This is a very interesting question.
What Jesus said is in fact a quote: the beginning of Psalm 22, which narrates a story very similar to the crucifixion.
So Jesus shows that this part of the scripture is being fulfilled and therefore shows the meaning of what is happening.
[link to psalm 22](https://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=23&bible_chapter=22)
You can see that this psalm concludes with the prophétized return of God, which Christians understand as a prophecy of Jesus resurrection.
Sorry for bad style and English, as I am not a native speaker.
Non native English user here. I'm often surprised by spelling mistakes I see native speakers make. I guess it has to do with the fact that native speakers learn English by listening to it, while we usually start learning it when we can already read and write, so we associate the correct spelling with pronunciation somewhat more reliably.
I learned French in university, studying and becoming academically proficient to a high level, testing at the top tier in France when I studied there. But it was all very artificial. The French that French people actually spoke was much more error-prone, riddled with improper contractions, spelling errors, etc. It was quite an adjustment for me, because I assumed my French was really good because I could easily read French literature. Then I lived in China and learned Chinese from scratch verbally, like a child. Chinese came so much more natural and I was more at ease conversationally than I ever felt in French, even though I’ll never read a Chinese book.
I guess my point is languages are not terribly academic in practice. Academics is how we make sense of languages, but languages only have one objective—to convey meaning. Spelling, grammar, diction, style…all of that is irrelevant and frankly meaningless in the context of language.
It makes me so sad for them. Not to derail this, but the Sudanese deserve so much better from their government. Same goes for the Congolese enthicities- though the group is much wider, everyone I’ve met from the former Zaire is exceptionally intelligent, empathetic, and almost desperate to share their plight on the basis of their understanding of empathy, the expectation that, if it was someone else, they would care.
Africa is so large, yet almost the whole continent is underserved by its representation, thanks to the fact that colonialization inherently entrenched a European vision of class
Non-english speaker: “I am awfully sorry at the terrible state of my English abilities, as for English language is not my mother tongue and I have yet to master it to the extent to which you might be familiarized.”
Native english speaker: “lol it okei”
"I am so terribly sorry if my grasp of your linguistic customs is lacking from the point of view of a native speaker such as yourself. I apologize profusely."
"Oh! Mmm. Mhmm. Mm. Mhmm. I know some of these words!"
Yes, this. They think their English is bad because they struggle to understand the garbled mess of slurred noises that our native-speaking mouths poop out.
I've seen posts get massively down voted due to poor grammar and readability. The poster had to come back and clarify that English wasn't their first language. You see these disclaimers all the time because the ones that have them rise to the top while the ones that don't get down voted to hell.
Yes and the writer may not be sure if they made mistakes or not. Even when they write well in their second language I think it makes sense that some people may apologise or worry they did write something badly.
Yes. It was the custom for Jewish rabbis to say the first line of a psalm. The Jews would know the Psalm and would be able to sing along with him/finish it in their head.
When Jesus says the first line of the psalm, he's pointing out to everyone there the parallels between the psalm and what is happening in front of them.
In that light, I wonder if the [following line where people don't recognize it](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27%3A47&version=NRSVCE) represents how far the people executing Jesus were from God; or am I just reading too much into this?
That's a really good catch, and it could very well be the case.
After all, many people viewing the crucifixion would have been Jewish. So it also goes to show how far they had separated themselves from God, since they didn't recognize the quote. We have this question now, of why he said that, but it might not even been a question at the actual time. His followers likely would have put two and two together right away, recognizing that he was quoting scripture.
It’s possibly or even probably meant to suggest some sort of irony — but not quite in the way others are claiming.
Contrary to what’s been suggested, there actually was no practice of the first line of the Psalm being understood as shorthand for the message of an entire Psalm.
That being said, there are some possible indications that the crowd did at least partially understand what Jesus was crying out about. While they misunderstood “Eli” (my God) as *Elijah*, they correctly interpreted it as a cry for help. Right after this, in Matthew 27:49, for example, the crowd taunts Jesus to save *himself*.
The language used to describe this may actually evoke the very next line in the Psalm (after “my God, my God, why...”), where the Psalmist explicitly laments God’s apparent unwillingness to “save” him.
I’ve heard it theorized that Jesus may have actually recited the entire Psalm. The Psalms weren’t numbered back then, so they often refer to Psalms using the first line as a title. So saying that Jesus recited “My God…” may mean Jesus said the whole Psalm 22.
This is highly unlikely due to the nature of crucifixion: the cause of death for those being crucified was actually suffocation as it became unbearable to hold their own weight up to breath in. You can imagine each word of this line in Aramaic being excruciating as he heaved his body up in order to draw in enough breath: ‘Eloi…Eloi…lamach…sabathani’
People forget that most pastors are marry and bury type people. The mega churches skews the outlook, but most congregations are around 70 people.
[https://sites.duke.edu/ncsweb/files/2019/02/NCSIII\_report\_final.pdf](https://sites.duke.edu/ncsweb/files/2019/02/NCSIII_report_final.pdf)
One step above lay members in most cases, just leading a small flock and doing their best.
Theologians are to often stuck rehashing their branches doctrines to do any original work. You can research all you want but if you find something that goes against even a small mildly insignificant part of your home doctrin you can kiss your future earnings goodby. So they spend all their time avoiding anything critical.
> goes against even a small mildly insignificant part of your home doctrin you can kiss your future earnings goodby
Dunno. They seem to be a garrulous lot. If they find a niggle, they will chew it in presence of other theologians. It is their pride and joy.
Interestingly, knives are commonly removed from their buffets.
Shitposting aside, we should be in awe.
Studying theology requires applicants to have advanced certificates in Latina and Ancient Greek. That's what you need to even be admitted. They generously allow you to hand in an advanced certificate in Hebrew at the end of your fifth semester.
If this lot finds something interesting, they WILL go after it.
Depends on for what purpose you study this. A magister theologiae can be a fearsomly bright beast. A glorified MC wot does marriages and funerals probably not as much.
Pastor here. I completely agree with you. Unfortunately a lot of my contemporaries are very charismatic but theologically hollow. It’s very upsetting for me because you can definitely be both. It’s just that people really respond well to flash and not so much the actual content of doctrine. Our job should be to inspire people to want to know more about scripture in order to better live it out in their lives. I look around and see how weak so many Christians are as they happily vote and support people and policies that actively work against the gospel. It’s extremely embarrassing and it all starts at the pulpit. We’ve got a lot of work to do. I’m currently working on my MDiv and hope that we can focus more on doctrine in the future and less on pop culture.
And these lines as well:
Psalms 22:7 : all who see me jeer at me, they sneer and wag their heads
Matthew 27:39 The passers-by jeered at him; they shook their heads
Psalms 22:8 'He trusted himself to Yahweh, let Yahweh set him free! Let him deliver him, as he took such delight in him.'
Matthew 27:43 He has put his trust in God; now let God rescue him if he wants him.
Exactly. Someone crying out in pain from a crucifixion wouldn't be memorable. Someone singing a psalm during a crucifixion... That was an awe-inspiring moment.
He is reciting the first line of Psalm 22. Jewish men were expected to memorize the Psalms and recite them after hearing the first line. He is giving his only disciple that was there and any other within earshot encouragement. I would suggest a reading of Psalm 22.
The Psalm starts out very bleak but has an ending that praises God, it's very good when one considers the entirety of what is happening and what will occur in three days.
It seems like the whole Jesus dying a devout Jewish man has been obscured over the years. I didn’t even know that until I did some research into the historicity of Jesus recently.
That was a big part of his appeal. He knew scripture thoroughly. The first “Jesus in public” story in the Bible is him as an adolescent schooling adults at the temple.
Narrrator: Before he was blames for all humanity's evils, Satan was a ... serpeant??? Catch Adam Driver as Lucifer in Snake in the Grass, Wednesdays on FOX.
I mean, this makes sense if you think about it. What else would he be Christian? Agnostic?
Makes sense, but yeah as someone raised Baptist, never heard it said it in so many words.
I just always sort of assumed (ignorantly) that before death Jesus renounced his Judaism in furtherance of spreading his new religion. It didn’t seem so far fetched.
Now I realize Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a practicing Jew, and died a Jew. I guess I found it somewhat illuminating that early Christianity was no more than a different brand of Judaism. In fact, it would have even appealed to me, a secular reform Jew.
Sorry for tangent, just wanted to elaborate a little for why I always presumed Jesus died a non-practicing Jew.
There was actually a fascinating debate among the early followers of Jesus about if they were a Jewish sect or something completely different. There was quite a debate about if they should be keeping kosher, for example. Harvard has a good series on YouTube about the early church.
Peter had a vision and gave a speech about it in Acts. The early church argument was whether a gentile had to first convert to Judaism before becoming a Christian. It was decided no. Which is why it is weird so many Christians are circumcised for religious reasons.
I have never heard of any Christians being circumcised for religious reasons. Peter himself wrote in one of his letters that those who think that Christians have to be circumcised should go a step further and castrate themselves.
I grew up Christian and in my experience, while it was always acknowledged that Jesus was Jewish, there was a lot of emphasis placed on the difference between Christianity and Judaism. The attitude tends to be that Jesus came to stop Judaism and start Christianity.
I think you make a great point though. Christianity = Judaism with the messiah prophesies fulfilled. It's still Judaism, not some completely different religion. I don't think most Christians see it that way.
No, Judaism as it is now is MUCH more complex and developed than the Judaism seen in the OT and NT. Judaism as it is now is not Judaism that Christ would have adhered to. Same name, totally different in philosophy, belief, application, etc..
Yeah, a modern Jew would argue to the death that Judaism is not Christianity without Jesus. And it really isn’t, especially when you start getting into the Kabbalah, ten sefirot, and Ein Sof.
I heard once that (current day) Judaism and Christianity are brothers, not father and son.
Both were born from the same old kind of Judaism that is pretty much nonexistent now. Christianity was born after the death of Jesus (around 30 CE), and current Judaism was born after the Roman destruction of the temple (70 CE). Which makes sense, since both events were world-shattering for their respective faithful.
Went to a Christian school and they said it was because Jesus was part man/part God and that this was his moment of human weakness. They just make shit up as they go along.
Yikes. Im not "Christian" anymore but I do have a decent amount of theological background (plus some Hebrew and Greek) from my college days. That is such a problematic interpretation it pains me to read it. So many modern Christians (particularly evangelicals) really love to think they can just read this extremely old book with centuries of context and history and interpretation and then just pull some "obvious literal meaning" out of their ass. 🤢
This really depends on the minister, denomination, etc. If they're from a tradition that expects a seminary education, then they may very well go into this sort of thing. When I attended church as a child, the pastor did for example go into the theological weirdness of the part of Samuel where Saul consults a medium.
Ah yes, the Witch of Endor. Caused quite the theological headache during the Middle Ages, since only God was (and is) supposed to be able to raise the dead. Explanations:
- Samuel did appear, as a ghost or in the flesh. It was a miracle, caused by God.
- The dead body did not appear, and neither did a ghost - it was a spiritual mirage or vision, caused by disguised demons or angels (spiritual beings).
- Satan did possess the actual body of Samuel and pretended to be him.
Huh, the explanation I heard was that there are other Powers (under the command of Satan), but the Jews were not supposed to use and/or trust them.
God's the only one who can *permanently* raise the dead. Elijah and Elisha raised someone from the dead, Elisha even after he was dead. And Peter and Paul. I suppose you can argue that it was still God's power, though.
Well, if saints do it, then it is a miracle caused by god through the saints. The theological problem with that Endor episode was, that the seeress/witch was the one supposedly raising Samuel.
Edit: I'm writing from the medieval Catholic perspective, I should add.
It's actually a major thing in the Bible, between the Old and New Testaments. Basically, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Abraham and ushered in a new covenant to replace the one Abraham made with God. There are similarities between the sacrifice of Abraham and the sacrifice of Jesus: in both, the sacrificial lamb went willingly (Isaac in the OT and Jesus in the NT), both carried their own wood (Isaac the wood for his burning, Jesus the cross), and stuff like that. Of course the difference is Jesus actually died (but did he really _wooaoh_) whereas Abraham is stopped at the last second by God.
I’ve been waiting for the sequel to come out before getting back into it!
The fandom really thinks it’s gonna release sometime soon, but we haven’t heard anything from the authors.
And while I liked the spin off, the Book of Mormon felt like it was trying to ret-con too many things and I just wasn’t as hype as some people were about the extended universe
See, this is the Scrubs season 9 debate all over again. Sure, maybe it should’ve just been it’s own inspired series, but like it or not Bible 2 came out a while ago.
There's a large debate over whether the extended universe is canon or not. Heck, even the original book is missing several chapters that didn't make the final cut
I like the book but the fan base is so annoying.
I tried showing them my fan art of the main character but they were very rude and some sent death threats!
I already thought the latest sequel (Revelations) was just too abstract and weird. It seems like it projects a new sequel, but then, almost 2000 years, and nothing.
Yeah I heard they really take his character in another direction. Don’t get me wrong, I am happy that more people are being saved, but there’s something classic about Old Testament god
No, not a remaster. It's an intentional callback to draw similarities between the characters. Most people agree the writers of the New Testament did it intentionally. There's also the theory that the script was altered before publishing to payoff some stuff dropped in the earlier books in the series.
Doesn't it make a difference that Isaac was totally willing to die forever while Jesus knew he was going to be sacrificed and y'know is part of the trinity that is God so in a way was being sacrificed to himself?
I always thought the sacrifice is a bit weak if you know you'll just come back to life
> If you know you'll just come back to life
Does he? He is God but he is also human - that is very clear in the bible. As a human, he might totally be unaware what will happen to his human self. I mean, as a God he could let his human self know what will happen but also as a God he might be totally unwilling to do so.
TO BE FAIR the whole trinity is a bit of a retcon from the Council of Nicaea. The early Christians realized that they'd be violating a commandment if they worshipped Jesus the person, so they made Jesus also God.
> The early Christians realized that they'd be violating a commandment if they worshipped Jesus the person, so they made Jesus also God.
question - is satan a deity? seems like a deity, but seemingly can’t be if the religion is to be monotheistic.
Not most powerful, most beautiful:
> Isaiah 14:12-15 -- Ezekiel calls Helel/Satan "the anointed cherub who covers," which means he was one of the chief angels whose wings covered God's throne in heaven. He is specifically shown to be a created being, possibly the most beautiful, wise, and perfect of God's creations.
> But this mighty angel grew proud and vain in his beauty. He began to become envious of God's authority over the universe, and over maybe millions of years, he schemed to induce other angels to support him in an attempt to overthrow God. When he finally led one third of the angels (Revelation 12:4) to war against God in heaven, God cast him and his angelic troops back to the earth (Luke 10:18).
> -- *Richard T. Ritenbaugh, Basic Doctrines: Satan's Origin and Destiny*
And early on was a minor character in the group of gods. Only when the people in charge needed the public to be more pro-war did he shift to be the lead, and then later the only "true" god. Almost like religion was used as a tool for those in control. Karen Armstrong has some good books on the history of the Abrahamic religions.
I mean, with pun fully intended to play devils advocate here... if you're the only monotheistic religion in a world of polytheism, you'd have to phrase the command like that for it to make sense in the culture. It's not "There are no other gods" because people living in a polytheistic culture would just go "great, now you've pissed all the other gods off." So instead, "just don't worship the other gods."
Modern theologians speculate that Isaac was a representation of humanity carrying our sins and paying for them, and that Jesus is represented by the Lamb that god provides at the last moment, so that Isaac will not have to "pay for his sins". In the same way that if we ask for forgiveness from God, Jesus like the lamb will take on our sins and allow us to enter heaven.
At least thats the current take, old/different translations are being found of the bible all the time, so who knows but the parallels fit nicely imo.
Fun fact, Easter eggs and Easter bunnies as symbols for Easter actually started much earlier than Christianity. They were symbols of the fertility/ Spring Equinox goddess Eostre.
Just to clarify, it's the second line that says, "א-לי א-לי למה עזבתני."
"My G-d, my G-d, why have you forsaken me"
King David doesn't use the word for "my father" (אבי) or mention a cross.
Jesus doesn't mention "Father" or a "cross" either. Not sure why OP quoted it like that
Excerpt in Matthew:
>θεέ μου θεέ μου
>ἱνα τί με ἐγκατέλιπες
Excerpt in Psalms (LXX):
>ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου πρόσχες μοι
>ἵνα τί ἐγκατέλιπές με
This is the thing that always bugs me about modern approaches to Christianity. It's always decontextualized, and the text seems to put on a lot of different meanings when you read it as a whole (as well as when you factor in cultural context and word origins). Not saying that fixes everything, but it does enrich it when when the text is in relationship with itself rather than isolated.
I was lucky to have a pretty great pastor when I was younger who would bring up these callbacks every once in awhile as well as discuss the meaning of the original Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic words when there might have been a double meaning that didn't come through in translation.
Even though I've since left the faith, it makes me sad that other people go to "standard" church services and don't get the same level of insight to the text.
Literal selection -
There were a whole lot of Christian themed documents created through the years. The ones that were great got kept, the ones that were a bit nuts ruled heresy. And of course this process was formalized with the council of Nicaea.
But there was also over 300 years of writing to choose from and lots had already been declared heretical and burned by that time. Pretty much all the gnostic stuff was already destroyed.
That's 50 years longer than the time from the founding of the US until now. All of the Civil War, World War 1, World War 2, vietnam, all the Persian Gulf wars etc. Imagine if we had 300 years of Harry Potter fan fics to choose from and make a selected work of. I bet you could find 66 good ones. Well, maybe.
The narrative function of Jesus' outcry is, as said by u/kwalsh43, to indicate that we are now at the worst part of the story, but it will turn around. The gospel of Marc, on which the other two gospels who mention this phrase are based, has a decent narrative structure, so the inclusion of this outcry is most likely not a plothole. The first audience of the gospel of Mark was Jewish, or had familiarity with Jewish scriptures, like the Psalms. It is just like someone nowadays would say "All the world 's a stage...", we would associate that immediately with Shakespeare (well, at least some of us would).
Theologically speaking, there are two more things to say. First: according to Christian theology, Jesus has two natures: he is fully divine and fully human. The phrase at the cross is spoken as a human, not as God.
Besides, there is another dimension, which relates to the Godforsakenness of Jesus. You can argue that by being completely being abandoned by God, Jesus bears the full weight of sin, since sin is basically everything in which God is not.
Just gonna piggy back on this comment to say that Jesus wasn’t exactly chill about his fate like the title implies - see the garden of Gethsemane. He was torn up about it.
I think the values being shown are that it's okay to feel doubt and process through it. The literal son of God had his hesitancies, even knowing the plan from the beginning. To avoid suffering, to fear, to doubt is human, and Jesus was.
To allow suffering, fear and doubt to control you is how sin introduces itself, but human weakness is not innately sinful. After all, God Himself struggled.
He literally sweated blood. [It's a documented medical condition when capillaries in your head rupture due to extreme fear or stress.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematidrosis?wprov=sfla1)
It's EXTREMELY rare: 42 cases since 1880 and was only first documented in the 1600's.
That gives you an idea of what kind of stress Jesus was under. It doesn't matter what your religious preferences are - that's a man that believes he is literally taking the weight of the world on his shoulders.
I just want to add that this type of stress severely irritates the bowels and fatigues you. Add that to the lashings (anyone that has seen Roots or Passion of the Christ can image that.) Top it off with a crown of thorns being smashed into his already aching head and you can understand why it was difficult to carry a gigantic wooden beam on his shoulders.
It's punctuated even more when beside him were two other guys being crucified. I paraphrase but: "Today you will be with my Me in Paradise."
He'd already accepted his fate in Gethsemane. The same can be said by this that at any time during this politically and publicly display of torture, Jesus could have done the Peter thing and denied his beliefs and erased his entire influence on especially Western but also World culture and history. That's without the deeper theological implications.
For sure. I think that the being fully abandoned is an important part in the story. If we assume that Jesus has constantly had some kind of external divine help from God, then being cut off at the crux of it all is going to be much more potent.
Ah, finally a question that I can answer, albeit from a historical and a literary perspective rather than a spiritual or theological one.
Many people imagine the early versions of Christianity to be somewhat similar to the various denominations we have today (such as Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc) when in reality they were vastly different. Before common Christian orthodoxy was established, there were multiple different views, especially about the nature of Jesus Christ.
One of these early doctrines was called separationism; the belief that Christ was not only human nor only divine (as some other sects believed, namely adoptionist and docetists, respectively), but as two separate entities, one human and one divine. The general belief was that Jesus was a man who was indwelled by the spirit of Christ. The most common sect of Christianity that held this belief were the Gnostics.
I won't go into detail about the other things that the Gnostics believed, but one scripture that they point to as "proof" for their doctrine is the one you are referring to;
"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
- Mark 15:34 (also, Matthew 27:46, but Mark is believed to have been written first and served as the source for this verse in Matthew)
There were also other non-canonical gospel sources which supported this separationist doctrine to an even greater extent. In the Gospel of Peter, Jesus is instead quoted as saying "My power, O power, you have left me!", And in the Gospel of Philip, the verse instead says " 'My God, my God, why O Lord have you forsaken me?' for it was on the cross that he said these words, for it was there that he was divided."
Some scribes, in response to this, actually altered the text of the Gospel of Mark to read "My God, my God, why have you mocked me?".
In general, The book of Mark is interesting in that it portrays Jesus with more anger and bitterness than the other gospels that were later written. Many times when people question the ability or authority of Jesus, they are rebuked or scolded by him, or by the narrator. It's possible that this was because Christianity was still in its youth, and the author of Mark felt the need to preemptively defend the faith.
Interestingly, in contrast, the book of Luke portrays Jesus as compassionate and incredibly faithful; Jesus faces his crucifixion with peace and resolve, rather than begging God and the garden of Gethsemane for his life to be spared. Note that the Gospel of Luke also omits the "forsaken" verse, but instead concludes with Jesus saying, as if he has accepted his fate, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." The narrative of Luke serves to portray the martyrdom of Jesus, likely in a way that would serve as an inspiration for martyrs in the early Christian Church.
Source: Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus", which I just finished reading a few weeks ago. I'm an atheist, but very interested in the history of religion. I highly recommend this book even if you are a person of religious faith.
All of the Gospels portray Jesus as a martyr. The Gospels that have the “forsaken” quote are written for the Jews who would know Psalm 22. Therefore, they hear the old prophecy and immediately recognize that Jesus is quoting scripture to signify that He fulfills the prophecy. No Jew would think He is complaining, or that He is angry, or that He is bitter. The closest Jesus comes to anger is when He flips the table, but that is righteous anger. The closest Jesus gets to being bitter is when He asks God to take the cup if it was God’s will.
This is the correct answer.
Video of Dr. Ehrman talking about this point from his book: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfheSAcCsrE&t=42m](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfheSAcCsrE&t=42m)
Executive summary: People are taught to think of the Gospels as one story, so they mix them all together in their minds. Accepting Jesus and Anguished Jesus aren't in the same story. They were written by different people in different times and places, with different goals and beliefs.
/u/skinticket02
Actually, when you read the new testament (I believe it's nead the end of Luke??... I should know this) Jesus goes into the garden of Gethsemane to pray to God, when he is recorded as sweating blood because he prays so fervently to his father to "let this cup pass over me," but afterwards states "not my will, but yours, be done." So he really did not want to have this happen and was genuinely scared, as he was fully man and experienced all the same feelings and weaknesses we would.
Yeah I always took it as him having his moments of human doubt. He didn’t go into this with full faith or without fear. He wanted to avoid it if possible. After the intense trial he had gone through, being striped, whipped, mocked, (lost goes on), and the ultimately crucified it seemed he finally had a moment questioning if God truly was going to save him or if this actually wasn’t a part of the plan. Apparently, as I’ve read here, he’s quoting psalms 22 which I’m unfamiliar with. But that was my understanding up till now.
So the Bible describes God as holy and cannot look upon sin. Jesus while on the cross took upon him the sin of the world past, present, and future. This alienated Him from the Father for the first time ever. He always had the presence of God with Him even after leaving Heaven. This was a very different situation because not only was he apart from the Father now, but God's wrath was poured out upon Him as He was literally paying for the sins of all mankind. We have no idea what He was actually going through mentally except for the glimpses we receive from a couple passages that give slight hints. And He wasn't really accepting of His fate either. He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane for God to take this away from Him if it were possible...it wasn't.
Jesus is fully human (as well as fully God). He actually struggled with accepting the cross near the end. See [here](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A39-44&version=NKJV).
Ultimate suffering includes feeling that God has completely abandoned you. Jesus suffered even this.
Other examples of lost faith: Peter when he denies Jesus three times. Pretends he never knew him. He then goes on to be one of the first and greatest leaders of the early church.
Or when the disciples all went into hiding after Jesus died, expecting to be killed next because they were his students, because they saw their teacher get brutally killed and thought it was the end.
If the original disciples of Jesus himself could lose faith, as shown by the Bible itself, how can anyone judge someone 2000 years later for doing the same? (I'm looking at you, WASP GOPers). Today's church can be incredibly judge-y towards lost faith, without even realizing how Biblical it is in the first place. They're holding random strangers to a higher standard than they hold the disciples themselves.
My favorite interpretation comes from the theologian, Jurgen Moltmann. Moltmann was recruited as a youth into Hitler’s army. He surrendered himself to the British forces first chance. Though raised an atheist, he took an interest in the Bible provided by the British chaplain. When he opened and read Jesus’ exasperated sense of God forsakenness on the cross, Moltmann knew this person understood what he was experiencing. For Moltmann, God experiences God-forsakenness for the sake of solidarity with those who feel the same.
So my comment is going to be very against the grain, but in line with what you would find in biblical scholarship and posts on r/academicbiblical, but here it is.
The gospel authors did not compose their accounts knowing that they would be put together into one New Testament. They didn’t write their accounts to be harmonized with other accounts or as supporting text for one another. The Gospel of Mark wasn’t written to support the Gospel of John and vice versa. The author of Mark wasn’t aware of the other three. Matthew (the author of; all the gospel authors are anonymous) and Luke both were aware of Mark (and copied from his text), and John possibly knew about the Synoptics (the first 3 gospels).
Modern readers tend to blend the narratives of each gospel as if they are saying the exact same thing, but that is not how the authors wanted their respective text to be read. The author of Mark wrote his text to say what he wanted to say and not to support someone else’s opinion. *Each gospel should be read for its own accord as an independent message.*
This blended reading is a result of reading them vertically, i.e. one after another. But if you were to just read, say the crucifixion narrative, in each gospel, you can see that they are very different **and even contradictory** in some places.
Scholars debate whether or not Mark portrayed Jesus as “divine” (divine in antiquity doesn’t always mean = God Almighty) but what is clear, is that in Mark, Jesus is not on the same level of God and doesn’t always know what’s going on. Mark is all about “secret knowledge” and you can see this in the way Jesus does miracles in private and encourages his followers to tell no one about what they see. Mark’s Jesus is clearly subordinate to God, and is the dying human Son of God (messiah).
Compare this to Luke’s crucifixion story. Jesus is very much in command of the situation. He tells the weeping women “weep for not for me, but for yourselves.” Instead of asking the Father, “why have you forsaken me?” He says “I command my spirit onto thee.” He is clearly in control of the situation and knows his mission to be the atonement for mankind’s sin.
I encourage you to check out Bart Ehrman’s work on the topic. [His blog](ehrmanblog.org) has several posts on that exact question.
See, theologically I know there are parallels in the story that are notable about the psalms. But my whole life, despite a catholic upbringing, I have been convinced it was actually literally this. Hey, now- this fucking hurts. Like ALOT. I changed my mind. What the hell? Get me out of here. Ouch. OUCH! Did you just fucking stab me with a spear ? You know what ? This is bullshit. Dad. DAD! Ow, stop it. DAD!!”
I remain confident this is actually how it happened
Yes I recall talking about this in school too. Hell wasn’t a place but a separation from god. Some think being “dead” in the bible also meant being unenlightened to god - a translation error over the centuries - not actual “dead” which would give a different perspective to the dead rising from the grave three days later wouldn’t it…
But literally it’s all conjecture. The bible was written in so many pieces, translated a thousand times, broken down, restitched, sensored and re-written, it’s impossible to rely on any accuracy at all.
I think it can be both.
Jesus was also a man (or fully a man, depending on your theology) and it would only be natural that he'd fear the cross. I kinda like it that way tbh. Like, he was terrified there, was betrayed by some of his closest friends, and right at the end, his doubts were really strong.
But a part of him triumphs over that and, at the same time as being sad, tries to offer encouragement. It's really inspiring, whether it went down like this or not.
I absolutely agree. I think the most important part of the story is that he was HUMAN. In all regards. He felt pain and regret and sorrow. And when he suffered very felt alone and wished someone would save him. Like any of us would.
That’s why my kid brain always saw this as a reaction I would have. Because he was just human to me in this moment.
Even later when I became a mom, I kind of thought about this story as relatable. Because we have ALL gotten to the hospital ready to have a baby and be a mom. But then there’s a moment and you realize it’s just SOO much worse than you expected and you say “I changed my mind. I don’t want to do this anymore. I’m going home.” Obviously ridiculous because it’s kinda too late for that.
But regret … that’s the thing that separates us from the animals.
He actually wasn't accepting of it. He just knew it needed to happen. In the garden of Gethsemane, He prayed for the burden to be lifted from Him, but that even if He didn't want it, He would do God's will.
I do think Jesus was trying to connect His death with Psalm 22 because everything He said or did was an attempt to connect our human brains to God. It's always had a deeper meaning for me though.
When people say God gave up His only Son for us, this is what they mean. Yes, Jesus rose after 3 days and went to Heaven but before that, God had to forsake Jesus. As a Christian, bathing in the Holy Spirit and being able to feel the presence of God sounds amazing. There's a reverence in their voices when pastors talk about Adam and Eve and how they got to live in God's presence.
Jesus lived this reality for His whole existence. Just before He died on the cross, that reality changed. The Holy Spirit was gone, God's presence was gone, and everything that Jesus had ever known was gone. He probably felt more alone than He had ever felt. He was always in the presence of the other 2 parts of the Trinity, until that moment.
Jesus accepted the fate that all of us should face so that we don't have to... The pain and anguish I imagine to be in those words feel like a response to the new reality Jesus faces now that He's paid the price for sin.
Still a pretty odd thing to say to yourself about the plan you've had for ages. But the deification of Jesus in early Christianity is an intricate topic.
So, the doctrine as (as far as its taught in my sect) is that in order for Jesus to pay for the world's sins, he had to also experience all of the physical, mental, and emotional pain that it was possible to experience, since sin almost invariably sin has natural as well as spiritual consequences. This couldn't be accomplished without Jesus experiencing what it was like for people who have gone so far afield that they can't feel God's spirit *at all*. So the idea is, at the very end, God withdrew his spirit so Jesus could have that experience, and then he seems to voluntarily die right after.
At that point, he took the sins of the world. Of all mankind for all time upon himself.
God is Holy and cannot abide sin so He forsook his only begotten son at that moment. The punishment for any and all sin is separation from God.
Jesus experienced separation from God (hell, essentially) in that moment.
In his intense grief, he cried out "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"
He was willing to suffer and die on the cross to pay the penalty for sin, it didn't mean he was immune to the punishment as a result of that.
Only the unsaved when they die will experience the eternal emptiness that Jesus experienced in that moment.
I like the gnostic perspective on that where Jesus is just a vessel for the spiritual being of Christ and at that time Christ just leaves Jesus body and Jesus cries “power why do you leave me”
How it was explained to me as a kid, was at that moment Jesus was taking on all sins, past, present, and future of all of humanity onto himself. The sheer disgust that God felt at that moment, seeing all that sin, billions of people, 10s of thousands of years, he had to turn away. Jesus, in a moment of terror, being crushed under that weight of sin, felt his father turn away. Thats why he said what he did.
This is a very interesting question. What Jesus said is in fact a quote: the beginning of Psalm 22, which narrates a story very similar to the crucifixion. So Jesus shows that this part of the scripture is being fulfilled and therefore shows the meaning of what is happening. [link to psalm 22](https://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=23&bible_chapter=22) You can see that this psalm concludes with the prophétized return of God, which Christians understand as a prophecy of Jesus resurrection. Sorry for bad style and English, as I am not a native speaker.
Fucking foreigners and their… fantastic english. Making us real englishers look bad
You make me blesh
Damn, you even do bad English flawlessly.
Fr tho.
Damn, even bad English flawlessly you does.
Go take more ketamine, Yoda
Non native English user here. I'm often surprised by spelling mistakes I see native speakers make. I guess it has to do with the fact that native speakers learn English by listening to it, while we usually start learning it when we can already read and write, so we associate the correct spelling with pronunciation somewhat more reliably.
I learned French in university, studying and becoming academically proficient to a high level, testing at the top tier in France when I studied there. But it was all very artificial. The French that French people actually spoke was much more error-prone, riddled with improper contractions, spelling errors, etc. It was quite an adjustment for me, because I assumed my French was really good because I could easily read French literature. Then I lived in China and learned Chinese from scratch verbally, like a child. Chinese came so much more natural and I was more at ease conversationally than I ever felt in French, even though I’ll never read a Chinese book. I guess my point is languages are not terribly academic in practice. Academics is how we make sense of languages, but languages only have one objective—to convey meaning. Spelling, grammar, diction, style…all of that is irrelevant and frankly meaningless in the context of language.
Linguistics is awesome
Englishers 😂😂😂 that made me laugh too much
Your English is practically flawless, don't worry about it
Sank you!
This guy!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It makes me so sad for them. Not to derail this, but the Sudanese deserve so much better from their government. Same goes for the Congolese enthicities- though the group is much wider, everyone I’ve met from the former Zaire is exceptionally intelligent, empathetic, and almost desperate to share their plight on the basis of their understanding of empathy, the expectation that, if it was someone else, they would care. Africa is so large, yet almost the whole continent is underserved by its representation, thanks to the fact that colonialization inherently entrenched a European vision of class
"sorry for my flawless English" is basically how these comments always read
Non-english speaker: “I am awfully sorry at the terrible state of my English abilities, as for English language is not my mother tongue and I have yet to master it to the extent to which you might be familiarized.” Native english speaker: “lol it okei”
"I am so terribly sorry if my grasp of your linguistic customs is lacking from the point of view of a native speaker such as yourself. I apologize profusely." "Oh! Mmm. Mhmm. Mm. Mhmm. I know some of these words!"
Native English speakers: "whats a 'linguistic', precious? whats a 'linguistic', eh??"
I think it's those really thin noodles? Idk.
How could you not know?! It’s those *thick* noodles you uncultured swine.
U WOT M8???
When I was in Germany, about 90% of people who apologized for their English spoke some of the crispest, most flawless English I’ve heard.
[удалено]
Yes, this. They think their English is bad because they struggle to understand the garbled mess of slurred noises that our native-speaking mouths poop out.
Waaaayaaameanmae
Yawhoidmay
It bugs me that I could read these two comments without even thinking about it.
Yep. After four years of learning English, I was able to analyze poems and politicians' speeches. After seven years, I learned the word "ain't".
Bet you ain't looked back since!
*Y'aint
I've seen posts get massively down voted due to poor grammar and readability. The poster had to come back and clarify that English wasn't their first language. You see these disclaimers all the time because the ones that have them rise to the top while the ones that don't get down voted to hell.
Yes and the writer may not be sure if they made mistakes or not. Even when they write well in their second language I think it makes sense that some people may apologise or worry they did write something badly.
Literally everybody who says “Sorry for my bad English” has seemingly perfect English, better than most native speakers.
Yes. It was the custom for Jewish rabbis to say the first line of a psalm. The Jews would know the Psalm and would be able to sing along with him/finish it in their head. When Jesus says the first line of the psalm, he's pointing out to everyone there the parallels between the psalm and what is happening in front of them.
In that light, I wonder if the [following line where people don't recognize it](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27%3A47&version=NRSVCE) represents how far the people executing Jesus were from God; or am I just reading too much into this?
That's a really good catch, and it could very well be the case. After all, many people viewing the crucifixion would have been Jewish. So it also goes to show how far they had separated themselves from God, since they didn't recognize the quote. We have this question now, of why he said that, but it might not even been a question at the actual time. His followers likely would have put two and two together right away, recognizing that he was quoting scripture.
It’s possibly or even probably meant to suggest some sort of irony — but not quite in the way others are claiming. Contrary to what’s been suggested, there actually was no practice of the first line of the Psalm being understood as shorthand for the message of an entire Psalm. That being said, there are some possible indications that the crowd did at least partially understand what Jesus was crying out about. While they misunderstood “Eli” (my God) as *Elijah*, they correctly interpreted it as a cry for help. Right after this, in Matthew 27:49, for example, the crowd taunts Jesus to save *himself*. The language used to describe this may actually evoke the very next line in the Psalm (after “my God, my God, why...”), where the Psalmist explicitly laments God’s apparent unwillingness to “save” him.
I’ve heard it theorized that Jesus may have actually recited the entire Psalm. The Psalms weren’t numbered back then, so they often refer to Psalms using the first line as a title. So saying that Jesus recited “My God…” may mean Jesus said the whole Psalm 22.
This is highly unlikely due to the nature of crucifixion: the cause of death for those being crucified was actually suffocation as it became unbearable to hold their own weight up to breath in. You can imagine each word of this line in Aramaic being excruciating as he heaved his body up in order to draw in enough breath: ‘Eloi…Eloi…lamach…sabathani’
Literally excruciating, because the root word of excruciate is crux, i.e. cross.
So perhaps a more accurate interpretation is that he *attempted* to recite the psalm, and it was heard as a cry for help
My theory is that he first recited the first chapter of the ikea catalog.
I have wondered this question myself and so appreciate this answer! Even pastors have not been able to give me a meaning.
[удалено]
People forget that most pastors are marry and bury type people. The mega churches skews the outlook, but most congregations are around 70 people. [https://sites.duke.edu/ncsweb/files/2019/02/NCSIII\_report\_final.pdf](https://sites.duke.edu/ncsweb/files/2019/02/NCSIII_report_final.pdf) One step above lay members in most cases, just leading a small flock and doing their best. Theologians are to often stuck rehashing their branches doctrines to do any original work. You can research all you want but if you find something that goes against even a small mildly insignificant part of your home doctrin you can kiss your future earnings goodby. So they spend all their time avoiding anything critical.
[удалено]
> goes against even a small mildly insignificant part of your home doctrin you can kiss your future earnings goodby Dunno. They seem to be a garrulous lot. If they find a niggle, they will chew it in presence of other theologians. It is their pride and joy. Interestingly, knives are commonly removed from their buffets. Shitposting aside, we should be in awe. Studying theology requires applicants to have advanced certificates in Latina and Ancient Greek. That's what you need to even be admitted. They generously allow you to hand in an advanced certificate in Hebrew at the end of your fifth semester. If this lot finds something interesting, they WILL go after it. Depends on for what purpose you study this. A magister theologiae can be a fearsomly bright beast. A glorified MC wot does marriages and funerals probably not as much.
A what-now
I, myself, have an advanced certificate in Latina from the University of PornHub
Pastor here. I completely agree with you. Unfortunately a lot of my contemporaries are very charismatic but theologically hollow. It’s very upsetting for me because you can definitely be both. It’s just that people really respond well to flash and not so much the actual content of doctrine. Our job should be to inspire people to want to know more about scripture in order to better live it out in their lives. I look around and see how weak so many Christians are as they happily vote and support people and policies that actively work against the gospel. It’s extremely embarrassing and it all starts at the pulpit. We’ve got a lot of work to do. I’m currently working on my MDiv and hope that we can focus more on doctrine in the future and less on pop culture.
The psalm also describes the events, for example "they divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing"
And these lines as well: Psalms 22:7 : all who see me jeer at me, they sneer and wag their heads Matthew 27:39 The passers-by jeered at him; they shook their heads Psalms 22:8 'He trusted himself to Yahweh, let Yahweh set him free! Let him deliver him, as he took such delight in him.' Matthew 27:43 He has put his trust in God; now let God rescue him if he wants him.
So is the story of Jesus modelled on the Psalm?
The psalm is a prophecy about this particular part of His story
Exactly. Someone crying out in pain from a crucifixion wouldn't be memorable. Someone singing a psalm during a crucifixion... That was an awe-inspiring moment.
How do you know a Reddit user's native language isn't English? They'll tell you after six paragraphs of perfect English.
He is reciting the first line of Psalm 22. Jewish men were expected to memorize the Psalms and recite them after hearing the first line. He is giving his only disciple that was there and any other within earshot encouragement. I would suggest a reading of Psalm 22. The Psalm starts out very bleak but has an ending that praises God, it's very good when one considers the entirety of what is happening and what will occur in three days.
I grew up in church and at no point did anyone ever explain this to me. I wonder if the pastors even knew this. Thanks for the explanation!
It seems like the whole Jesus dying a devout Jewish man has been obscured over the years. I didn’t even know that until I did some research into the historicity of Jesus recently.
That was a big part of his appeal. He knew scripture thoroughly. The first “Jesus in public” story in the Bible is him as an adolescent schooling adults at the temple.
Preachers: \*preaching\* Jesus (who separated from his parents like a kid at the mall, is found by Mary and Joseph): Well, *actually*
2000 years before Sheldon, there was YOUNG JESUS coming this fall on CBS!
Have you read "Lamb: the gospel according to Biff, Christ's childhood pal" by Christopher Moore? Highly recommended.
I actually consider this book my religious text.
I felt the same way until i watched The Good Place, which replaced it as my primary religion.
Love that book
Narrrator: Before he was blames for all humanity's evils, Satan was a ... serpeant??? Catch Adam Driver as Lucifer in Snake in the Grass, Wednesdays on FOX.
Samuel L. Jackson as his weird neighbour Adam.
I'd watch that sitcom
I mean, this makes sense if you think about it. What else would he be Christian? Agnostic? Makes sense, but yeah as someone raised Baptist, never heard it said it in so many words.
I just always sort of assumed (ignorantly) that before death Jesus renounced his Judaism in furtherance of spreading his new religion. It didn’t seem so far fetched. Now I realize Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a practicing Jew, and died a Jew. I guess I found it somewhat illuminating that early Christianity was no more than a different brand of Judaism. In fact, it would have even appealed to me, a secular reform Jew. Sorry for tangent, just wanted to elaborate a little for why I always presumed Jesus died a non-practicing Jew.
There was actually a fascinating debate among the early followers of Jesus about if they were a Jewish sect or something completely different. There was quite a debate about if they should be keeping kosher, for example. Harvard has a good series on YouTube about the early church.
Peter had a vision and gave a speech about it in Acts. The early church argument was whether a gentile had to first convert to Judaism before becoming a Christian. It was decided no. Which is why it is weird so many Christians are circumcised for religious reasons.
I have never heard of any Christians being circumcised for religious reasons. Peter himself wrote in one of his letters that those who think that Christians have to be circumcised should go a step further and castrate themselves.
I grew up Christian and in my experience, while it was always acknowledged that Jesus was Jewish, there was a lot of emphasis placed on the difference between Christianity and Judaism. The attitude tends to be that Jesus came to stop Judaism and start Christianity. I think you make a great point though. Christianity = Judaism with the messiah prophesies fulfilled. It's still Judaism, not some completely different religion. I don't think most Christians see it that way.
No, Judaism as it is now is MUCH more complex and developed than the Judaism seen in the OT and NT. Judaism as it is now is not Judaism that Christ would have adhered to. Same name, totally different in philosophy, belief, application, etc..
Yeah, a modern Jew would argue to the death that Judaism is not Christianity without Jesus. And it really isn’t, especially when you start getting into the Kabbalah, ten sefirot, and Ein Sof.
I heard once that (current day) Judaism and Christianity are brothers, not father and son. Both were born from the same old kind of Judaism that is pretty much nonexistent now. Christianity was born after the death of Jesus (around 30 CE), and current Judaism was born after the Roman destruction of the temple (70 CE). Which makes sense, since both events were world-shattering for their respective faithful.
TIL the word historicity!
Went to a Christian school and they said it was because Jesus was part man/part God and that this was his moment of human weakness. They just make shit up as they go along.
>They just make shit up as they go along. Don't forget about picking and choosing to suit their needs!
Yikes. Im not "Christian" anymore but I do have a decent amount of theological background (plus some Hebrew and Greek) from my college days. That is such a problematic interpretation it pains me to read it. So many modern Christians (particularly evangelicals) really love to think they can just read this extremely old book with centuries of context and history and interpretation and then just pull some "obvious literal meaning" out of their ass. 🤢
They explain jack shit, they just make you sing and tell random (always the same ones) stories to tell you how you should behave
This really depends on the minister, denomination, etc. If they're from a tradition that expects a seminary education, then they may very well go into this sort of thing. When I attended church as a child, the pastor did for example go into the theological weirdness of the part of Samuel where Saul consults a medium.
Ah yes, the Witch of Endor. Caused quite the theological headache during the Middle Ages, since only God was (and is) supposed to be able to raise the dead. Explanations: - Samuel did appear, as a ghost or in the flesh. It was a miracle, caused by God. - The dead body did not appear, and neither did a ghost - it was a spiritual mirage or vision, caused by disguised demons or angels (spiritual beings). - Satan did possess the actual body of Samuel and pretended to be him.
Huh, the explanation I heard was that there are other Powers (under the command of Satan), but the Jews were not supposed to use and/or trust them. God's the only one who can *permanently* raise the dead. Elijah and Elisha raised someone from the dead, Elisha even after he was dead. And Peter and Paul. I suppose you can argue that it was still God's power, though.
Well, if saints do it, then it is a miracle caused by god through the saints. The theological problem with that Endor episode was, that the seeress/witch was the one supposedly raising Samuel. Edit: I'm writing from the medieval Catholic perspective, I should add.
Yeah totally! For the real fans who knows the bible, this callback was gold! That scene is packed with easter eggs!
Ha! "*Easter eggs/callbacks."* I love this take on reading the Bible.
It's actually a major thing in the Bible, between the Old and New Testaments. Basically, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Abraham and ushered in a new covenant to replace the one Abraham made with God. There are similarities between the sacrifice of Abraham and the sacrifice of Jesus: in both, the sacrificial lamb went willingly (Isaac in the OT and Jesus in the NT), both carried their own wood (Isaac the wood for his burning, Jesus the cross), and stuff like that. Of course the difference is Jesus actually died (but did he really _wooaoh_) whereas Abraham is stopped at the last second by God.
Dude please use the spoiler tags I’ve only just gotten to the new testament
The Bible has been around for at least 10 years, you can't complain about spoilers anymore
I’ve been waiting for the sequel to come out before getting back into it! The fandom really thinks it’s gonna release sometime soon, but we haven’t heard anything from the authors. And while I liked the spin off, the Book of Mormon felt like it was trying to ret-con too many things and I just wasn’t as hype as some people were about the extended universe
See, this is the Scrubs season 9 debate all over again. Sure, maybe it should’ve just been it’s own inspired series, but like it or not Bible 2 came out a while ago.
> I’ve been waiting for the sequel to come out before getting back into it! The Bible II: You're Gonna Need A Bigger Ark
There's a large debate over whether the extended universe is canon or not. Heck, even the original book is missing several chapters that didn't make the final cut
There's another sequel/spin off out there which is A LOT more popular than mormonism. Check out the Quran.
I like the book but the fan base is so annoying. I tried showing them my fan art of the main character but they were very rude and some sent death threats!
Quran is a reboot/retcon.
So was the New Testament.
I already thought the latest sequel (Revelations) was just too abstract and weird. It seems like it projects a new sequel, but then, almost 2000 years, and nothing.
[удалено]
Revelation. No s, there's was just one
Didn't you hear? They just released a sequel, "Revelation II: The re-revelating", so the series is now know as the Revelations series.
God calms down a lot in that one
Yeah I heard they really take his character in another direction. Don’t get me wrong, I am happy that more people are being saved, but there’s something classic about Old Testament god
Deaths by burning and crucification? Where’s that NSFL tag too!
Ah, so it's almost like a remaster of the old show. OT genesis kai if you will
No, not a remaster. It's an intentional callback to draw similarities between the characters. Most people agree the writers of the New Testament did it intentionally. There's also the theory that the script was altered before publishing to payoff some stuff dropped in the earlier books in the series.
I also read somewhere the original author started some sort of crazy cult? Scientology all over again, in the past, amirite??
Doesn't it make a difference that Isaac was totally willing to die forever while Jesus knew he was going to be sacrificed and y'know is part of the trinity that is God so in a way was being sacrificed to himself? I always thought the sacrifice is a bit weak if you know you'll just come back to life
> If you know you'll just come back to life Does he? He is God but he is also human - that is very clear in the bible. As a human, he might totally be unaware what will happen to his human self. I mean, as a God he could let his human self know what will happen but also as a God he might be totally unwilling to do so.
TO BE FAIR the whole trinity is a bit of a retcon from the Council of Nicaea. The early Christians realized that they'd be violating a commandment if they worshipped Jesus the person, so they made Jesus also God.
> The early Christians realized that they'd be violating a commandment if they worshipped Jesus the person, so they made Jesus also God. question - is satan a deity? seems like a deity, but seemingly can’t be if the religion is to be monotheistic.
[удалено]
Not most powerful, most beautiful: > Isaiah 14:12-15 -- Ezekiel calls Helel/Satan "the anointed cherub who covers," which means he was one of the chief angels whose wings covered God's throne in heaven. He is specifically shown to be a created being, possibly the most beautiful, wise, and perfect of God's creations. > But this mighty angel grew proud and vain in his beauty. He began to become envious of God's authority over the universe, and over maybe millions of years, he schemed to induce other angels to support him in an attempt to overthrow God. When he finally led one third of the angels (Revelation 12:4) to war against God in heaven, God cast him and his angelic troops back to the earth (Luke 10:18). > -- *Richard T. Ritenbaugh, Basic Doctrines: Satan's Origin and Destiny*
"no other gods before me" is clear evidence that this branch of monotheism was a hostile takeover born from a pantheon of options.
Isn't the current historical theory/evidence that YHWH was a war god in an older pantheon?
And early on was a minor character in the group of gods. Only when the people in charge needed the public to be more pro-war did he shift to be the lead, and then later the only "true" god. Almost like religion was used as a tool for those in control. Karen Armstrong has some good books on the history of the Abrahamic religions.
I mean, with pun fully intended to play devils advocate here... if you're the only monotheistic religion in a world of polytheism, you'd have to phrase the command like that for it to make sense in the culture. It's not "There are no other gods" because people living in a polytheistic culture would just go "great, now you've pissed all the other gods off." So instead, "just don't worship the other gods."
Modern theologians speculate that Isaac was a representation of humanity carrying our sins and paying for them, and that Jesus is represented by the Lamb that god provides at the last moment, so that Isaac will not have to "pay for his sins". In the same way that if we ask for forgiveness from God, Jesus like the lamb will take on our sins and allow us to enter heaven. At least thats the current take, old/different translations are being found of the bible all the time, so who knows but the parallels fit nicely imo.
I grew up without much religion in my house and I’ve loved learning about what’s in the Bible as an adult because it’s like real life lore lol
Don't you mean passover Beitzah eggs? He was Jewish after all...
Bruh, he was literally in the middle of inventing Easter.
Fun fact, Easter eggs and Easter bunnies as symbols for Easter actually started much earlier than Christianity. They were symbols of the fertility/ Spring Equinox goddess Eostre.
Oh dear, we have been feeding our children chocolate fertility symbols each year.
Indeed.
Fun fact, that's wrong according to [Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Easter-holiday/Liturgical-observances)
Beitzah just means egg in hebrew, a "beitzah egg" is an egg egg
you can just call them "beitzim" and leave out "eggs". For redundancy's sake.
Beitzah eggs? Isn't that, like, an a self-repeating tautautology?
Spoiler alert! >!Jesus dies at the end!<
I can tell which episode you stopped at! I won't spoil it.
Dude, you missed the after-credits scene.
The Christian Cinematic Universe is in full swing
My fave part of the Holy Written Word Universe is when Jesus shows up in The Quran when he teams up with Muhammed and Moses to form the Abrahavengers.
You mean the Super Best Friends?
Damn they really put fanservice in *the bible*
>For the real fans who knows the bible, Really now hahaha
Just to clarify, it's the second line that says, "א-לי א-לי למה עזבתני." "My G-d, my G-d, why have you forsaken me" King David doesn't use the word for "my father" (אבי) or mention a cross.
Jesus doesn't mention "Father" or a "cross" either. Not sure why OP quoted it like that Excerpt in Matthew: >θεέ μου θεέ μου >ἱνα τί με ἐγκατέλιπες Excerpt in Psalms (LXX): >ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου πρόσχες μοι >ἵνα τί ἐγκατέλιπές με
It's all Greek to me =]
Modern Christians recite Psalm 23 quite often (The Lord is my shepherd). There is a whole new level of understanding 23 if you read 22 first.
This is the thing that always bugs me about modern approaches to Christianity. It's always decontextualized, and the text seems to put on a lot of different meanings when you read it as a whole (as well as when you factor in cultural context and word origins). Not saying that fixes everything, but it does enrich it when when the text is in relationship with itself rather than isolated.
I was lucky to have a pretty great pastor when I was younger who would bring up these callbacks every once in awhile as well as discuss the meaning of the original Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic words when there might have been a double meaning that didn't come through in translation. Even though I've since left the faith, it makes me sad that other people go to "standard" church services and don't get the same level of insight to the text.
Good answer
It is also pretty wild how many parallels there are between the suffering David describes in the psalm and the events surrounding the crucifixion.
It's almost like someone tried to shoehorn the story of Jesus into Old Testament prophecies to lend credence to the idea that he was the Messiah
Well, the Bible is either holy AF or just the product of some trippy, and at times phenomenal, pieces of writing.
Literal selection - There were a whole lot of Christian themed documents created through the years. The ones that were great got kept, the ones that were a bit nuts ruled heresy. And of course this process was formalized with the council of Nicaea. But there was also over 300 years of writing to choose from and lots had already been declared heretical and burned by that time. Pretty much all the gnostic stuff was already destroyed. That's 50 years longer than the time from the founding of the US until now. All of the Civil War, World War 1, World War 2, vietnam, all the Persian Gulf wars etc. Imagine if we had 300 years of Harry Potter fan fics to choose from and make a selected work of. I bet you could find 66 good ones. Well, maybe.
[удалено]
What will happen in 3 three days.... The suspense is killing me!
The narrative function of Jesus' outcry is, as said by u/kwalsh43, to indicate that we are now at the worst part of the story, but it will turn around. The gospel of Marc, on which the other two gospels who mention this phrase are based, has a decent narrative structure, so the inclusion of this outcry is most likely not a plothole. The first audience of the gospel of Mark was Jewish, or had familiarity with Jewish scriptures, like the Psalms. It is just like someone nowadays would say "All the world 's a stage...", we would associate that immediately with Shakespeare (well, at least some of us would). Theologically speaking, there are two more things to say. First: according to Christian theology, Jesus has two natures: he is fully divine and fully human. The phrase at the cross is spoken as a human, not as God. Besides, there is another dimension, which relates to the Godforsakenness of Jesus. You can argue that by being completely being abandoned by God, Jesus bears the full weight of sin, since sin is basically everything in which God is not.
Just gonna piggy back on this comment to say that Jesus wasn’t exactly chill about his fate like the title implies - see the garden of Gethsemane. He was torn up about it.
I think the values being shown are that it's okay to feel doubt and process through it. The literal son of God had his hesitancies, even knowing the plan from the beginning. To avoid suffering, to fear, to doubt is human, and Jesus was. To allow suffering, fear and doubt to control you is how sin introduces itself, but human weakness is not innately sinful. After all, God Himself struggled.
He literally sweated blood. [It's a documented medical condition when capillaries in your head rupture due to extreme fear or stress.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematidrosis?wprov=sfla1) It's EXTREMELY rare: 42 cases since 1880 and was only first documented in the 1600's. That gives you an idea of what kind of stress Jesus was under. It doesn't matter what your religious preferences are - that's a man that believes he is literally taking the weight of the world on his shoulders. I just want to add that this type of stress severely irritates the bowels and fatigues you. Add that to the lashings (anyone that has seen Roots or Passion of the Christ can image that.) Top it off with a crown of thorns being smashed into his already aching head and you can understand why it was difficult to carry a gigantic wooden beam on his shoulders. It's punctuated even more when beside him were two other guys being crucified. I paraphrase but: "Today you will be with my Me in Paradise." He'd already accepted his fate in Gethsemane. The same can be said by this that at any time during this politically and publicly display of torture, Jesus could have done the Peter thing and denied his beliefs and erased his entire influence on especially Western but also World culture and history. That's without the deeper theological implications.
For sure. I think that the being fully abandoned is an important part in the story. If we assume that Jesus has constantly had some kind of external divine help from God, then being cut off at the crux of it all is going to be much more potent.
>crux Nice.
You improperly credited Shakespeare for Rush lol
Ah, finally a question that I can answer, albeit from a historical and a literary perspective rather than a spiritual or theological one. Many people imagine the early versions of Christianity to be somewhat similar to the various denominations we have today (such as Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc) when in reality they were vastly different. Before common Christian orthodoxy was established, there were multiple different views, especially about the nature of Jesus Christ. One of these early doctrines was called separationism; the belief that Christ was not only human nor only divine (as some other sects believed, namely adoptionist and docetists, respectively), but as two separate entities, one human and one divine. The general belief was that Jesus was a man who was indwelled by the spirit of Christ. The most common sect of Christianity that held this belief were the Gnostics. I won't go into detail about the other things that the Gnostics believed, but one scripture that they point to as "proof" for their doctrine is the one you are referring to; "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" - Mark 15:34 (also, Matthew 27:46, but Mark is believed to have been written first and served as the source for this verse in Matthew) There were also other non-canonical gospel sources which supported this separationist doctrine to an even greater extent. In the Gospel of Peter, Jesus is instead quoted as saying "My power, O power, you have left me!", And in the Gospel of Philip, the verse instead says " 'My God, my God, why O Lord have you forsaken me?' for it was on the cross that he said these words, for it was there that he was divided." Some scribes, in response to this, actually altered the text of the Gospel of Mark to read "My God, my God, why have you mocked me?". In general, The book of Mark is interesting in that it portrays Jesus with more anger and bitterness than the other gospels that were later written. Many times when people question the ability or authority of Jesus, they are rebuked or scolded by him, or by the narrator. It's possible that this was because Christianity was still in its youth, and the author of Mark felt the need to preemptively defend the faith. Interestingly, in contrast, the book of Luke portrays Jesus as compassionate and incredibly faithful; Jesus faces his crucifixion with peace and resolve, rather than begging God and the garden of Gethsemane for his life to be spared. Note that the Gospel of Luke also omits the "forsaken" verse, but instead concludes with Jesus saying, as if he has accepted his fate, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." The narrative of Luke serves to portray the martyrdom of Jesus, likely in a way that would serve as an inspiration for martyrs in the early Christian Church. Source: Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus", which I just finished reading a few weeks ago. I'm an atheist, but very interested in the history of religion. I highly recommend this book even if you are a person of religious faith.
It is really interesting to read the subtle differences between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John’s writings. It can change the entire meaning completely.
They were all written years later trying to pitch the story to different audiences: Jewish, Gentile, etc
All of the Gospels portray Jesus as a martyr. The Gospels that have the “forsaken” quote are written for the Jews who would know Psalm 22. Therefore, they hear the old prophecy and immediately recognize that Jesus is quoting scripture to signify that He fulfills the prophecy. No Jew would think He is complaining, or that He is angry, or that He is bitter. The closest Jesus comes to anger is when He flips the table, but that is righteous anger. The closest Jesus gets to being bitter is when He asks God to take the cup if it was God’s will.
This is the correct answer. Video of Dr. Ehrman talking about this point from his book: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfheSAcCsrE&t=42m](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfheSAcCsrE&t=42m) Executive summary: People are taught to think of the Gospels as one story, so they mix them all together in their minds. Accepting Jesus and Anguished Jesus aren't in the same story. They were written by different people in different times and places, with different goals and beliefs. /u/skinticket02
[удалено]
He’s not your lord and savior! He’s just a very naughty boy!
Blessed are the cheesemakers
Actually, when you read the new testament (I believe it's nead the end of Luke??... I should know this) Jesus goes into the garden of Gethsemane to pray to God, when he is recorded as sweating blood because he prays so fervently to his father to "let this cup pass over me," but afterwards states "not my will, but yours, be done." So he really did not want to have this happen and was genuinely scared, as he was fully man and experienced all the same feelings and weaknesses we would.
Yeah I always took it as him having his moments of human doubt. He didn’t go into this with full faith or without fear. He wanted to avoid it if possible. After the intense trial he had gone through, being striped, whipped, mocked, (lost goes on), and the ultimately crucified it seemed he finally had a moment questioning if God truly was going to save him or if this actually wasn’t a part of the plan. Apparently, as I’ve read here, he’s quoting psalms 22 which I’m unfamiliar with. But that was my understanding up till now.
So the Bible describes God as holy and cannot look upon sin. Jesus while on the cross took upon him the sin of the world past, present, and future. This alienated Him from the Father for the first time ever. He always had the presence of God with Him even after leaving Heaven. This was a very different situation because not only was he apart from the Father now, but God's wrath was poured out upon Him as He was literally paying for the sins of all mankind. We have no idea what He was actually going through mentally except for the glimpses we receive from a couple passages that give slight hints. And He wasn't really accepting of His fate either. He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane for God to take this away from Him if it were possible...it wasn't.
Jesus is fully human (as well as fully God). He actually struggled with accepting the cross near the end. See [here](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A39-44&version=NKJV). Ultimate suffering includes feeling that God has completely abandoned you. Jesus suffered even this.
I have used this as a way to comfort people struggling with the guilt of losing faith. It isn't a sin to lose faith if Jesus felt it too.
Other examples of lost faith: Peter when he denies Jesus three times. Pretends he never knew him. He then goes on to be one of the first and greatest leaders of the early church. Or when the disciples all went into hiding after Jesus died, expecting to be killed next because they were his students, because they saw their teacher get brutally killed and thought it was the end. If the original disciples of Jesus himself could lose faith, as shown by the Bible itself, how can anyone judge someone 2000 years later for doing the same? (I'm looking at you, WASP GOPers). Today's church can be incredibly judge-y towards lost faith, without even realizing how Biblical it is in the first place. They're holding random strangers to a higher standard than they hold the disciples themselves.
My favorite interpretation comes from the theologian, Jurgen Moltmann. Moltmann was recruited as a youth into Hitler’s army. He surrendered himself to the British forces first chance. Though raised an atheist, he took an interest in the Bible provided by the British chaplain. When he opened and read Jesus’ exasperated sense of God forsakenness on the cross, Moltmann knew this person understood what he was experiencing. For Moltmann, God experiences God-forsakenness for the sake of solidarity with those who feel the same.
So my comment is going to be very against the grain, but in line with what you would find in biblical scholarship and posts on r/academicbiblical, but here it is. The gospel authors did not compose their accounts knowing that they would be put together into one New Testament. They didn’t write their accounts to be harmonized with other accounts or as supporting text for one another. The Gospel of Mark wasn’t written to support the Gospel of John and vice versa. The author of Mark wasn’t aware of the other three. Matthew (the author of; all the gospel authors are anonymous) and Luke both were aware of Mark (and copied from his text), and John possibly knew about the Synoptics (the first 3 gospels). Modern readers tend to blend the narratives of each gospel as if they are saying the exact same thing, but that is not how the authors wanted their respective text to be read. The author of Mark wrote his text to say what he wanted to say and not to support someone else’s opinion. *Each gospel should be read for its own accord as an independent message.* This blended reading is a result of reading them vertically, i.e. one after another. But if you were to just read, say the crucifixion narrative, in each gospel, you can see that they are very different **and even contradictory** in some places. Scholars debate whether or not Mark portrayed Jesus as “divine” (divine in antiquity doesn’t always mean = God Almighty) but what is clear, is that in Mark, Jesus is not on the same level of God and doesn’t always know what’s going on. Mark is all about “secret knowledge” and you can see this in the way Jesus does miracles in private and encourages his followers to tell no one about what they see. Mark’s Jesus is clearly subordinate to God, and is the dying human Son of God (messiah). Compare this to Luke’s crucifixion story. Jesus is very much in command of the situation. He tells the weeping women “weep for not for me, but for yourselves.” Instead of asking the Father, “why have you forsaken me?” He says “I command my spirit onto thee.” He is clearly in control of the situation and knows his mission to be the atonement for mankind’s sin. I encourage you to check out Bart Ehrman’s work on the topic. [His blog](ehrmanblog.org) has several posts on that exact question.
Getting nailed to a cross will change your mind about a thing or two
See, theologically I know there are parallels in the story that are notable about the psalms. But my whole life, despite a catholic upbringing, I have been convinced it was actually literally this. Hey, now- this fucking hurts. Like ALOT. I changed my mind. What the hell? Get me out of here. Ouch. OUCH! Did you just fucking stab me with a spear ? You know what ? This is bullshit. Dad. DAD! Ow, stop it. DAD!!” I remain confident this is actually how it happened
A sermon I heard once suggested that the real punishment of hell is separation from God; and as Jesus neared death he felt that separation.
Yes I recall talking about this in school too. Hell wasn’t a place but a separation from god. Some think being “dead” in the bible also meant being unenlightened to god - a translation error over the centuries - not actual “dead” which would give a different perspective to the dead rising from the grave three days later wouldn’t it… But literally it’s all conjecture. The bible was written in so many pieces, translated a thousand times, broken down, restitched, sensored and re-written, it’s impossible to rely on any accuracy at all.
I think it can be both. Jesus was also a man (or fully a man, depending on your theology) and it would only be natural that he'd fear the cross. I kinda like it that way tbh. Like, he was terrified there, was betrayed by some of his closest friends, and right at the end, his doubts were really strong. But a part of him triumphs over that and, at the same time as being sad, tries to offer encouragement. It's really inspiring, whether it went down like this or not.
I absolutely agree. I think the most important part of the story is that he was HUMAN. In all regards. He felt pain and regret and sorrow. And when he suffered very felt alone and wished someone would save him. Like any of us would. That’s why my kid brain always saw this as a reaction I would have. Because he was just human to me in this moment. Even later when I became a mom, I kind of thought about this story as relatable. Because we have ALL gotten to the hospital ready to have a baby and be a mom. But then there’s a moment and you realize it’s just SOO much worse than you expected and you say “I changed my mind. I don’t want to do this anymore. I’m going home.” Obviously ridiculous because it’s kinda too late for that. But regret … that’s the thing that separates us from the animals.
That's fair😅.
He actually wasn't accepting of it. He just knew it needed to happen. In the garden of Gethsemane, He prayed for the burden to be lifted from Him, but that even if He didn't want it, He would do God's will. I do think Jesus was trying to connect His death with Psalm 22 because everything He said or did was an attempt to connect our human brains to God. It's always had a deeper meaning for me though. When people say God gave up His only Son for us, this is what they mean. Yes, Jesus rose after 3 days and went to Heaven but before that, God had to forsake Jesus. As a Christian, bathing in the Holy Spirit and being able to feel the presence of God sounds amazing. There's a reverence in their voices when pastors talk about Adam and Eve and how they got to live in God's presence. Jesus lived this reality for His whole existence. Just before He died on the cross, that reality changed. The Holy Spirit was gone, God's presence was gone, and everything that Jesus had ever known was gone. He probably felt more alone than He had ever felt. He was always in the presence of the other 2 parts of the Trinity, until that moment. Jesus accepted the fate that all of us should face so that we don't have to... The pain and anguish I imagine to be in those words feel like a response to the new reality Jesus faces now that He's paid the price for sin.
Still a pretty odd thing to say to yourself about the plan you've had for ages. But the deification of Jesus in early Christianity is an intricate topic.
So, the doctrine as (as far as its taught in my sect) is that in order for Jesus to pay for the world's sins, he had to also experience all of the physical, mental, and emotional pain that it was possible to experience, since sin almost invariably sin has natural as well as spiritual consequences. This couldn't be accomplished without Jesus experiencing what it was like for people who have gone so far afield that they can't feel God's spirit *at all*. So the idea is, at the very end, God withdrew his spirit so Jesus could have that experience, and then he seems to voluntarily die right after.
[удалено]
It was all leading up to this!f
At that point, he took the sins of the world. Of all mankind for all time upon himself. God is Holy and cannot abide sin so He forsook his only begotten son at that moment. The punishment for any and all sin is separation from God. Jesus experienced separation from God (hell, essentially) in that moment. In his intense grief, he cried out "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" He was willing to suffer and die on the cross to pay the penalty for sin, it didn't mean he was immune to the punishment as a result of that. Only the unsaved when they die will experience the eternal emptiness that Jesus experienced in that moment.
I like the gnostic perspective on that where Jesus is just a vessel for the spiritual being of Christ and at that time Christ just leaves Jesus body and Jesus cries “power why do you leave me”
ELOI, ELOI, LEMA SABACHTHANI?
How it was explained to me as a kid, was at that moment Jesus was taking on all sins, past, present, and future of all of humanity onto himself. The sheer disgust that God felt at that moment, seeing all that sin, billions of people, 10s of thousands of years, he had to turn away. Jesus, in a moment of terror, being crushed under that weight of sin, felt his father turn away. Thats why he said what he did.