"My God, My God, Why Has Thou Forsaken Me?

[Thief]

Perhaps he was simply anguished. Perhaps he was afraid to die. These are natural human things. I don't think a person incapable of fear or doubt or despair would really be a human.

At least you have the feelings of someone watching a crucifixion.

And should you hear the words...'why have you forsaken me?'....
Do they not speak of ...abandonment?

Would you agree ...the Spirit...that one that bolstered His words and deeds...
stood back during that last hour....and said nothing?

 

[Politesse]

Would you agree ...the Spirit...that one that bolstered His words and deeds...
stood back during that last hour....and said nothing?

Well, I'll tell you something about that Spirit... I've known it for a long time. And it doesn't abandon us. But that doesn't mean we never feel ourselves to be abandoned. Christ demonstrated his humanity on the cross. But he never abandoned his divinity, nor it him. No, I do not think it is possible for it to be so. If God left Jesus there, then Jesus was the first, last, and only child of God ever so abandoned. And that would be as purposeless as it would be impossible.

The psalmist cries:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my roaring?...

Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

 

[Thief]

Well, I'll tell you something about that Spirit... I've known it for a long time. And it doesn't abandon us. But that doesn't mean we never feel ourselves to be abandoned. Christ demonstrated his humanity on the cross. But he never abandoned his divinity, nor it him. No, I do not think it is possible for it to be so. If God left Jesus there, then Jesus was the first, last, and only child of God ever so abandoned. And that would be as purposeless as it would be impossible.

The psalmist cries:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my roaring?...

Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Perhaps 'abandon' is too extreme a term.

But the expression uttered upon the cross...speaks some lack of comfort.
It would seem...no assuredness...at all.

Do you anticipate the same for yourself?
If the angels were willing to stand back and do nothing for Him....
what then of you?

Most people stop at a point of sympathy....and then....
most believers want the incident to be a positive event...for themselves.
I don't think scapegoating works.

I don't use the word 'sacrifice' at the cross.

 

[Politesse]

Perhaps 'abandon' is too extreme a term. But the expression uttered upon the cross...speaks some lack of comfort.
It would seem...no assuredness...at all.

Yes. Despair even. It's the theological implications some put on it that make me raise an eyebrow. Isochrist I may be, but I think all ought know that humanity's experience of God is one and the same wherever one goes, even into death. Jesus suffered and feared and doubted because that is what humans do. But God and the Spirit of God abode within him nonetheless, because that is what God does.

Do you anticipate the same for yourself?
If the angels were willing to stand back and do nothing for Him....
what then of you?

Of course not. Why would the disciples of a teacher who died for others be willing to let him die for them? Unless they fell asleep at lecture. As, admittedly, Jesus' own are said to have done. Such a sleepy world, and hard the waking...

Most people stop at a point of sympathy....and then....
most believers want the incident to be a positive event...for themselves.
I don't think scapegoating works.

Jesus saved many living things by making his body the last scapegoat, though. This, at least, is valuable to me and they and he.

I don't use the word 'sacrifice' at the cross.

I do. But I keep the lambs and doves in my mind when I do. I don't see it as a good thing that Jesus died the way he did. It's a mark of shame that humans feel they must shed blood again and again, chasing their own salvation by hurting others when we ought to be lifting each other from the too-worn path. The meaning and purpose of love was taught by Jesus' example, and we should strive for it, too. But I've no use for the vile theology that makes God the one who thirsted for blood. It was us, the whole time, who thought we could redeem ourselves that way.

 

[smokydot]

Yes. Despair even. It's the theological implications some put on it that make me raise an eyebrow. Isochrist I may be, but I think all ought know that humanity's experience of God is one and the same wherever one goes, even into death. Jesus suffered and feared and doubted because that is what humans do. But God and the Spirit of God abode within him nonetheless, because that is what God does.
Of course not. Why would the disciples of a teacher who died for others be willing to let him die for them? Unless they fell asleep at lecture. As, admittedly, Jesus' own are said to have done. Such a sleepy world, and hard the waking...
Jesus saved many living things by making his body the last scapegoat, though. This, at least, is valuable to me and they and he.
I do. But I keep the lambs and doves in my mind when I do. I don't see it as a good thing that Jesus died the way he did. It's a mark of shame that humans feel they must shed blood again and again, chasing their own salvation by hurting others when we ought to be lifting each other from the too-worn path. The meaning and purpose of love was taught by Jesus' example, and we should strive for it, too. But I've no use for the vile theology that makes God the one who thirsted for blood. It was us, the whole time, who thought we could redeem ourselves that way.

The Bible reveals the sacrificial system was given by God.
You either believe the Bible or you don't.
It's a matter of faith.

 

[Politesse]

The Bible reveals the sacrificial system was given by God.
You either believe the Bible or you don't.
It's a matter of faith.

It does? I open it and read this:

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied.
“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

God was content with devotion and mercy, and left it at that. But Abraham, foolish as any of us, felt something still needed to be done, so:

Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.

He murders a trapped animal. Did God ask for it? No. Nor did he ask for the offerings of the Israelites when they left Egypt full of ideas garnered from their masters. But for their sake he allowed it, knowing that ones who had been taught this way would refuse to do otherwise. "Stubborn" he called them, but he allowed their sacrifices, even regulated them so that not too much would be taken. But later, when their hearts grew far away but they still pretended that bloodshed would be sufficient exchange for the forgiveness of their despicable cruelty to the poor and disenfranchised, God admitted this through his Prophet:

“The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?” says the LORD.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?
Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood!

God permitted sacrifices for the sake of his people. But he never loved them. So he sent his anointed child as the last, that by him blood would no longer be shed for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[smokydot]

It does? I open it and read this:

Try the first five chapters of Leviticus.

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.
“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
God was content with devotion and mercy, and left it at that. But Abraham, foolish as any of us, felt something still needed to be done, so:
Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.
He murders a trapped animal. Did God ask for it? No. Nor did he ask for the offerings of the Israelites when they left Egypt full of ideas garnered from their masters. But for their sake he allowed it, knowing that ones who had been taught this way would refuse to do otherwise. "Stubborn" he called them, but he allowed their sacrifices, even regulated them so that not too much would be taken. But later, when their hearts grew far away but they still pretended that bloodshed would be sufficient exchange for the forgiveness of their despicable cruelty to the poor and disenfranchised, God admitted this through his Prophet:
“The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?” says the LORD. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations— I cannot bear your worthless assemblies. Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals I hate with all my being. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood!

Context. . .context. . .context. Texts without a context are a pretext.

In context, they were offering sacrifices in lieu of obedience. Insincere worship from his own people angers God.

God permitted sacrifices for the sake of his people. But he never loved them. So he sent his anointed child as the last, that by him blood would no longer be shed for the forgiveness of sins.

God didn't "permit" sacrifices, he established them. See the first five chapters of Leviticus.

Why the misrepresentation on this?

 

[Politesse]

Yes, Leviticus offers rules for the Levites on how to handle sacrifices and what to prescribe. If you think this "established" sacrifices, you're not reading carefully. It was always people who started, always God who stemmed the practice and demanded less than they were trying to give. The epsiode with Abraham, the escape from Egypt, all this happened well before the book of the Levites was written. So why do you think the book started the practice that clearly began long before it?

 

[Thief]

Yes. Despair even. It's the theological implications some put on it that make me raise an eyebrow. Isochrist I may be, but I think all ought know that humanity's experience of God is one and the same wherever one goes, even into death. Jesus suffered and feared and doubted because that is what humans do. But God and the Spirit of God abode within him nonetheless, because that is what God does.

Of course not. Why would the disciples of a teacher who died for others be willing to let him die for them? Unless they fell asleep at lecture. As, admittedly, Jesus' own are said to have done. Such a sleepy world, and hard the waking...

Jesus saved many living things by making his body the last scapegoat, though. This, at least, is valuable to me and they and he.

I do. But I keep the lambs and doves in my mind when I do. I don't see it as a good thing that Jesus died the way he did. It's a mark of shame that humans feel they must shed blood again and again, chasing their own salvation by hurting others when we ought to be lifting each other from the too-worn path. The meaning and purpose of love was taught by Jesus' example, and we should strive for it, too. But I've no use for the vile theology that makes God the one who thirsted for blood. It was us, the whole time, who thought we could redeem ourselves that way.

I won't agree.
Jesus saved souls....by teaching parables.
His death was a forced issue of politics and misconceived prophecy.

Redemption by blood?...no.
Redemption for wisdom, and the renouncement of sinful life?.....yes.

As for dying...and not hearing of comfort....
We all take a turn.
That last hour is yours and yours alone.

I would say 'good luck'...but that works the same as scapegoating.

Let's try faith in life after death.

 

[smokydot]

Yes, Leviticus offers rules for the Levites on how to handle sacrifices and what to prescribe. If you think this "established" sacrifices, you're not reading carefully. It was always people who started, always God who stemmed the practice and demanded less than they were trying to give. The epsiode with Abraham, the escape from Egypt, all this happened well before the book of the Levites was written. So why do you think the book started the practice that clearly began long before it?

Okay, if you want to go back to origins, the first one was when God sacrificed the animal to give Adam and Eve their animal skin clothing.

 

[smokydot]

I won't agree.
Jesus saved souls....by teaching parables.
His death was a forced issue of politics and misconceived prophecy.
Redemption by blood?...no.
Redemption for wisdom, and the renouncement of sinful life?.....yes.
As for dying...and not hearing of comfort....
We all take a turn.
That last hour is yours and yours alone.
I would say 'good luck'...but that works the same as scapegoating.
Let's try faith in life after death.

That's not what the Scriptures say.

You either believe them or you don't. Evidently, you don't.
It's a matter of faith.

 

[Politesse]

Okay, if you want to go back to origins, the first one was when God sacrificed the animal to give Adam and Eve their animal skin clothing.

God was sacrificing that animal to himself? Or was he giving it up for their sake?

 

[smokydot]

God was sacrificing that animal to himself? Or was he giving it up for their sake?

He was teaching them the sacrificial system and its requirements to be acceptable, which sacrifices you find many times before the book of Leviticus.

That's why Noah was commanded to take seven of each of the clean animals on the ark, instead of only two. . .they were to be sacrifices, according to the regulations given by God for acceptable sacrifices. . .
the first being, it must be a clean animal (and that's not about dirt).

God, not man, is the author of the sacrificial system. . .which was to point to the ultimate sacrifice of his only begotten Son.
When that once-for-all sacrifice was offered, the sacrificial system was then abolished, because it had been completely fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus, the Christ,
who came for the specific purpose of offering himself as the perfect sacrifice.

 

[Thief]

That's not what the Scriptures say.

You either believe them or you don't. Evidently, you don't.
It's a matter of faith.

That's a very narrow-minded approach.

No Jews in heaven?...Moses an unworthy prophet?
No Muslims in heaven?....Muhammad failed?

What about people of other faith?...no worthy prophets?...no wisdom among them?

Think your special for hanging around crosses?

 

[free spirit]

That's a very narrow-minded approach.

No Jews in heaven?...Moses an unworthy prophet?
No Muslims in heaven?....Muhammad failed?

What about people of other faith?...no worthy prophets?...no wisdom among them?

Think your special for hanging around crosses?

You are true to yourself Thief, by introducing yourself as a "Rogue Theologian"
There is a scripture in the New Testament that describe the likes of you, it goes like this. "For when they measure themselves by themselves, and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding." So you believe everything and nothing at the same time.

 

[smokydot]

That's a very narrow-minded approach.

Depends on your point of view. . .yours, or the Word of God written.

No Jews in heaven?...Moses an unworthy prophet?
No Muslims in heaven?....Muhammad failed?
What about people of other faith?...no worthy prophets?...no wisdom among them?

It is the Jewish Scriptures that tell us "all our righteousness is as filty rags". . .that no one is worthy. . .that wisdom does not make us pleasing to God.

Think your special for hanging around crosses?

It is both the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures that tell us the only thing which makes us pleasing to God is faith in God's promise, Jesus, the Christ.

Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets, David, Solomon, etc. all believed in God's promise and were pleasing to God.
Since the death of Christ, only those who believe in Jesus, the Christ, who is God's promise, are pleasing to God.
All Muslims who believe in Jesus, the Christ, and in his saving work on the cross to propitiate God's just wrath on their sin, are likewise pleasing to God.

It is God's promise, Jesus the Christ, who reveals that all those who do not believe in him are condemned already (Jn 3:18).

If you think that is a narrow-minded approach, you'll have to take it up with God.
He is the one who revealed it in his only begotten Son, Jesus the Christ.

 

[smokydot]

You are true to yourself Thief, by introducing yourself as a "Rogue Theologian"
There is a scripture in the New Testament that describe the likes of you, it goes like this. "For when they measure themselves by themselves, and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding." So you believe everything and nothing at the same time.

"Ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth."

Thief is no theologian, rogue or otherwise.

 

[Thief]

Depends on your point of view. . .yours, or the Word of God written.
It is the Jewish Scriptures that tell us "all our righteousness is as filty rags". . .that no one is worthy. . .that wisdom does not make us pleasing to God.
It is both the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures that tell us the only thing which makes us pleasing to God is faith in God's promise, Jesus, the Christ.

Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets, David, Solomon, etc. all believed in God's promise and were pleasing to God.
Since the death of Christ, only those who believe in Jesus, the Christ, who is God's promise, are pleasing to God.
All Muslims who believe in Jesus, the Christ, and in his saving work on the cross to propitiate God's just wrath on their sin, are likewise pleasing to God.

It is God's promise, Jesus the Christ, who reveals that all those who do not believe in him are condemned already (Jn 3:18).

If you think that is a narrow-minded approach, you'll have to take it up with God.
He is the one who revealed it in his only begotten Son, Jesus the Christ.

There's that Christian rant....again.

I just got away from a thread explaining to someone else
the workings of parables.

Believing in Him is not lip service to a rant.
See Matthew 13:10

 

[smokydot]

There's that Christian rant....again.

So sorry for you that you think the Word of God written in the NT is a rant.

I just got away from a thread explaining to someone else on
the workings of parables.

It would have been better to explain his words about coming to die for the forgiveness of the sin of those who believe in him.

Believing in Him is not lip service to a rant.

. . .nor lip service to a distortion of what Jesus said:

that he came to die as a ransom for the sin of many. . .

that the cup is his blood poured out for forgiveness of sin. . .

that he is the good shepherd who dies for his sheep. . .

According to the NT, it is his sacrifice, not his parables, which saves from God's just wrath on sin.

See Matthew 13:10

 

[Thief]

So sorry for you that you think the Word of God written in the NT is a rant.
It would have been better to explain his words about coming to die for the forgiveness of the sin of those who believe in him.

. . .nor lip service to a distortion of what Jesus said:

that he came to die as a ransom for the sin of many. . .

that the cup is his blood poured out for forgiveness of sin. . .

that he is the good shepherd who dies for his sheep. . .

According to the NT, it is his sacrifice, not his parables, which saves from God's just wrath on sin.

You are using metaphors...at the same time not paying attention to their meaning.

There are many who have ears and hear not.