Steven Carr

So it doesn't describe somebody who was God Himself?

spin

Oh, no it ain't. If you can't grasp the idea that one who is God (or a god bit) can't logically say, "My God, My God" anything without the speaker separating himself logically from God (who he is supposed to be, at least in part), then it's not a matter of perspective: it's a matter of dysfunctional grammatical perception.


spin

French Prometheus

If this part of Jesus' words was mistranlated into Greek then what other parts did the Gospels' authors got wrong? Maybe Matt 19:19 is not about loving one's enemies but rather about raping them...
BTW, the oldest Pehitta Aramaic manuscripts only date back to the 5th century. And many modern Aramaic versions are in fact translations from Greek into Aramaic (Jacobite Peshitta). Link.

From here :
Eli, eli lama sabachtani is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. And in Aramaic, sabachtani means "forsaken".

Chili

Except that there is nothing God or Godly about the imposter that was being crucified. It was the imposter (the Jewish persona) that spoke those words just prior to its final annihilation. God never had anything to do with the persona except third hand via the HS and later second hand through Mary theotokos who was responsible for this annihilation. It's a matter of lyrical perception.

Edited to add: The Jews (Matthew) and the pagans (Mark) had no lyrical perception and therefore assumed that Jesus was God already prior to his ascension (the point here is that Gods are in heaven and heaven is for Gods only).

Luke knew better and said "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" hoping that sanity would return on the other side of oblivion while John knew that it would because he had already introduced John as the son of God that would be to be set free by his death. Hence, "Woman there is your son, son there is your mother."

Notice that Jesus realized that eveything was now finished to say that he was in charge of his own destiny.

spin

Oh, Chili, I did see that you were peddling a "gnostic" variety. That's all fine and well, but doesn't help you when dealing with the literary evidence of a literary Jesus. Your pronouncements are in no form evidence for anything, other than perhaps what you presently believe.

I myself am guilty of arguing against a trinitarian position, when you were arguing from your secret knowledge.


spin

Chili

Yes but spin, I am not the peddler here but just the consumer. Those wo wrote it were the peddlers who included the apparent contradictions so we would take a second look to see if we might have something to learn about life itself.

spin

Your comments are not based on a literal reading of the text. They bear a heavy lamina of occult interpretation, which to me is eisegesis not exegesis (reading into rather than reading out of).


spin

Chili

Well thank God for the occult wherein the metaphysical is recognized as a valid form of exegesis.

spin

That doesn't follow, but that's not unusual. You're a rabbit out of the hat person -- and it doesn't even matter which hat. Your term "metaphysical" is a means for not dealing with what the text says. What you say therefore has nothing to do with exegesis. Nice talking to you.


spin

WILLOWTREE

N.T. times did not have trinitarian controversies.

They believed one simple creed: God was in Christ - period.

Jesus claimed Divinity - so what.

IF He rose from the dead as He claimed He would then it is a big deal.

This fact (if true) would give legitimacy to the claims.

When Jesus cried out aloud as to why God had forsaken Him - He was inadvertedly evidencing the reality of what He was doing: Paying the price of affliction for the sins of the world.

God did forsake Jesus during those three hours on the cross.

During that time Jesus was the object of God's wrath for sins.

It was an honest statement by Jesus proving the wrath of God upon Him for the sins of the world.