BuffaloBill

One of the few things in the gospels which has a possibility of at least sounding true, in the context of a historical Jesus, is his purported last words, recorded in both Mark and Matthew. It seems entirely plausible that this man, after spending his adult life believing and fervently preaching the end of the world was at hand, would utter such words of despair, "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

If an actual man named Jesus suffered a crucifixion, this looks like his eureka moment, his understanding that he was mistaken all along, no end of the world, no god to rescue him.

How do the Jesus mythicists treat this? Do they have anything to say?

lezardo

Here's what this Christian site has to say about it:

But I don't buy it. I don't see why Jesus=God would react in such a manner.

That sounds more realistic.

Amaleq13

They treat it as yet another example of a Gospel author using Hebrew Scripture to create his story. The phrase comes from one of the Psalms but I can't recall which one off hand. The Psalms were a popular source for the Gospel story "details".

Julian

One theory, that I happen to agree with, is that GMark is a separationist document. What this means is that Jesus was just a regular guy. You will notice that GMark has nothing about his birth in it. GMark starts at the baptism where the christ spirit enters him. After this happens, he can do all kinds of miraculous stuff. Then, finally, when he dies, the christ spirit leaves him, hence the "Why have you foprsaken me?"

The separationists argued that the man Jesus was separate from the the christ.

Julian

rhutchin

We read in the Bible that the wages of sin is death and that Christ was the atonement for the sins of the world. By death, the Bible means complete separation from God (e.g., as physical death separates a person from this physical life, so the death that is punishment for sin separates a person from God).

The crucifixion, while terrible, would not have been the cause of Jesus' cry (within the context of the Bible). When Jesus cried out, it tells us that He has been completely separated from God and in this manner, is absorbing the punishment for the sins committed by people. It is on the bases of this act by Jesus (to absorb the punishment for sin) that God can then save those who had sinned against Him.

Julian

Except that separation from god would not be a punishment for someone who doesn't believe in him. Besides, your view is not backed up by the bible. It mentions hell but nothing about a separation from god.
Er, Jesus is god. He cannot be separated from himself. Again, you are making this up. You have no biblical basis for this viewpoint.

Julian

CJD

Um, I think that would be adoptionist — that the human Jesus was adopted into the godhead at his baptism.

Julian

I originally had my post say separationist/adoptionist. I changed it at the last minute because I think that, while GMark covers both movements, only the separationist aspect was pertinent to the question asked in the OP.

Julian

CJD

Exactly. The punishment will be public, and it will be humiliating. That is, in essence, punishment, and that is, in sum, what many of the authors of the canon think is going to happen to their enemies.

Every time the TNK or its Christian commentary mentions "being cut off" — either from the camp or the covenant — it literally and precisely means "separation from god."


But nowhere in the pertinent texts is Jesus deemed ontologically and numerically one with the Father. He is one with him in purpose and will (so Paul, etc.), and he is forsaken (i.e., cut off, separated) from YHWH (the father) when he is shown to be one who receives the curse of YHWH's covenant. This, according to the Christians, means absolutely nothing if YHWH did not vindicate this Jesus by raising him from the dead. rhutchin may be overly committed to a systematic (if not calvinistic) description of the events as they are described in the texts, but he is not "making it up."

CJD

CJD

That's fair. I didn't mean to come across cheeky.