Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Lamsa's bloody gloves. Do they fit?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

How does TWI's doctrinal glove of a spared Jesus on the cross fit the Christian hand of Christ crucified? What is their logic? How do they MAKE the errant Lamsa translation fit?

From what do they claim Jesus was spared? Certainly not torture and execution. And how should one believe God raised Jesus from the dead if he was spared death?

 

Edited by Nathan_Jr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Nathan_Jr changed the title to Lamsa's bloody gloves. Do they fit?
Posted (edited)
On 5/5/2024 at 9:27 PM, Nathan_Jr said:

How does TWI's doctrinal glove of a spared Jesus on the cross fit the Christian hand of Christ crucified? What is their logic? How do they MAKE the errant Lamsa translation fit?

From what do they claim Jesus was spared? Certainly not torture and execution. And how should one believe God raised Jesus from the dead if he was spared death?

 

 

The idea of the Aramaic phrase and the translation of it ("that is to say") is that Jesus said, for this purpose He was kept, reserved, spared...it doesn't carry the emphasis of being kept/reserved/spared from something (like death) but rather that His life had been kept/reserved/spared for something, for a purpose and the His death was going to be part of accomplishing that. The purpose was his life and death, the crucifixion which was in fact the next phase of the redemptive plan of His life. 

There are lots of iterations of that phrase, some are similar, others different to what VPW had taught from Lamsa's translation and that they seem to be regurgitating. I do agree that a cry of victory to God at that time makes more sense in the entire context of the gospel records than a cry of confusion and desperation.  

 

 

https://thewaymagazine.com/did-god-forsake-jesus-as-he-was-dying-on-the-cross/

 

 

Edited by socks
There is no such thing as the unknown, only things temporarily hidden.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/7/2024 at 11:30 PM, socks said:

 

The idea of the Aramaic phrase and the translation of it ("that is to say") is that Jesus said, for this purpose He was kept, reserved, spared...it doesn't carry the emphasis of being kept/reserved/spared from something (like death) but rather that His life had been kept/reserved/spared for something, for a purpose and the His death was going to be part of accomplishing that. The purpose was his life and death, the crucifixion which was in fact the next phase of the redemptive plan of His life. 

There are lots of iterations of that phrase, some are similar, others different to what VPW had taught from Lamsa's translation and that they seem to be regurgitating. I do agree that a cry of victory to God at that time makes more sense in the entire context of the gospel records than a cry of confusion and desperation.  

 

 

https://thewaymagazine.com/did-god-forsake-jesus-as-he-was-dying-on-the-cross/

 

 

Thanks, Socks.

The root Sbq is shared between Hebrew and Aramaic. It could mean kept/spared/permit/forgive/leave/abandon... Hebrew and Aramaic are very close siblings in the Semitic family. The transliterated Aramaic phrase in the gospels is identical to the transliterated Hebrew of the exact same phrase in the OT.

Psalm 22 is the reference. Jesus' cry in Aramaic is a direct quote of the of Psalm 22:1. Virtually every detail described in Mark's passion narrative is found in the following verses. It's as if the evangelist had on his lap while composing his gospel an unfurled scroll of the psalm. (Candidate for Fourth Man sermon?)

The "why...?" is rhetorical. It's not a declaration of God's abandonment. The cry is urging the crowd to continue singing the rest of the hymn, which is vindicating and triumphant at the end. Really, a beautiful and powerful psalm! 

So it seems to me. And others. I didn't come up with it on my own. It seems so simple - like a well-tailored glove. TWI seems to be solving a problem that doesn't exist for the sake of novelty. A real stretch. But, hey, I didn't write the book.

There's more, but for now, that's it. Thanks for clarifying TWI's position, Socks.

I'm sure others have a take on this...

 

Edited by Nathan_Jr
Lamsa was not a real doctor, doncha know?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Doctrinally, I'm inclined to agree. That Jesus is quoting a Psalm seems far more likely [and in keeping with his character] than the notion that he cried out a similar but not identical phrase with no scriptural foundation.

Edited by Raf
Link 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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...