when I began college, I asked a Jewish girl who spoke Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever what "lmna" meant to her. She talked it over with her friend and they both agreed it means "why".
Okay I was on the thread about the guy pilferig TWI's aramaic work and this was semi refered to and I didn't want to derail that thread so any input would be appreciated.
If that is so What actually did he say?? Was I spared for this Purpose??? or My God why have you left me???
Sorry probably needs to be another thread.
As in star Trek I will make it so!
Yeah, too bad there's no tape...
I don't think we'll ever know for sure what he said. The records of what he said were written long after the fact...but in my opinion, I am more inclined to think he said Why has thou forsaken me? if he indeed said anything at all. I've not seen any support for "spared" in any text...
Okay I was on the thread about the guy pilferig TWI's aramaic work and this was semi refered to and I didn't want to derail that thread so any input would be appreciated.
If that is so What actually did he say?? Was I spared for this Purpose??? or My God why have you left me???
I think you have to read Psalm 22 and really consider what took place on the cross Leafy.
Consider it based on the understanding of a VERY holy God. . . and a Savior who took on our sins. . .
"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him"
What is death for the unsaved? Can God look on sin?. . . . What is the Father and Son's complete and perfect relationship? Lot's of question's to consider.
I think he cried out quoting psalm 22. . it actually reveals an amazing love.
God's plan. . . This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
Didn't He take on our punishment? The full force of God's wrath? Did God pour out His wrath on Jesus? Are we now saved from the wrath to come?
All the parsing over, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, may effect your theology, but it will never change your heart. . .I think if you take some time and consider what happened on the cross. .. . it becomes clearer what He said. :)
I know one thing for sure. . . I wish I had never heard of VPW. . . what an absolute waste of time.
Well if he was quoting Psalm 22 which when you read it in the NAS Bible reading the whole psalm it is a rhetorical question and posed as such in that passage.
IN the Psalm David crys out in anguish about his current condition but in the crying out he is also recognizing God's glory, and Gods purpose and that from the womb David was (devoted is the only word I can think of but that isn't the right word for it) That from birth he was connected with God. In the beginning of the psalm he asks God to stay with him in his great time of need and that he David knows God has delivered Israel in the past... HE asks again in verse 19 on for God to be with him to hasten to his assistance.
Verses 22 on are about Gods love, deliverance and Davids exhortation to praise God and glorify him.
IF Christ was quoting these passages It would be in keeping with the teachings of his vast knowledge of the scriptures and if so then he was in essence saying to those around him that he understood why he was on the cross.
But I still wonder what the actual Aramaic words said as Word wolf so eloquently stated.. I realize it is perhaps not possible to know but none the less I wonder.
Geisha... I know that What Christ did was enormous.. please don't think I was asking my question in any disdain... for me ... my salvation which came long before TWI was built on the sudden knowledge while watching a reenactment of Christ last days that I was forgiven my sins and that Christ's act on the cross bought me forgiveness... and by God's mercy I was made clean.
For me when VP in PFAL said Christ's Cry was one of Triumph I wanted it to be that .. a victory cry that he knew he had done this great deed. I didn't want him to be there on the cross all alone in anguish feeling deserted by God ... because for me God reached down with his word and lifted me out of a very dark place.
One of the things about TWI that was so attractive to me was the supposed teaching us to read and understand the Bible... because for me the words I read were healing and gave me strength...
So really if he was quoting psalm 22 it would be an affirmation that Christ knew what God's plan was .. that he know God was with him and would be with him in his darkest moments and that there was a reason for it all.
It never crossed my mind you were asking with disdain.
My husband and I were sitting here discussing the topic. What you said about wanting to believe that He wasn't alone in anguish on the Cross is exactly what I was trying to address without addressing it.
You were not the only one attracted to this idea.
Something to consider. . . or not. . . is that God reached down to you BECAUSE Jesus was alone and in anguish on the Cross. God turned away. . . so He could turn to you. Again, the greatness of what He did.
It never crossed my mind you were asking with disdain.
My husband and I were sitting here discussing the topic. What you said about wanting to believe that He wasn't alone in anguish on the Cross is exactly what I was trying to address without addressing it.
You were not the only one attracted to this idea.
Something to consider. . . or not. . . is that God reached down to you BECAUSE Jesus was alone and in anguish on the Cross. God turned away. . . so He could turn to you. Again, the greatness of what He did.
That was my point without saying it. . . .
Sorry to disturb. . .
Oh you did not disturb I just know that sometimes when you type things on teh computer people can't see your heart and I didn't want you to think I asked the question out of anything more than respect.
I am learning on GS that the most difficult threads to read are always the most healing and informative, and thought provoking
You and Wordwolf always are informative respectful and helpful as are others on here.
It has been a while since I worked this, but as I recall Jesus was actually quoting from a scripture, Psalms 22:1. I quickly read chapter 22 and it starts out tragic and sad (death does that), but by the end of the chapter it ends victoriously. Just like Jesus' crucifixion and then resurrection. Perhaps people that heard him say this and were familiar with Psalms 22 thought in spite of the death involved that it would have a victorious ending.
The one thing I've been sure about, even before twi, was that Jesus was never forsaken by The Father.
My supposition when reading it on my own was that Jesus was basically delirious with pain,
and expressed how he FELT, not the REALITY of the situation.
Elijah was much the same when he said he was the LAST man in Israel standing for God,
and God corrected him and said He had kept thousands for himself.
(I can look up the verses for the curious.)
Whether Jesus was declaring victory by quoting Psalms, or declaring victory by saying it all led up
to that moment, doesn't concern me a great deal.
Well, I wouldn't want to take that logic and apply to anything else he said. . . when He said "Man shall not live by bread alone.. . ." he was just "feeling" peckish. The "reality" was. . .
This is where TWI and historic Christianity. . . one gospel message and the other part company. This is where one Jesus, just a man. . . and the other Jesus,. . . also part company.
If He did not fully recieve what was due us. . . are we really saved? It was our sin He carried. . .
Here is a much better explanation than I could give. . .
Question: "Why did Jesus say, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?""
Answer: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). This cry is a fulfillment of Psalm 22:1, one of many parallels between that psalm and the specific events of the crucifixion. It has been difficult to understand in what sense Jesus was “forsaken” by God. It is certain that God approved His work. It is certain that He was innocent. He had done nothing to forfeit the favor of God. As His own Son - holy, harmless, undefiled, and obedient - God still loved Him. In none of these senses could God have forsaken Him.
However, Isaiah tells us that “he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows; that he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; that the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him; that by his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4-5). He redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). He was made a sin-offering, and He died in our place, on our account, that He might bring us near to God. It was this, doubtless, which caused His intense sufferings. It was the manifestation of God’s hatred of sin, in some way which He has not explained, that Jesus experienced in that terrible hour. It was suffering endured by Him that was due to us, and suffering by which, and by which alone, we can be saved from eternal death.
In those awful moments, Jesus was expressing His feelings of abandonment as God placed the sins of the world on Him – and because of that had to “turn away” from Jesus. As Jesus was feeling that weight of sin, He was experiencing separation from God for the only time in all of eternity. It was at this time that 2 Corinthians 5:21 occurred, “God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” Jesus became sin for us, so He felt the loneliness and abandonment that sin always produces, except that in His case, it was not His sin – it was ours.
Great link, Geisha – thanks! I like that answer but also wanted to throw in my 2 cents. A lot of things come to mind when I think of Jesus' words from the cross. I keep coming back to a thought provoking situation – where Jesus' self-sacrifice stands at the crossroads of justice and love. Like an ever-widening picture as the camera pulls back – I find so many passages & topics that seem to be in close proximity to the cross.
Some systematic theologies address death – not so much as annihilation – but separation. Physical death being separation of the body and the life-force [soul, or whatever you want to call it]. Spiritual death being separation of man from God. When the Bible speaks of Jesus tasting death for everyman – I think it means both – physical & spiritual – and heavy emphasis on the spiritual. For me, it focuses on how much He completely identified with us – experiencing a whole lot more than physical death. Scripture says the wages of sin is death – I tend to think that covers both deaths too. Which brings me to my next point.
I think justice-wise there was no other way around it. Adam was the first man – perfect – but because of his sin was separated from God. The penal code of the Law demanded an eye for an eye – offering something inferior in exchange for what was taken was unacceptable. More than physical life was traumatized in the Garden – the spiritual aspect of life was deeply impacted – the connection with God severed – a condition passed down to an entire race. Jesus – as the second Adam offered His perfect life in exchange for our decrepitude.
I admit sometimes my mind tends to water things down when thinking about this – maybe a residual of teachings that used to say how God didn't forsake Jesus – God was right there with Him all the way. As if Jesus was acting out a part on stage – and only He was aware of God being stage-right and they're winking back and forth at each other. And so this little charade wasn't as hard as some might imagine since it was just pretend – like a disclaimer at the end of a violent movie – "no one was really spiritually hurt during this production."
Bottom line is I think Jesus said these words from the depths an utterly horrible, mind-boggling & super intense experience – an acute awareness of actually being separated from God. I'm thinking of the darkest times of my life – where I didn't think there was anything beyond what my eyes could take in - - maybe that's a little taste of what Jesus felt.
The one thing I've been sure about, even before twi, was that Jesus was never forsaken by The Father.
My supposition when reading it on my own was that Jesus was basically delirious with pain,
and expressed how he FELT, not the REALITY of the situation.
Elijah was much the same when he said he was the LAST man in Israel standing for God,
and God corrected him and said He had kept thousands for himself.
(I can look up the verses for the curious.)
Whether Jesus was declaring victory by quoting Psalms, or declaring victory by saying it all led up
to that moment, doesn't concern me a great deal.
For those who skipped over this, what I meant SPECIFICALLY was that when I just read it in English
for myself, before hearing twi or anyone else add their own understanding, interpretation, opinion, spin, etc.
was that Jesus was NOT forsaken by The Father (which it doesn't say he WAS, note- it says he SAID it,
I can see him SAYING it at the time) , but sure FELT like he was.
Well, I wouldn't want to take that logic and apply to anything else he said. . . when He said "Man shall not live by bread alone.. . ." he was just "feeling" peckish. The "reality" was. . .
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument."
Gee, you were the first one to suggest such a jump.
There's a world of difference between someone having a bad day, and someone suffering torture for over a day,
then execution by slow torture AFTER that. I know the worst pain I've ever felt, and I know full well that Jesus
was in a GREAT deal more pain than that- and I was unable to see straight or speak.
I don't know if you've ever suffered a great deal of pain, but it's not to be compared with missing a few meals.
(Or even fasting 40 days- which Jesus did before that and endured without losing his composure.)
I've never personally experienced childbirth, but I've been given to understand that it's incredibly painful.
I've also been given to understand that women enduring childbirth have been known to speak of things they
normally would not say, but felt AT THAT MOMENT. I've heard it's not uncommon for them to curse out the
father of the baby and say various slanderous things about him that they normally would refute if they were
asked about them during normal circumstances.
Bill Cosby quoted Carol Burnett on what labor pains felt like. "She said 'take your bottom lip, and pull it over
your head.' " He also said that during his own wife's labor pains that his wife cursed him out.
I would never SERIOUSLY consider comparing how a woman felt in the middle of childbirth-and what she said thenm
and how she felt if she had, say, a headache, even a migraine that knocked her off her feet.
This is where TWI and historic Christianity. . . one gospel message and the other part company. This is where one Jesus, just a man. . . and the other Jesus,. . . also part company.
If He did not fully recieve what was due us. . . are we really saved? It was our sin He carried. . .
Here is a much better explanation than I could give. . .
Question: "Why did Jesus say, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?""
Answer: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). This cry is a fulfillment of Psalm 22:1, one of many parallels between that psalm and the specific events of the crucifixion. It has been difficult to understand in what sense Jesus was “forsaken” by God. It is certain that God approved His work. It is certain that He was innocent. He had done nothing to forfeit the favor of God. As His own Son - holy, harmless, undefiled, and obedient - God still loved Him. In none of these senses could God have forsaken Him.
However, Isaiah tells us that “he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows; that he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; that the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him; that by his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4-5). He redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). He was made a sin-offering, and He died in our place, on our account, that He might bring us near to God. It was this, doubtless, which caused His intense sufferings. It was the manifestation of God’s hatred of sin, in some way which He has not explained, that Jesus experienced in that terrible hour. It was suffering endured by Him that was due to us, and suffering by which, and by which alone, we can be saved from eternal death.
In those awful moments, Jesus was expressing His feelings of abandonment as God placed the sins of the world on Him – and because of that had to “turn away” from Jesus. As Jesus was feeling that weight of sin, He was experiencing separation from God for the only time in all of eternity. It was at this time that 2 Corinthians 5:21 occurred, “God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” Jesus became sin for us, so He felt the loneliness and abandonment that sin always produces, except that in His case, it was not His sin – it was ours.
A) We have, in the verses, proof that Jesus was tortured horribly for hours.
We have, in the verses, proof that Jesus suffered hours of slow torture to death AFTER that.
IMHO, it was MORE PAINFUL than "the Passion of the Christ" made it look.
(IMHO, they substituted the visual of bloodshed for the audible cries of pain that would have resulted
with standard tortures of the time. Then again, I'm no expert on historical torture methods- but
tortures in all eras have emphasized amount of pain over physical damage, since torture was a
tool different from execution as a tool.)
B) We have, in the discussions of many Christians, SPECULATION that the laying of sins upon someone can be painful or very painful.
"It was this, doubtless, which caused His intense sufferings."
Personally, I've found that, whenever a person (and I've almost always seen it be a Christian expounding
on his beliefs) uses, in his explanation, argument or reasoning, words like "DOUBTLESS",
it is anything BUT and is usually a "flag" for me that they're covering a flaw in their own reasoning right there.
It's as if they try to preempt discussion of their suppositions by saying "It's silly to question that" or
"Only a fool would hesitate to jump to this conclusion" and, often, people read that and fall in line.
Leviticus 16:20-26 (KJV)
20And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:
21And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
23And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:
24And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people.
25And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar.
26And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp.
Or, in case you think the version changed the meaning, Leviticus 16:20-26 (NASB)
20"When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat.
21"Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.
22"The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.
23"Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting and take off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there.
24"He shall bathe his body with water in a holy place and put on his clothes, and come forth and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people and make atonement for himself and for the people.
25"Then he shall offer up in smoke the fat of the sin offering on the altar.
26"The one who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp. "
The only previous instance of sins being laid on someone (in this case, not a person, but an animal, a goat released into
the wilderness) is discussed here, the offering assigned to Israel to be performed each year.
I see the goat received the weight of sins of 12 Tribes of Israel for one year.
(To be certain, far less than the sins of the world paid ONCE for all of future history until the End Times.)
I see no indication the goat in any way suffered PAIN or even physical discomfort for it.
He runs off into the woods, into which she's released.
My supposition is that a goat required to escape into the wilderness would not be injured instantly so that walking,
running, etc would be painful- that would mean the requirement that he escape into the wilderness would be
negated. I think this is a reasonable conclusion based on the requirements as stated.
Just because everyone says it's "obviously" so doesn't mean something is true.
Doesn't mean it's FALSE, either- but it means that claims need to be supported by something
stronger than "I say this is what it 'DOUBTLESS' means."
If there's actual support for this position FROM SCRIPTURE- that Jesus' pain was based primarily on the
imputation of the sin on him- it has not been given.
I've offered a counter-argument- and supported it FROM SCRIPTURE- that this would not be so.
So, if this position is really as "DOUBTLESS" as that guy said, present a SCRIPTURAL rationale,
show the verses that suggest or state this would be painful.
The internet's a big place, lots of Christians CLAIM this is so. It should not be an impossible task to
Great link, Geisha – thanks! I like that answer but also wanted to throw in my 2 cents. A lot of things come to mind when I think of Jesus' words from the cross. I keep coming back to a thought provoking situation – where Jesus' self-sacrifice stands at the crossroads of justice and love. Like an ever-widening picture as the camera pulls back – I find so many passages & topics that seem to be in close proximity to the cross.
Some systematic theologies address death – not so much as annihilation – but separation. Physical death being separation of the body and the life-force [soul, or whatever you want to call it]. Spiritual death being separation of man from God. When the Bible speaks of Jesus tasting death for everyman – I think it means both – physical & spiritual – and heavy emphasis on the spiritual. For me, it focuses on how much He completely identified with us – experiencing a whole lot more than physical death. Scripture says the wages of sin is death – I tend to think that covers both deaths too. Which brings me to my next point.
I think justice-wise there was no other way around it. Adam was the first man – perfect – but because of his sin was separated from God. The penal code of the Law demanded an eye for an eye – offering something inferior in exchange for what was taken was unacceptable. More than physical life was traumatized in the Garden – the spiritual aspect of life was deeply impacted – the connection with God severed – a condition passed down to an entire race. Jesus – as the second Adam offered His perfect life in exchange for our decrepitude.
I can see how this MIGHT be the case. I can follow the reasoning.
I'm slow to say "this IS the case" without some verses saying this was so outright.
One verse saying "And Jesus was separated from The Father for us" or
"the Messiah will be separated from the LORD for us"
would, I think, pretty much close the case on this.
I admit sometimes my mind tends to water things down when thinking about this – maybe a residual of teachings that used to say how God didn't forsake Jesus – God was right there with Him all the way. As if Jesus was acting out a part on stage – and only He was aware of God being stage-right and they're winking back and forth at each other. And so this little charade wasn't as hard as some might imagine since it was just pretend – like a disclaimer at the end of a violent movie – "no one was really spiritually hurt during this production."
Bottom line is I think Jesus said these words from the depths an utterly horrible, mind-boggling & super intense experience – an acute awareness of actually being separated from God. I'm thinking of the darkest times of my life – where I didn't think there was anything beyond what my eyes could take in - - maybe that's a little taste of what Jesus felt.
I agree with this:
"I think Jesus said these words from the depths an utterly horrible, mind-boggling & super intense experience"
but, so far,
disagree as to WHAT the experience was, fundamentally.
I think one need not go any farther than the understanding of the physical reality was more than enough to cover it.
I think that Mel Gibson was correct in his supposition behind filming "the Passion of the Christ",
that is, that it is far too easy to soft-pedal the sufferings Jesus endured BEFORE the cross, and the sufferings
Jesus endured ON the cross, just considering what man did.
Of course, my "argument" isn't unassailable, but it is SUPPORTED.
Feel free to support yours from Scripture.
Hey, if I'm actually wrong, I'd like to learn better. If Scripture says "A" and I say "not-A", I want to know.
Hey, JC knew what he was letting himself in for. He said his Father would send angels to rescue him, if he (JC) asked. He could have run away, or just plain not gone to Jerusalem. He read the scriptures. He knew that torture and death awaited him. He even read the scriptures that WW has quoted! He wasn't expecting some miracle rescue from death while he was on the cross: he'd seen enough animals sacrificed (or otherwise killed) to know that dead meant dead.
Yet he knew that God wouldn't leave or forsake him: his Father was always with him.
He knew he would be resurrected after three days: he had not long since raised Lazarus from the dead; he had read about people raised from the dead in the OT; he threw the sign of Jonah in the Pharisees' faces; he had himself said that this temple (his body) would be raised in three days.
I doubt his words would be "why have you forsaken me?" It just doesn't seem logical.
The "cry of triumph" espoused by TWI/Walter Cumm1ns in the 80s sounds more logical. But is it correct?
Could it have been some words quoted from the ceremony [which we know nothing about] when the sins of the nation were transferred onto the live goat to bear away the sins? Or at the time the other goat was sacrificed?
What might you say, if you were dying in the course of doing something heroic?
"Sh1t, this hurts."
"It's what you wanted."
"The price is paid."
"You've got what you wanted; now fulfil your part of the bargain."
"Is it worth it?"
"It's worth it!"
...What do battle-injured and dying soldiers say? Apparently lots of them call out for their mothers! Wouldn't JC call out for his mother Mary, or his Father, God?
Perhaps the words sounded like the commonly-quoted words and were so recorded (by whom? The centurion? Did he speak Aramaic?) Perhaps they were something slightly different. Or perhaps the words had some other meaning that has now been lost - changed their meaning "in the original" over the millennia (like "prevent" = pre-vent, precede, in English).
There will come a day when you can ask him...if you dare.
I can see how this MIGHT be the case. I can follow the reasoning.
I'm slow to say "this IS the case" without some verses saying this was so outright.
One verse saying "And Jesus was separated from The Father for us" or
"the Messiah will be separated from the LORD for us"
would, I think, pretty much close the case on this. ...
.
Perhaps it's a matter of interpreting certain words like "death". In my TWI era [or maybe TWI error ] – my view of death leaned more toward it being annihilation. But now I think there's probably a lot more to "death" in any category than just assuming it is the simplistic show-stopper, "that's all folks" that I gathered from PFAL. I know I'm not doing a great job of selling the idea – and not saying a lot of doctrine hinges on this point. Like a lot of things – I'm not sure about this – I was just expressing my current point of view. Guess I've shifted from looking at death as an end of state to a change of state.
Like you, I would love Scripture to be clearer on some things…well…a lot of things really. So after saying all that I'd like to ask – when Scripture says Jesus tasted death for every man or He was the perfect sacrifice, a lamb led to the slaughter, or that the wages of sin is death – is it possible there's a lot more to these death references than the simple cessation of bodily functions. I don't want to alter Scripture – thought the example you gave of Jesus was separated from the Father for us sounded odd….yeah….you've got me worried that I'm having a warped-Corps breach….uhm meltdown or something – and the Literal Translation According to Usage thingy is leaking out…..Anywho……maybe I'll just throw this in the hermetically sealed I dunno vault - that's also where I keep my viewpoint of the Trinity.
....I agree with this:
"I think Jesus said these words from the depths an utterly horrible, mind-boggling & super intense experience"
but, so far,
disagree as to WHAT the experience was, fundamentally.
I think one need not go any farther than the understanding of the physical reality was more than enough to cover it.
I think that Mel Gibson was correct in his supposition behind filming "the Passion of the Christ",
that is, that it is far too easy to soft-pedal the sufferings Jesus endured BEFORE the cross, and the sufferings
Jesus endured ON the cross, just considering what man did.
Of course, my "argument" isn't unassailable, but it is SUPPORTED.
Feel free to support yours from Scripture.
Hey, if I'm actually wrong, I'd like to learn better. If Scripture says "A" and I say "not-A", I want to know.
Yes – I understand your point completely. And I didn't mean to offend any Christians or insult my Savior in the way I said what I did. I DO AGREE with you in that there can be a lot of disagreement over what the experience was, fundamentally.
And I guess to reiterate my point or sum it up or something….The gospels give us a lot of detail about Jesus' last hours. What is lacking though is an outright statement from God Almighty on the exact meaning behind every detail. My contention is that Jesus felt what it was like to be spiritually separated from God – which I think was such a gross and unbelievably heavy burden for the Son of man to bear that He cried out in helpless despair. Taking on our sin…becoming sin for us….He now experienced the consequences of sin first hand – separation from God…. He truly paid the price for our sins….Maybe I'm trying to explore how much Jesus gave up….it wasn't just a beating heart. And that's what's so unique about the crossroads of justice and love. God loved Jesus AND a fallen race. I don't know why it had to work out this way – but going by Scriptures' praise for all of Jesus' accomplishments I guess the best way God could satisfy the claims of justice in a moral universe was a loving sacrifice commensurate to the demands.
1) Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. The Hebrew form, as Elio, Elio, etc., is the Syro-Chaldaic (the common language in use by the Jews in the time of Christ) of the first words of the twenty second Psalm; they mean "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Lama in the Greek text (that I'm looking at right now) is LEMA, so it would appear that the writers used a Greek form of the Hebrew as if transliterating and then wrote it out in proper Greek form. Varry interesting, indeed.
Either way, it looks like the Lord Jesus is quoting Psalm 22 as a reference even on the cross of His fulfillment of the Scriptures.
I don't know. . . I had an easy time in childbirth. Piece of cake.
T-bone,
Do I remember a teaching about how anyone of us could have done what Jesus did? I may be wrong, but I kinda, sorta, maybe remember something like that??
I guess it is a question of what actually happened on that Cross. Is death a separation? What it means that He became sin that knew no sin. What does substitutionary death really mean?
Jesus not only took on our sin, but the sins of the world.
I think it is amazing that God tells us that. . . "I will never leave you, nor forsake you" and Christ standing in our stead cries out. . . why have you forsaken me?
What I have often wondered is why VP embraced the stance he did? What was it about a Holy God who cannot abide sin. . . and a substitute who bore the full weight and wrath due us that unnerved VP.
Recommended Posts
Bolshevik
when I began college, I asked a Jewish girl who spoke Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever what "lmna" meant to her. She talked it over with her friend and they both agreed it means "why".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I can't remember if it was Raf or Jerry B., but someone has done work on this.
It's here somewhere, I just don't know where.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Fortunately we have that actual, historic moment recorded on video tape, unearthed in a recent archaelogical dig:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Yeah, too bad there's no tape...
I don't think we'll ever know for sure what he said. The records of what he said were written long after the fact...but in my opinion, I am more inclined to think he said Why has thou forsaken me? if he indeed said anything at all. I've not seen any support for "spared" in any text...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Lamsa's Bible (from certain Aramaic texts) rendered it
"My God, my God, for this purpose I was kept!"
vpw said "lemana" was never used in a question, and meant "because of this" or "for this purpose".
vpw said "shabachthani" was from the root "shabach", which meant "reserved" or "kept",
and cited verses where the Aramaic for those verses was translated as such.
vpw documented his claim about "shabachthani" but not his claim about "lmna".
Naturally, the claim about "shabachthani" appears to be correct,
but not his claim about "lmna."
The only part EVERYBODY agrees on is "Eli, Eli" or "Eloi, Eloi" is "My God, My God".
Matthew 27:46 in twi's Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament:
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice and said,
'God, God, for what purpose have you spared me?"
Mark 15:34 in twi's Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament:
"And in the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said,
'God, God, for what purpose have you spared me?' which is
'My God, my God, for what purpose have you spared me?' "
==============
I've seen "arguments" saying the standard English rendering is correct,
and quotes Psalms, where the English renders the psalm verse,
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
All of those arguments have the same defect, as I've seen them:
None of them ever actually approach the Aramaic and say
"these are what the Aramaic words say."
I think the explanation "Jesus said 'For what purpose have you kept me?"
is a rhetorical question, referring to that exact moment, which Jesus knew was needful
and a victory, but everyone else thought was a crushing defeat.
For the next 3 days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
I know that Christian Family Fellowship is now teaching that he is quoting from Psalms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I think you have to read Psalm 22 and really consider what took place on the cross Leafy.
Consider it based on the understanding of a VERY holy God. . . and a Savior who took on our sins. . .
"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him"
What is death for the unsaved? Can God look on sin?. . . . What is the Father and Son's complete and perfect relationship? Lot's of question's to consider.
I think he cried out quoting psalm 22. . it actually reveals an amazing love.
God's plan. . . This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
Didn't He take on our punishment? The full force of God's wrath? Did God pour out His wrath on Jesus? Are we now saved from the wrath to come?
All the parsing over, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, may effect your theology, but it will never change your heart. . .I think if you take some time and consider what happened on the cross. .. . it becomes clearer what He said. :)
I know one thing for sure. . . I wish I had never heard of VPW. . . what an absolute waste of time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Well if he was quoting Psalm 22 which when you read it in the NAS Bible reading the whole psalm it is a rhetorical question and posed as such in that passage.
IN the Psalm David crys out in anguish about his current condition but in the crying out he is also recognizing God's glory, and Gods purpose and that from the womb David was (devoted is the only word I can think of but that isn't the right word for it) That from birth he was connected with God. In the beginning of the psalm he asks God to stay with him in his great time of need and that he David knows God has delivered Israel in the past... HE asks again in verse 19 on for God to be with him to hasten to his assistance.
Verses 22 on are about Gods love, deliverance and Davids exhortation to praise God and glorify him.
IF Christ was quoting these passages It would be in keeping with the teachings of his vast knowledge of the scriptures and if so then he was in essence saying to those around him that he understood why he was on the cross.
But I still wonder what the actual Aramaic words said as Word wolf so eloquently stated.. I realize it is perhaps not possible to know but none the less I wonder.
Geisha... I know that What Christ did was enormous.. please don't think I was asking my question in any disdain... for me ... my salvation which came long before TWI was built on the sudden knowledge while watching a reenactment of Christ last days that I was forgiven my sins and that Christ's act on the cross bought me forgiveness... and by God's mercy I was made clean.
For me when VP in PFAL said Christ's Cry was one of Triumph I wanted it to be that .. a victory cry that he knew he had done this great deed. I didn't want him to be there on the cross all alone in anguish feeling deserted by God ... because for me God reached down with his word and lifted me out of a very dark place.
One of the things about TWI that was so attractive to me was the supposed teaching us to read and understand the Bible... because for me the words I read were healing and gave me strength...
So really if he was quoting psalm 22 it would be an affirmation that Christ knew what God's plan was .. that he know God was with him and would be with him in his darkest moments and that there was a reason for it all.
Edited for more clarity
Edited by leafytwigletLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
It never crossed my mind you were asking with disdain.
My husband and I were sitting here discussing the topic. What you said about wanting to believe that He wasn't alone in anguish on the Cross is exactly what I was trying to address without addressing it.
You were not the only one attracted to this idea.
Something to consider. . . or not. . . is that God reached down to you BECAUSE Jesus was alone and in anguish on the Cross. God turned away. . . so He could turn to you. Again, the greatness of what He did.
That was my point without saying it. . . .
Sorry to disturb. . .
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Oh you did not disturb I just know that sometimes when you type things on teh computer people can't see your heart and I didn't want you to think I asked the question out of anything more than respect.
I am learning on GS that the most difficult threads to read are always the most healing and informative, and thought provoking
You and Wordwolf always are informative respectful and helpful as are others on here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
I wish you could see it in the original...what jesus actually said was, "Peter, Peter, I think I can see the top of your house from here."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
It has been a while since I worked this, but as I recall Jesus was actually quoting from a scripture, Psalms 22:1. I quickly read chapter 22 and it starts out tragic and sad (death does that), but by the end of the chapter it ends victoriously. Just like Jesus' crucifixion and then resurrection. Perhaps people that heard him say this and were familiar with Psalms 22 thought in spite of the death involved that it would have a victorious ending.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The one thing I've been sure about, even before twi, was that Jesus was never forsaken by The Father.
My supposition when reading it on my own was that Jesus was basically delirious with pain,
and expressed how he FELT, not the REALITY of the situation.
Elijah was much the same when he said he was the LAST man in Israel standing for God,
and God corrected him and said He had kept thousands for himself.
(I can look up the verses for the curious.)
Whether Jesus was declaring victory by quoting Psalms, or declaring victory by saying it all led up
to that moment, doesn't concern me a great deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well, I wouldn't want to take that logic and apply to anything else he said. . . when He said "Man shall not live by bread alone.. . ." he was just "feeling" peckish. The "reality" was. . .
This is where TWI and historic Christianity. . . one gospel message and the other part company. This is where one Jesus, just a man. . . and the other Jesus,. . . also part company.
If He did not fully recieve what was due us. . . are we really saved? It was our sin He carried. . .
Here is a much better explanation than I could give. . .
http://www.gotquestions.org/forsaken-me.html
Question: "Why did Jesus say, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?""
Answer: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). This cry is a fulfillment of Psalm 22:1, one of many parallels between that psalm and the specific events of the crucifixion. It has been difficult to understand in what sense Jesus was “forsaken” by God. It is certain that God approved His work. It is certain that He was innocent. He had done nothing to forfeit the favor of God. As His own Son - holy, harmless, undefiled, and obedient - God still loved Him. In none of these senses could God have forsaken Him.
However, Isaiah tells us that “he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows; that he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; that the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him; that by his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4-5). He redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). He was made a sin-offering, and He died in our place, on our account, that He might bring us near to God. It was this, doubtless, which caused His intense sufferings. It was the manifestation of God’s hatred of sin, in some way which He has not explained, that Jesus experienced in that terrible hour. It was suffering endured by Him that was due to us, and suffering by which, and by which alone, we can be saved from eternal death.
In those awful moments, Jesus was expressing His feelings of abandonment as God placed the sins of the world on Him – and because of that had to “turn away” from Jesus. As Jesus was feeling that weight of sin, He was experiencing separation from God for the only time in all of eternity. It was at this time that 2 Corinthians 5:21 occurred, “God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” Jesus became sin for us, so He felt the loneliness and abandonment that sin always produces, except that in His case, it was not His sin – it was ours.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great link, Geisha – thanks! I like that answer but also wanted to throw in my 2 cents. A lot of things come to mind when I think of Jesus' words from the cross. I keep coming back to a thought provoking situation – where Jesus' self-sacrifice stands at the crossroads of justice and love. Like an ever-widening picture as the camera pulls back – I find so many passages & topics that seem to be in close proximity to the cross.
Some systematic theologies address death – not so much as annihilation – but separation. Physical death being separation of the body and the life-force [soul, or whatever you want to call it]. Spiritual death being separation of man from God. When the Bible speaks of Jesus tasting death for everyman – I think it means both – physical & spiritual – and heavy emphasis on the spiritual. For me, it focuses on how much He completely identified with us – experiencing a whole lot more than physical death. Scripture says the wages of sin is death – I tend to think that covers both deaths too. Which brings me to my next point.
I think justice-wise there was no other way around it. Adam was the first man – perfect – but because of his sin was separated from God. The penal code of the Law demanded an eye for an eye – offering something inferior in exchange for what was taken was unacceptable. More than physical life was traumatized in the Garden – the spiritual aspect of life was deeply impacted – the connection with God severed – a condition passed down to an entire race. Jesus – as the second Adam offered His perfect life in exchange for our decrepitude.
I admit sometimes my mind tends to water things down when thinking about this – maybe a residual of teachings that used to say how God didn't forsake Jesus – God was right there with Him all the way. As if Jesus was acting out a part on stage – and only He was aware of God being stage-right and they're winking back and forth at each other. And so this little charade wasn't as hard as some might imagine since it was just pretend – like a disclaimer at the end of a violent movie – "no one was really spiritually hurt during this production."
Bottom line is I think Jesus said these words from the depths an utterly horrible, mind-boggling & super intense experience – an acute awareness of actually being separated from God. I'm thinking of the darkest times of my life – where I didn't think there was anything beyond what my eyes could take in - - maybe that's a little taste of what Jesus felt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For those who skipped over this, what I meant SPECIFICALLY was that when I just read it in English
for myself, before hearing twi or anyone else add their own understanding, interpretation, opinion, spin, etc.
was that Jesus was NOT forsaken by The Father (which it doesn't say he WAS, note- it says he SAID it,
I can see him SAYING it at the time) , but sure FELT like he was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument."
Gee, you were the first one to suggest such a jump.
There's a world of difference between someone having a bad day, and someone suffering torture for over a day,
then execution by slow torture AFTER that. I know the worst pain I've ever felt, and I know full well that Jesus
was in a GREAT deal more pain than that- and I was unable to see straight or speak.
I don't know if you've ever suffered a great deal of pain, but it's not to be compared with missing a few meals.
(Or even fasting 40 days- which Jesus did before that and endured without losing his composure.)
I've never personally experienced childbirth, but I've been given to understand that it's incredibly painful.
I've also been given to understand that women enduring childbirth have been known to speak of things they
normally would not say, but felt AT THAT MOMENT. I've heard it's not uncommon for them to curse out the
father of the baby and say various slanderous things about him that they normally would refute if they were
asked about them during normal circumstances.
Bill Cosby quoted Carol Burnett on what labor pains felt like. "She said 'take your bottom lip, and pull it over
your head.' " He also said that during his own wife's labor pains that his wife cursed him out.
I would never SERIOUSLY consider comparing how a woman felt in the middle of childbirth-and what she said thenm
and how she felt if she had, say, a headache, even a migraine that knocked her off her feet.
A) We have, in the verses, proof that Jesus was tortured horribly for hours.
We have, in the verses, proof that Jesus suffered hours of slow torture to death AFTER that.
IMHO, it was MORE PAINFUL than "the Passion of the Christ" made it look.
(IMHO, they substituted the visual of bloodshed for the audible cries of pain that would have resulted
with standard tortures of the time. Then again, I'm no expert on historical torture methods- but
tortures in all eras have emphasized amount of pain over physical damage, since torture was a
tool different from execution as a tool.)
B) We have, in the discussions of many Christians, SPECULATION that the laying of sins upon someone can be painful or very painful.
"It was this, doubtless, which caused His intense sufferings."
Personally, I've found that, whenever a person (and I've almost always seen it be a Christian expounding
on his beliefs) uses, in his explanation, argument or reasoning, words like "DOUBTLESS",
it is anything BUT and is usually a "flag" for me that they're covering a flaw in their own reasoning right there.
It's as if they try to preempt discussion of their suppositions by saying "It's silly to question that" or
"Only a fool would hesitate to jump to this conclusion" and, often, people read that and fall in line.
Leviticus 16:20-26 (KJV)
20And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:
21And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
23And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:
24And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people.
25And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar.
26And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp.
Or, in case you think the version changed the meaning, Leviticus 16:20-26 (NASB)
20"When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat.
21"Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.
22"The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.
23"Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting and take off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there.
24"He shall bathe his body with water in a holy place and put on his clothes, and come forth and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people and make atonement for himself and for the people.
25"Then he shall offer up in smoke the fat of the sin offering on the altar.
26"The one who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp. "
The only previous instance of sins being laid on someone (in this case, not a person, but an animal, a goat released into
the wilderness) is discussed here, the offering assigned to Israel to be performed each year.
I see the goat received the weight of sins of 12 Tribes of Israel for one year.
(To be certain, far less than the sins of the world paid ONCE for all of future history until the End Times.)
I see no indication the goat in any way suffered PAIN or even physical discomfort for it.
He runs off into the woods, into which she's released.
My supposition is that a goat required to escape into the wilderness would not be injured instantly so that walking,
running, etc would be painful- that would mean the requirement that he escape into the wilderness would be
negated. I think this is a reasonable conclusion based on the requirements as stated.
Just because everyone says it's "obviously" so doesn't mean something is true.
Doesn't mean it's FALSE, either- but it means that claims need to be supported by something
stronger than "I say this is what it 'DOUBTLESS' means."
If there's actual support for this position FROM SCRIPTURE- that Jesus' pain was based primarily on the
imputation of the sin on him- it has not been given.
I've offered a counter-argument- and supported it FROM SCRIPTURE- that this would not be so.
So, if this position is really as "DOUBTLESS" as that guy said, present a SCRIPTURAL rationale,
show the verses that suggest or state this would be painful.
The internet's a big place, lots of Christians CLAIM this is so. It should not be an impossible task to
find lots of places presenting it.
(Although ONE is all I'm asking.)
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I can see how this MIGHT be the case. I can follow the reasoning.
I'm slow to say "this IS the case" without some verses saying this was so outright.
One verse saying "And Jesus was separated from The Father for us" or
"the Messiah will be separated from the LORD for us"
would, I think, pretty much close the case on this.
I agree with this:
"I think Jesus said these words from the depths an utterly horrible, mind-boggling & super intense experience"
but, so far,
disagree as to WHAT the experience was, fundamentally.
I think one need not go any farther than the understanding of the physical reality was more than enough to cover it.
I think that Mel Gibson was correct in his supposition behind filming "the Passion of the Christ",
that is, that it is far too easy to soft-pedal the sufferings Jesus endured BEFORE the cross, and the sufferings
Jesus endured ON the cross, just considering what man did.
Of course, my "argument" isn't unassailable, but it is SUPPORTED.
Feel free to support yours from Scripture.
Hey, if I'm actually wrong, I'd like to learn better. If Scripture says "A" and I say "not-A", I want to know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Hey, JC knew what he was letting himself in for. He said his Father would send angels to rescue him, if he (JC) asked. He could have run away, or just plain not gone to Jerusalem. He read the scriptures. He knew that torture and death awaited him. He even read the scriptures that WW has quoted! He wasn't expecting some miracle rescue from death while he was on the cross: he'd seen enough animals sacrificed (or otherwise killed) to know that dead meant dead.
Yet he knew that God wouldn't leave or forsake him: his Father was always with him.
He knew he would be resurrected after three days: he had not long since raised Lazarus from the dead; he had read about people raised from the dead in the OT; he threw the sign of Jonah in the Pharisees' faces; he had himself said that this temple (his body) would be raised in three days.
I doubt his words would be "why have you forsaken me?" It just doesn't seem logical.
The "cry of triumph" espoused by TWI/Walter Cumm1ns in the 80s sounds more logical. But is it correct?
Could it have been some words quoted from the ceremony [which we know nothing about] when the sins of the nation were transferred onto the live goat to bear away the sins? Or at the time the other goat was sacrificed?
What might you say, if you were dying in the course of doing something heroic?
...What do battle-injured and dying soldiers say? Apparently lots of them call out for their mothers! Wouldn't JC call out for his mother Mary, or his Father, God?
Perhaps the words sounded like the commonly-quoted words and were so recorded (by whom? The centurion? Did he speak Aramaic?) Perhaps they were something slightly different. Or perhaps the words had some other meaning that has now been lost - changed their meaning "in the original" over the millennia (like "prevent" = pre-vent, precede, in English).
There will come a day when you can ask him...if you dare.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Perhaps it's a matter of interpreting certain words like "death". In my TWI era [or maybe TWI error ] – my view of death leaned more toward it being annihilation. But now I think there's probably a lot more to "death" in any category than just assuming it is the simplistic show-stopper, "that's all folks" that I gathered from PFAL. I know I'm not doing a great job of selling the idea – and not saying a lot of doctrine hinges on this point. Like a lot of things – I'm not sure about this – I was just expressing my current point of view. Guess I've shifted from looking at death as an end of state to a change of state.
Like you, I would love Scripture to be clearer on some things…well…a lot of things really. So after saying all that I'd like to ask – when Scripture says Jesus tasted death for every man or He was the perfect sacrifice, a lamb led to the slaughter, or that the wages of sin is death – is it possible there's a lot more to these death references than the simple cessation of bodily functions. I don't want to alter Scripture – thought the example you gave of Jesus was separated from the Father for us sounded odd….yeah….you've got me worried that I'm having a warped-Corps breach….uhm meltdown or something – and the Literal Translation According to Usage thingy is leaking out…..Anywho……maybe I'll just throw this in the hermetically sealed I dunno vault - that's also where I keep my viewpoint of the Trinity.
Yes – I understand your point completely. And I didn't mean to offend any Christians or insult my Savior in the way I said what I did. I DO AGREE with you in that there can be a lot of disagreement over what the experience was, fundamentally.
And I guess to reiterate my point or sum it up or something….The gospels give us a lot of detail about Jesus' last hours. What is lacking though is an outright statement from God Almighty on the exact meaning behind every detail. My contention is that Jesus felt what it was like to be spiritually separated from God – which I think was such a gross and unbelievably heavy burden for the Son of man to bear that He cried out in helpless despair. Taking on our sin…becoming sin for us….He now experienced the consequences of sin first hand – separation from God…. He truly paid the price for our sins….Maybe I'm trying to explore how much Jesus gave up….it wasn't just a beating heart. And that's what's so unique about the crossroads of justice and love. God loved Jesus AND a fallen race. I don't know why it had to work out this way – but going by Scriptures' praise for all of Jesus' accomplishments I guess the best way God could satisfy the claims of justice in a moral universe was a loving sacrifice commensurate to the demands.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i'm not a bible type but i've done my best to read here
thanks all
OF COURSE i will !!!!! he loves me and doesn't want to be in that dark glass anymore, right ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh i was just reading this link but i got lost
http://www.thefirstsixdays.com/LanguageofJ...Shabachtani.htm
there are many others, but i can't do 'em i'm too stupid ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐνάτην ὥραν ἀνεβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων, Ηλι ηλι λεμα σαβαχθανι; τοῦτ' ἔστιν, Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες;
The above is the Greek Text for Matthew 27:46
Ἠλί,n {ay-lee'}
1) Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. The Hebrew form, as Elio, Elio, etc., is the Syro-Chaldaic (the common language in use by the Jews in the time of Christ) of the first words of the twenty second Psalm; they mean "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Lama in the Greek text (that I'm looking at right now) is LEMA, so it would appear that the writers used a Greek form of the Hebrew as if transliterating and then wrote it out in proper Greek form. Varry interesting, indeed.
Either way, it looks like the Lord Jesus is quoting Psalm 22 as a reference even on the cross of His fulfillment of the Scriptures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I don't know. . . I had an easy time in childbirth. Piece of cake.
T-bone,
Do I remember a teaching about how anyone of us could have done what Jesus did? I may be wrong, but I kinda, sorta, maybe remember something like that??
I guess it is a question of what actually happened on that Cross. Is death a separation? What it means that He became sin that knew no sin. What does substitutionary death really mean?
Jesus not only took on our sin, but the sins of the world.
I think it is amazing that God tells us that. . . "I will never leave you, nor forsake you" and Christ standing in our stead cries out. . . why have you forsaken me?
What I have often wondered is why VP embraced the stance he did? What was it about a Holy God who cannot abide sin. . . and a substitute who bore the full weight and wrath due us that unnerved VP.
I don't think it was a pursuit of truth.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.