to his mission? The shorter G.Mark points to the possibility of a different ending after all. With the addition of the resurrection, what was a lost cause, now has a new beginning. He that was forsaken no longer is and both G.Luke and G.John recognize and correct this mistake in their texts.

 

mwc

[Mythra]

Now, Mythra, that's not like YOU. Are you saying that I am not a "truly thinking person"?

 

Yes. But not meant to be an insult.

 

You're a thinking person. A thinking person who's reasoning process is greatly influenced by faith. Faith that affects the reasoning process. Faith - as in - believing something is true IN SPITE of the lack of evidence, or in the presence of contradictory evidence.

 

So, when I say "truly thinking person", I mean someone who, when the data does not add up, admits that the data does not add up. A truly thinking person is allowed to think about the evidence and make conclusions, without worrying about the implication or threat that they might be headed down some slippery slope of doubt.

 

I understand this. Completely. Because I was a thinking person who's thought process was clouded by faith for a very long time.

 

p.s. : I noticed you didn't address the question.

[NotBlinded]

I think that was the cosmic moment when all of the suffering and pain of the world was put upon the christ, the logos, the eternal Son of God, the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings, the suffering messiah.

 

One of the most important moments in christendom.

 

Mark and Matthew both say that Jesus cried out in a loud voice "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"

 

Funny that John, who was supposedly standing right there, never heard it.

Mythra, I was just reading that sabachthani is not an Hebrew word, therefore Jesus never would have said it. He would have said azavthani which means abandoned. Not much difference except what that would mean. It would mean that the writers would have been using the Septuagint to copy from. Now, why would they have to copy from Psalms 22 if they knew what Jesus actually said? Maybe they were trying to make the connection in the readers mind to this "prophecy".

 

Sounds fishy to me...

 

Wait, Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew (probably). Okay...now I lost what this person was talking about then. My brain hurts...

[mwc]

As you noted, jesus would have likely spoke Aramaic (and the words are Aramaic). The funny thing is that the rest of the words supposedly spoken by jesus aren't in Aramaic and then translated for the reader as these are. These might well be, assuming jesus is more than myth, the ONLY words spoken by him that survive (if you think about it). But I doubt it.

 

I went on a search for a LXX version of the verse and found this:

 

22:1 O God, my God, attend to me: why hast thou forsaken me? the account of my transgressions is far from my salvation.

 

It's different than what's said by jesus and it's different than the Masoratic text. Perhaps it's just the translation into English I found? I'm not quite sure what to make of it. That's the problem when going in between all these languages.

 

Nonetheless, if jesus was the Word made flesh, then shouldn't he be able to quote from himself perfectly?

 

mwc