Jesus talked to himself?

[Theweirdtophat]

I was wondering because when he said "My lord, why have you forsaken me?" He was talking to God, was he not? But I thought Jesus was God and therefore an aspect of God, known as God the Son. He's supposed to be one of the 3 aspects of God, so if Jesus and God are the same, why he did he say it like that? It makes it as if he and God are two separate entities, not one and the same. Otherwise, would he have been talking to himself?

 

[atpollard]

I was wondering because when he said "My lord, why have you forsaken me?" He was talking to God, was he not? But I thought Jesus was God and therefore an aspect of God, known as God the Son. He's supposed to be one of the 3 aspects of God, so if Jesus and God are the same, why he did he say it like that? It makes it as if he and God are two separate entities, not one and the same. Otherwise, would he have been talking to himself?

Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

I suggest reading the rest of Psalm 22 and see if Jesus may have been attempting to say something deeper.
Over and over Jesus emphasizes that he is comfortable with who he is and most of what he says and the people see/hear is for the benefit of the people.


A small clarification on the concept of trinity:
"being" = those characteristics that make someone WHAT they are. (I am a human being. You are a human being. Angels are a different type of being from us. Dogs are a 'dog' being. Plants are a plant being.)
"person" = those unique characteristics that make someone WHO they are. (You and I are both human beings, but I am the specific human being "Arthur" and you are a different specific human being "insert name".)

I am one being (a human being) made of one person (the unique individual Arthur).
You are one being (a human being) made of one person (the unique individual 'you').
God is one being (God) made of three unique persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
(Sorry, but that's the best that I can do at explaining it.)

So the person Jesus can talk to the person Father and still be one being (God) without talking to himself.
I just don't think that is what is happening on the cross.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I am one being (a human being) made of one person (the unique individual Arthur).

1=1.......that makes sense.

You are one being (a human being) made of one person (the unique individual 'you').

1=1.........that makes sense.

God is one being (God) made of three unique persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

1=3........back to school....need to learn maths.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

In my opinion I am confused as to why some might think God is indivisible. He's God. He can do anything right? If he wanted he could have millions of aspects of himself or 3 and so forth. I just wondered why Jesus asked the Lord when Jesus IS the Lord, at least according to Christian traditions.

 

[Wirey]

Before the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD, Jesus was not always God, he was usually just a Jewish prophet. At Nicea a political decision was made to convert him from prophet to Son of God/Actual God. There is a fantastic book about it:

How Jesus Became God - Bart D Ehrman - Hardcover

I'd recommend it for anyone actually interested in the historical Jesus. He wasn't the Son of God, or God himself, until 325 years after he died. Hence, the early version where he asks God, who he is not, "Hey! What did I do to you?"

 

[Kolibri]

In my opinion I am confused as to why some might think God is indivisible. He's God. He can do anything right? If he wanted he could have millions of aspects of himself or 3 and so forth. I just wondered why Jesus asked the Lord when Jesus IS the Lord, at least according to Christian traditions.

The nice thing about titles is that they can apply to more than one person at a time - if the qualifying definitions fit. Lord basically means "master."

Let's pretend you were a slave in the Roman Empire. Your master would be a Roman citizen. Your master would also have to answer to Caesar. Are you, the slave, free from seeing Caesar as a master? No. They both are your masters or Lords.

The same with Christians. We look to Christ as the Head of the Congregation. He is also the appointed King of God's Kingdom. So he is rightly our Lord. But "the Lord" or the Sovereign Lord would be Jesus' Lord.

Likewise God as a title implies power.* Anyone with a little power can rightly be called a god with regards to what he has power over. But there is only one Almighty God who can not be out-powered by any others.

* - "It is in my power (or "the power ('el) of my hand.") to do harm to you, but the God of your father spoke to me last night, saying, 'Be careful about what you say to Jacob, either good or bad.'" - Genesis 31:29

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I was wondering because when he said "My lord, why have you forsaken me?" He was talking to God, was he not? But I thought Jesus was God and therefore an aspect of God, known as God the Son. He's supposed to be one of the 3 aspects of God, so if Jesus and God are the same, why he did he say it like that? It makes it as if he and God are two separate entities, not one and the same. Otherwise, would he have been talking to himself?

He was talking to those around him at the time, and to us. Psalm 22 is a prophesy of the Passion of Christ, so what better time for Christ to quote from it than while he’s dying on the cross? He often quoted scripture, and always did it for a reason. In his public ministry, for example, he frequently referred to himself as the Son of Man, as he is called in prophesies about the coming Messiah in the Books of Isaiah and Daniel. It was to help make it clear to anyone who might not have been getting the message.

Before the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD, Jesus was not always God, he was usually just a Jewish prophet. At Nicea a political decision was made to convert him from prophet to Son of God/Actual God. There is a fantastic book about it:

The Council of Nicaea was convened in 325 in response to Arianism, the heretical teachings of a priest named Arius, that had been spreading in the eastern Roman Empire. The council produced the Nicene Creed by adding further specifics to the articles of the Apostles’ Creed that would help prevent Christians from being misled by false teachings.

You or anyone interested in the historical truth on this topic can find immediate information on it with nothing more than a search on the internet. The book you're taking about would be for those who are looking for a load of BS that attempts to take revisionism to a whole new level of absurdity.

The nice thing about titles is that they can apply to more than on person at a time - if the qualifying definitions fit. Lord basically means "master."

Let's pretend you were a slave in the Roman Empire. Your master would be a Roman citizen. Your master would also have to answer to Caesar. Are you, the slave, free from seeing Caesar as a master? No. They both are your masters or Lords.

The same with Christians. We look to Christ as the Head of the Congregation. He is also the appointed King of God's Kingdom. So he is rightly our Lord. But "the Lord" or the Sovereign Lord would be Jesus' Lord.

Likewise God as a title implies power.* Anyone with a little power can rightly be called a god with regards to what he has power over. But there is only one Almighty God who can not be out-powered by any others.

* - "It is in my power (or "the power ('el) of my hand.") to do harm to you, but the God of your father spoke to me last night, saying, 'Be careful about what you say to Jacob, either good or bad.'" - Genesis 31:29

And this just what the Arian heresy was -- an attempt to explain away the words of scripture to argue that the only begotten Son of God is not of the same substance as the Father; that the Son of God is not God the Son.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

You or anyone interested in the historical truth on this topic can find immediate information on it with nothing more than a search on the internet. The book you're taking about would be for those who are looking for a load of BS that attempts to take revisionism to a whole new level of absurdity.QUOTE]

Could you explain as to why it's BS instead of just saying that it is? I don't think the idea is that implausible. I don't think Jesus even said that he was God in the first place in the New Testament.

 

[KnobofBel]

not sure about your math....my mother = 1, plus my dad, = 1, two distinct individuals, and here 1+1=1

 

[atpollard]

Could you explain as to why it's BS instead of just saying that it is? I don't think the idea is that implausible. I don't think Jesus even said that he was God in the first place in the New Testament.

Here you go, knock yourself out ...
Arianism

 

[cataway]

must be that new math

 

[Thief]

I was wondering because when he said "My lord, why have you forsaken me?" He was talking to God, was he not?

God as Creator was the First.
If He spoke (and He did)....He would be talking to His Echo.
The creation might respond to His Word.....but it would not really...'respond'.

So here we are.

You could say in terms of aspect....Jesus is creation incarnate.
Then you can say He spoke to His Creator.
(Who apparently is willing to stand back and let us die)

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Could you explain as to why it's BS instead of just saying that it is? I don't think the idea is that implausible. I don't think Jesus even said that he was God in the first place in the New Testament.

Jesus established the Church and directed his apostles to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19)

So the apostles (and disciples) knew perfectly well that he is the Son of God from the very beginning, as have all the bishops who succeeded them by a hands-on ordination, not only until the year 325, but to this very day. He was never regarded as just a prophet or anything less than God, so there was never a council at any time to decide that he is.

Here are just a few verses from just one apostle that demonstrate the understanding of the Church:

John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Saint John is referring to creation with “in the beginning,” by recalling the first words of Genesis 1:1. “The Word” is the Incarnate Word/the word made flesh/Jesus. So he is saying that Jesus was with God and was God before creation.

John 5:7 - “For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.”

John 10:30 - (Jesus said) “I and the Father are one.”

John 10:36 - “What about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, “I am God's Son?”

Jesus not only said he was God; he proved it. That is the reason why the Church exists. So for a book to claim that bishops of this very same Church met in 325 to promote Jesus from prophet to God for political reasons cannot be anything other than BS and an attack on the Faith.

 

[Kolibri]

John 1:1c - The same grammatical arrangement is found at John 4:24, 1 John 1:5 and 1 John 4:15. In none of these places do these scriptures mean "light", "spirit" or "love" is God. Thus John 1:1 has been incorrectly translated to mean that the God is the Word. At most John 1:1 says the Word was divine, a god, or god-like.

1 John 5:7,8 - “in heaven, the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one. (8) And there are three witness bearers on earth.” This addition does not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts. Neither does it appear in the Syriac Pe****ta, thus proving that the addition at 1 John 5:7 is indeed a corruption of the Bible text. In other words this fragment is spurious and can be totally disregarded as unauthoritative.

John 10:30,36 - how one? "At unity" is the correct answer. Why? Context.

"Jesus answered them: 'I told you, and yet you do not believe. The works that I am doing in my Father's name, these bear witness about me." - John 10:25

"My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father." - John 10:27-29

Both underlined statements by Jesus would have made little sense to his listeners if he and his Father were one and the same person. Instead, Jesus said, in effect, ‘My Father and I are so close-knit that no one can take away the sheep from me, just as no one can take them away from my Father.’ It is much like a son saying to his father’s enemy, ‘If you attack my father, you attack me.’ No one would conclude that this son and his father were the same person. But all could perceive the strong bond of unity between them.

What other verses did you have in mind @Forever_Catholic ?

 

[Theweirdtophat]

When he said "I and my Father are one." meant something different, as he's one with the universe because he was enlightened. When he said Father, I didn't think he literally meant that God was his Father, but the one who created all of us, meaning all of us would be God's children. That's how I viewed it personally.

 

[rusra02]

I was wondering because when he said "My lord, why have you forsaken me?" He was talking to God, was he not? But I thought Jesus was God and therefore an aspect of God, known as God the Son. He's supposed to be one of the 3 aspects of God, so if Jesus and God are the same, why he did he say it like that? It makes it as if he and God are two separate entities, not one and the same. Otherwise, would he have been talking to himself?

Jesus often prayed to God and acknowledged that God is greater than Jesus, that he loved the Father, and that he, Jesus, did what God commanded him to do. (John 14:28,31)

 

[Forever_Catholic]

What other verses did you have in mind @Forever_Catholic ?

I’m sure you are willing to dispute any and all of them, or redefine them into something other than what they say.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Jesus often prayed to God and acknowledged that God is greater than Jesus, that he loved the Father, and that he, Jesus, did what God commanded him to do. (John 14:28,31)

In each place where you use the word "God" here, Jesus used the word "Father." He prayed to his Father, but not to "God" because he is God. But he always honored his Father just as you and I are to honor our fathers and mothers according to the commandment.

 

[Kolibri]

I’m sure you are willing to dispute any and all of them, or redefine them into something other than what they say.

That is a little demeaning: "redefine them into something other than what they say."

They say what they say. If they don't say what they say then they are either translated inaccurately or they were never there in the first place.

After that is cleared up, all that is left is to determine what is God's thoughts by looking at the context and/or other parts of the Bible that speak of the same topic.

Either the Church defines what is heresy or the Bible defines what is heresy. It is only both when they agree with each other.

You are correct though, I am offering to examine anything you have in mind. But I will be hoping to defend what it actually there regardless of what may be popular or institutionalized as heretical.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

That is a little demeaning: "redefine them into something other than what they say."

Is it not a little insulting to Christianity to deny the triune God and attempt to explain away the truth of the Christian Bible?

Catholics wrote the books of the New Testament. Who other than the Catholic Church could understand and teach them more accurately?