sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I didn't say he was forsaken. You said I said he was forsaken.
Jesus, also being fully human, did need comfort.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It is possible that Jesus sinned.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
Jesus, also being fully human, did need comfort.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
the other 612 hang on love of God and neighbor.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Probably not, unless you have a death wish.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
So he was wrong? He wasn't forsaken but he asked God why he was?
I think you're alternating between the state and act of sin.
Acting in sin is not the same as being in the state of sin.
If the idea of a global sin that everyone is born into, and Jesus avoided that by being born by a virgin, then the concept is that you're born into a state of sin. You're not the one acting out a sin by being born. It's not your choice to be born. Acting in sin would be something that a person is doing intentionally. Put it this way, sin, as a noun or verb, needs to be separated at appropriate times or it gets really confusing.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said he was forsaken. Either Matthew (or whoever the author is), Jesus, or you was/is wrong.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Except the one stoning your son for being unruly.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Did you read the post? He was quoting a psalm for comfort.
That's only if you happen to buy into the concept of original sin. Which I don't. We are born good, because that's how God created us.
<sigh> I'm gonna make this very, very simple for you, mkay? Are you ready? Heeeere we go:
1. Bible.
2. Pick up bible.
3. Turn to the Psalms.
4. Find Psalm 22.
5. Read Psalm 22.
Matthew has Jesus quote Psalm 22 as an act of prayer. It begins in woe and closes in joy. Just like the crucifixion of Jesus. it's a literary device, tying Jesus to the suffering servant of the Psalms. Remember: Matthew was written for Jewish Christians, so would need to tie all of that in to OT stuff. Sheesh!
That's why they have to be kept in the perspective of love. Not a commandment that honors either love of God or neighbor? Don't do it.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Ok. Whatever.
CMike
Well-Known Member
He said he was forsaken.
CMike
Well-Known Member
Do you have any proof from your own Christian bible that he said all of Psalm 22?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, he was quoting Psalm 22. It's not the same thing.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
He didn't say all of Psalm 22, according to the gospels. But the intended audience would have picked up on the reference and would have known Psalm 22. Which is the whole point of including it in the story.
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said he was forsaken. Either Matthew (or whoever the author is), Jesus, or you was/is wrong.
Another member of the forum states that the translation does not read, "God why have you forsaken me". But that one of the translations reads more along the lines of, "I have fulfilled my destiny". I'll see if I can get her on this thread to explain.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Jesus appears to have taken a somewhat similar position with an element of the Pharisees we now call "liberal pharisees" or "love Pharisees". The mainline Pharisee element were using and promoting the "oral law" and "building a fenced around the Torah" which Jesus seems to have rejected, seemingly referring to them as "laws made by men".
Generally speaking, it appears that these liberal Pharisee groups may have taken a similar position. This is not to say that Jesus belonged to either of these groups, but there is some similarity that he has with them, although he seems to have gone further to the left than they did.
For example, the Hillel school taught that the main purpose of Torah was compassion and justice, and one of the more popular quotes was when Hillel was approached and asked what the main purpose of
Torah was, his response was "Do not do unto others that which you would not want done unto yourself; all the rest is commentary; now go and study".
Jesus seems to have taken it a step further than Hillel because the Hillel camp still felt that the Law was important and that there could be some flexibility involved with its application. Jesus, otoh, seems to take the position that love of God and neighbor trumped all when he stated that all of the Commandments centered around those two principles.
Now, is Jesus' position on this wrong? Well, one can argue this both ways. To the vast majority of us, even though those two Commandments are so terribly important, nevertheless the others should not be ignored. But one can also argue that Jesus' position did fit in with what some others were feeling within the liberal Pharisee movement.
Now, how we seeing this being played out in the gospels fits this scenario well since obviously the leaders keep questioning Jesus on matters of the Law. To the mainline Pharisees and the Sadducees, his position is unacceptable because it relegates the other Laws into an inferior position. But to the liberal Pharisees, the remaining Laws fit the general rubric of what they think Torah is about, although they appear not to go as far as what Jesus was teaching.
Paul seems to pick up on this as well, pretty much echoing Jesus' position, thus we see some quotes from him that seem to imply the Law beyond the "law of love" is superfluous. Now, he eventually takes it a step further by taking the position that Jesus is more important than the Law itself, therefore the belief in Jesus trumps all. However, there's a lot more to the Paul story, and I prefer not to get into that now.
So, one can see how the Jewish followers of Jesus could take the above position and still feel it's consistent with the entire Law, but also why most Jews rejected his approach, even taking to the point of feeling he was probably a "false prophet".
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Sure, but then what kind of savior would he be?
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
I’m translating from the Greek text which has the Aramaic phrase, followed by the definition in Greek.
Unfortunately, it is the Greek definition that has been mistranslated in English.
This is the King James – normal accepted translation.
Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour, Iesous cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, Lamasabachthani, that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Here is the Textus Receptus Greek –
περι δε την εννατην ωραν ανεβοησεν ο ιησους φωνη μεγαλη λεγων ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι τουτ εστιν θεε μου θεε μου ινατι με εγκατελιπες
The ending is what is wrong (in the English translation.)
(Deity mine, Deity mine) My God, My God, for this destiny thou has placed me.
The last five words read –
(ego) I
(hina) demonstrative = in order that – reason – purpose - destiny
(tis) manner – for - wherefore
I
(egkataleipo) placed – left in place, etc
So in order it says – God Mine, God mine - I - this reason/purpose/destiny - for - I - was placed.
There is no “Why” in the sentence. He is of course addressing God – so in English form – it would be something like.
My God, My God, For this destiny/reason thou has placed me. Or – I (Thou) has placed.
They mistranslate that “egkataleipo” as left = in the abandoned sense, rather than left (placed) for a purpose, and add “Why,” turning it into a cry of anguish. It is a call of triumph= purpose completed. I’m translating from the Greek text which has the Aramaic phrase, followed by the definition in Greek.
Unfortunately, it is the Greek definition that has been mistranslated in English.
This is the King James – normal accepted translation.
Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour, Iesous cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, Lamasabachthani, that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Here is the Textus Receptus Greek –
περι δε την εννατην ωραν ανεβοησεν ο ιησους φωνη μεγαλη λεγων ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι τουτ εστιν θεε μου θεε μου ινατι με εγκατελιπες
The ending is what is wrong (in the English translation.)
(Deity mine, Deity mine) My God, My God, for this destiny thou has placed me.
The last five words read –
(ego) I
(hina) demonstrative = in order that – reason – purpose - destiny
(tis) manner – for - wherefore
I
(egkataleipo) placed – left in place, etc
So in order it says – God Mine, God mine - I - this reason/purpose/destiny - for - I - was placed.
There is no “Why” in the sentence. He is of course addressing God – so in English form – it would be something like.
My God, My God, For this destiny/reason thou has placed me. Or – I (Thou) has placed.
They mistranslate that “egkataleipo” as left = in the abandoned sense, rather than left (placed) for a purpose, and add “Why,” turning it into a cry of anguish. It is a call of triumph= purpose completed.
Regarding the, "God why have you forsaken me" thing.
Unfortunately, it is the Greek definition that has been mistranslated in English.
This is the King James – normal accepted translation.
Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour, Iesous cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, Lamasabachthani, that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Here is the Textus Receptus Greek –
περι δε την εννατην ωραν ανεβοησεν ο ιησους φωνη μεγαλη λεγων ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι τουτ εστιν θεε μου θεε μου ινατι με εγκατελιπες
The ending is what is wrong (in the English translation.)
(Deity mine, Deity mine) My God, My God, for this destiny thou has placed me.
The last five words read –
(ego) I
(hina) demonstrative = in order that – reason – purpose - destiny
(tis) manner – for - wherefore
I
(egkataleipo) placed – left in place, etc
So in order it says – God Mine, God mine - I - this reason/purpose/destiny - for - I - was placed.
There is no “Why” in the sentence. He is of course addressing God – so in English form – it would be something like.
My God, My God, For this destiny/reason thou has placed me. Or – I (Thou) has placed.
They mistranslate that “egkataleipo” as left = in the abandoned sense, rather than left (placed) for a purpose, and add “Why,” turning it into a cry of anguish. It is a call of triumph= purpose completed. I’m translating from the Greek text which has the Aramaic phrase, followed by the definition in Greek.
Unfortunately, it is the Greek definition that has been mistranslated in English.
This is the King James – normal accepted translation.
Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour, Iesous cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, Lamasabachthani, that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Here is the Textus Receptus Greek –
περι δε την εννατην ωραν ανεβοησεν ο ιησους φωνη μεγαλη λεγων ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι τουτ εστιν θεε μου θεε μου ινατι με εγκατελιπες
The ending is what is wrong (in the English translation.)
(Deity mine, Deity mine) My God, My God, for this destiny thou has placed me.
The last five words read –
(ego) I
(hina) demonstrative = in order that – reason – purpose - destiny
(tis) manner – for - wherefore
I
(egkataleipo) placed – left in place, etc
So in order it says – God Mine, God mine - I - this reason/purpose/destiny - for - I - was placed.
There is no “Why” in the sentence. He is of course addressing God – so in English form – it would be something like.
My God, My God, For this destiny/reason thou has placed me. Or – I (Thou) has placed.
They mistranslate that “egkataleipo” as left = in the abandoned sense, rather than left (placed) for a purpose, and add “Why,” turning it into a cry of anguish. It is a call of triumph= purpose completed.
Regarding the, "God why have you forsaken me" thing.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I have heard this before. Where are you getting the info on the Greek?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Two questions:
1. Which translation does it right? New International, Revised, etc seem to all have "forsaken". And according to some article I looked up, "lama" means "why". (http://www.biblestudy.org/question/meaning-of-eli-eli-lama-sabachthani-spoken-by-jesus.html)
2. Does this mean that Ps 22 is also mistranslated, or is Jesus simply not quoting it?
Last edited:
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
Ingledsva, she's a member on this forum. Shoot her a PM if you want to know more. I am honestly very weak in any type of language/linguistics type of stuff.
According to this, neither. It seems as tho the word "lama" was added in and was not neccessarily included in the early texts. So 'lama" was not actually included in the translation.
In my opinion, although like I said earlier I am weak in linguistics/ it would seem the the later "mistranslation" of the word "egkataleipo", translated as "lost" or "left behind" instead of being translated in the sense of "left" in the sense of "placed somewhere for a specific purpose" would institute the need for the word "why" in the translation.
If egkataleipo had been used in the sense of "placed for a purpose" their would be no need for the word why to be used, as the phrase would have been more likely to be seen as a statement rather than a question.
It would read more like, "you placed me here for this purpose".
If egkataleipo was used in the sense of "left behind", then it would be easier to assume that Jesus was asking God why he had left him. Thus the need for the why in the translation.
It would read more like, "you left me here".
In other words, if the purpose was included in the statement it would be less likely that Jesus was asking a question rather than making a statement.
Interestingly enough, I got some info on this. I'll post in in a seperate post.
Don't appeal to authority. Let's get some refutation in here, why don't you buy it? Honestly, I have no idea whether this is legit or not. I have very little knowledge concerning language and what not so I'd definitely like to here some counter-opinions.
But I will say that I have checked out some other translations from Ingledsva, and they where plausible from my standpoint.