For the Christians, what are the last words of Jesus (as)?

[Keltoi]

^ Now now lets not start losing our temper here pls.

No lost temper here....

 

[جوري]

No, I have responded to the article. If I wish to seriously debate a religious topic I will wait for someone with a little more maturity and intellectual honesty.

You have NOT responded to the article or even what Dr. Mchphearson wrote with anything of substance or logic or even systematic.. and I expected as much, when things get heated, Christians bolt and that is only after insinuating themselves where they were not addressed to begin with and in the very form of projection they criminate others with!

cheers

 

[Keltoi]

Okay, Dr. Mcpherson....

actually Christianity is but a revival of paganism nothing Abrahamic about it

from Brother Mcpherson, who no longer participates because he is sick of all the bull

The Greeks and Romans converted to Christianity because it resembled their previous beliefs!

Paul produced a religion which encompassed different contradictory elements. He took the Unitarianism of the Jews and added to it the philosophy of the pagans”.

Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (pbuh), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”.

I was unaware of the claim that the Devil plagiarized Christianity in advance of Jesus’ life. Of course, they don’t see that the Devil (Shaytan) is not All-Knowing but rather only Allah knows the future.

The early Christians were painfully aware of such criticisms. How could Pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus? Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that the true Son of God was literally to come and walk the Earth, the Devil had copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the myths of Osiris-Dionysus.

The article illustrates just how pagan the Christian religion really is and that despite their good intentions they may be the biggest losers on that Day. And Allah knows best. This brings to mind a quote that Jesus supposedly made in Matthew 7:21-28 Not every one that says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you: depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’ Therefore everyone who that hears these words of mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain fell, and floods came, and the winds blew, and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of mine, and does not act on them not, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and slammed against that house; and it fell - and great was its fall.

It seems to me that the Christians build their elaborate house of religion on sinking sand (myth) that will come tumbling down on that Great Day. Christians will admit that Jesus’ life and teaching is not what is important to them but rather his death and resurrection are the focus of their worship and the foundation on their religion. If Jesus never died on the cross, as we believe, then their religion is clearly just a myth. Note the quote that I underlined about practicing lawlessness. Paul has repeatedly stated that Christians aren’t under the yoke of the Law, hence no circumcision, no ritual prayer, no fasting, and eating of pork among Christians. It is interesting how their own book condemns the Christians. In contrast don’t we Muslims at least claim to submit our wills to Allah and do as He commands us to do through the example of Prophet Muhammad saaws.

What exactly are you attributing to this Dr. McPherson? If it is the issue of supposed "pagan" influences on Christianity it has been addressed. The mystery cults of Rome were in competition with Christianity. It wasn't a matter of Romans somehow converting to Christianity because of supposed pagan similarities to supposed "past pagan religions." Romans worshipped their pagan gods. They didn't need to convert simply because it was "similar" to their pagan religions. If they wanted pagan religions they had pagan religions.

On the issue of Mithra, the time is all wrong. No monuments to the Mithra cult can be dated earlier than 90-100 A.D., much too late as the New Testament canon had already been established at this time. That is why that Roman mystery cult is thought to have borrowed from Christianity, not the other way around.

As for Paul, there is no evidence he was influenced by anything other than the initial brand of Judaism from which he came. In fact, Paul himself warned the Colossians not to let their minds be captured by alien speculations. (Col. 2:8).

 

[Triumphant]

Argon Gossamer, I'm proud to have you as sister! so intelligent mash'Allah

 

[جوري]

Okay, Dr. Mcpherson....

He isn't here to answer you, I am afraid your own brand of self satisfactory sarcasm falls deaf ears and blind eyes..
The point is and was paganism in Christianity is obvious to the better educated and pragmatic former Christians!

What exactly are you attributing to this Dr. McPherson? If it is the issue of supposed "pagan" influences on Christianity it has been addressed. The mystery cults of Rome were in competition with Christianity. It wasn't a matter of Romans somehow converting to Christianity because of supposed pagan similarities to supposed "past pagan religions." Romans worshipped their pagan gods. They didn't need to convert simply because it was "similar" to their pagan religions. If they wanted pagan religions they had pagan religions.

It hasn't been addressed actually, other than your constant assertion that it 'doesn't bother you' or 'shake your faith' and then crying about it in a subsequent posts, taking an isolated topic or two doesn't cover the entirety of similarities, although as it so appears, it appeases your wounded ego.
Similarities are indeed easier to accept when peddling a new regime than a diametrical opposite, Hercules /Zeus/Alcmene and others doesn't sway much from God/Jesus/Mary with the exception of course that Hercules wasn't three people in one.. hence the dark ages of Christianity, as formerly bright Greeks/and Romans had to let go of even more reason to accept that conundrum!

On the issue of Mithra, the time is all wrong. No monuments to the Mithra cult can be dated earlier than 90-100 A.D., much too late as the New Testament canon had already been established at this time. That is why that Roman mystery cult is thought to have borrowed from Christianity, not the other way around.

lol.. ok whatever makes you feel better
what about the rest of the dying and rising Gods? They borrowed from Christianity too as the work of the devil?

• Aboriginal mythology
  • Julunggul
  • Wawalag
• Akkadian mythology
  • Tammuz
  • Ishtar
• Arabian mythology
  • Phoenix
• Aztec mythology
  • Quetzalcoatl
  • Xipe Totec
• Celtic mythology
  • Cernunnos

• Dacian mythology
  • Zalmoxis
• Egyptian mythology
  • Isis
  • Osiris
• Etruscan mythology
  • Atunis
• Greek mythology
  • Adonis
  • Cronus
  • Cybele
  • Dionysus
  • Orpheus
  • Persephone

• Hindu mythology
  • Trimurti
    • Brahma
    • Vishnu
    • Siva
• Khoikhoi mythology
  • Heitsi
• Norse mythology
  • Balder
  • Gullveig
• Persian mythology
  • Mithras
• Phrygian mythology
  • Attis

• Roman mythology
  • Aeneas
  • Bacchus
  • Proserpina
• Slavic mythology
  • Veles
  • Jarilo
• Sumerian mythology
  • Damuzi
  • Inanna

As for Paul, there is no evidence he was influenced by anything other than the initial brand of Judaism from which he came. In fact, Paul himself warned the Colossians not to let their minds be captured by alien speculations. (Col. 2:8).

Just his speculations are best I suppose especially when they completely contradict monotheism?
There is no Judaism or monotheism in Paul's brand of Christianity, he was a Jew to the Jews and a roman to the romans again simply evidenced if what he were preaching was monotheism Jews would have been all over it but alas their 'Moschiach' is no God!

 

[جوري]

Argon Gossamer, I'm proud to have you as sister! so intelligent mash'Allah

Jazaka Allah khyran..

there is no intelligence needed when it comes to Christianity-- it is fitrah and Paganism goes against fitrah so it becomes natural to point out what is wrong with this picture..


and Allah swt knows best

 

[Q8sobieski]

No, I have responded to the article. If I wish to seriously debate a religious topic I will wait for someone with a little more maturity and intellectual honesty.

You have done a good job defending yourself, Keltoi. You have been on-target and on-message.

 

[Q8sobieski]

There is no use talking with you or arguing with you. You completely ignore the facts I tell you and the links I give you and maintain that the goat sacrifice ( reenacting Abraham's trial which had nothing to do with sin) is comparable to blood atonement.

It is a blood sacrifice. In the specific case of Muslims, the sacrifice is meant to show obedience to God and demonstrate man's dominance over animals which is obviously meant to parallel God's dominance over humans. I get it. Crystal clear. Not need to patronize. The point it, IT IS A BLOOD SACRIFICE. And blood sacrifices of any sort were done away with by Christians nearly 2000 years ago.

1.3 Billion Christians in Muhammad's (pbuh) time? Thats news to historians.

Sorry to confuse you. I meant to convey the sentiment that there are still 1.3 billion Christians worldwide GIVEN THAT Mohmammed's message has been extant for 1400 years. In the year AD 650, there were at best only a couple hundred million people on the planet.

I'll tell you what, your idolatrous views masquerading as monotheism fall on deaf ears when told to the billions of Muslims and millions of Jews who ALL view you as polytheistic. Let's not even get into the fact that most converts to Islam are CHristians. I guess not all ears are so deaf huh?

This is amusing to me. Really, I am an Agnostic. An Agnostic is like an Atheist who doesn't even have faith in the absence of God. But you have branded me to "polytheist" which maybe is like a promotion. Should I be honoured? Yesterday I didn't really believe in God but according to you, today I believe in 2 or more.

In conclusion try going back and grasping the immense problems that arise when your Biblical scripture isnt even consistent with itself.

I don't care if it isn't 100% consistent. I have always viewed it as literature. I don't get my knickers in a bunch over these things. I like to discuss religion as an academic subject.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

It is a blood sacrifice. In the specific case of Muslims, the sacrifice is meant to show obedience to God and demonstrate man's dominance over animals which is obviously meant to parallel God's dominance over humans. I get it. Crystal clear. Not need to patronize. The point it, IT IS A BLOOD SACRIFICE. And blood sacrifices of any sort were done away with by Christians nearly 2000 years ago.



Sorry to confuse you. I meant to convey the sentiment that there are still 1.3 billion Christians worldwide GIVEN THAT Mohmammed's message has been extant for 1400 years. In the year AD 650, there were at best only a couple hundred million people on the planet.



This is amusing to me. Really, I am an Agnostic. An Agnostic is like an Atheist who doesn't even have faith in the absence of God. But you have branded me to "polytheist" which maybe is like a promotion. Should I be honoured? Yesterday I didn't really believe in God but according to you, today I believe in 2 or more.



I don't care if it isn't 100% consistent. I have always viewed it as literature. I don't get my knickers in a bunch over these things. I like to discuss religion as an academic subject.

No you do not get it. You still do not understand the concept of the sacrifice at Eid.

As for my polytheistic quip, my mistake. It is hard to judge your views when your profile lists you as "Jedi".

Anyways, you are entitled to your views of the sacrifice but you should know that you are mistaken.

Not caring about such basic things as the authenticity of scripture and revelation will not further you down the path of guidance.

Peace.

 

[Dawud_uk]

I don't consider the point reaised in your OP to be a contradiction at all for reasons I gave in post 15. Did you read it?

Peace

i did glo but that doesnt work, you see if this is the word of God then why would he inspire people to write different things? it is not the same as describing things differently as some people say, that would be small differences but as everyone knows there are major differences all over the bible.

now as muslims and christians can we all agree that God does not lie or make mistakes?

 

[Dawud_uk]

We do know what the losers had to say. The views of Arianism and the various other sects are easily found. Arianism even sent missionaries to the Visigoths and converted many of them. However, in terms of mainstream Christianity their views were considered heretical. They didn't use different books, they proposed different beliefs about known Scripture.

that is completely bogus and untrue, a 3rd of the church scholars who attended the council of nicsea objected and left due to the fact of which books were included and which not, many of these objectors were arians.

 

[glo]

i did glo but that doesnt work, you see if this is the word of God then why would he inspire people to write different things? it is not the same as describing things differently as some people say, that would be small differences but as everyone knows there are major differences all over the bible.

now as muslims and christians can we all agree that God does not lie or make mistakes?

Greetings, Dawud

Your reply highlights how differently we are thinking.
Something that is obviously a great stumbling block to you isn’t a problem for me at all.

Perhaps it helps to remind yourself that most Christians do not consider the Bible to be God’s dictated word.
Some discrepancies may be due to people describing the same events to different audiences with a different emphasis on certain things (As I tried to explain previously with regards to your comments about the different Bible accounts. I see the different accounts complementing each other, rather than contradicting each other.)
There are other discrepancies in the Bible, which I personally would put down to human error. (I don’t consider the points you made in your OP to be among those)

Some Christians believe that the Bible is indeed God’s directly translated word and to be taken completely literally.
I am not one of those Christians, so I cannot explain to you how those people would explain or accommodate certain discrepancies. You would have to ask them yourself …

This conversation in touching the topic of how we read and interpret scripture. (A very interesting topic, which may be worth starting a whole new conversation thread on)

Does not even the Qu’ran, which Muslims believe to be Allah’s directly translated word, require a certain amount of interpretation and discernment?
What I mean is, the reader needs to be aware of when certain passages where passed down to Muhammed, what the political/social circumstance was at the time, how the order of the books in the Qu’ran were decided on, and by whom.
During Ramadan I took the time to read the Qu’ran for myself, and I have come to realise that it is not as clear and directive as I had believed (or perhaps been led to believe by many threads I have read here in this forum).
For example, instructions on how to relate to non-believers differ according to the situations and times Muhammed found himself in at the time of the revelations.
The reader needs to be aware of those circumstances and take them into consideration when reading and interpreting those passages.

(Would you agree? I hope I am making sense! )

Even more so then with many parts of the Bible and the Hadiths, both of which are much more narrative in nature.
When you read Hadiths, do you not need to ask yourself in what circumstance Muhammed found himself at the time of the event? Who he was addressing in his teaching? Whether his instructions where intended to a particular audience at that particular time, or whether it is relevant to Muslims even now?
Do you look what scholars say about certain Hadiths? How they interpret them? What relevance they give them?
If you do, then it is not much different for me, when I read the Bible.

Of course God doesn’t lie or make mistakes. I am sure we can agree on that.
But if he allows certainly discrepancies and human errors, then he must have his reasons for it. I could hazard a guess as to why, but there is probably not much point in doing that.
Better to trust that God knows best!

Salaam

 

[Q8sobieski]

that is completely bogus and untrue, a 3rd of the church scholars who attended the council of nicsea objected and left due to the fact of which books were included and which not, many of these objectors were arians.

The core books were always the same for Arians and Trinitarians. There were other gospels around at the time of the Council of Nicea but their rejection, I believe, was based more on their literary content rather than their theological qualities. Having read many of these Gnostic Gospels, I find their literary quality simply rather poor.

 

[Q8sobieski]

No you do not get it. You still do not understand the concept of the sacrifice at Eid.

I read the link that you provided. Perhaps the link was unclear. The link indicated to me the the sacrifice was one of submission. As a ritual it is intended to re-create or commemorate the Abrahamic event.

As for my polytheistic quip, my mistake. It is hard to judge your views when your profile lists you as "Jedi".

Judge me by MY WORDS not your conception of what a Christian is, and Agnostic is, or what a Jedi might be. Really, I found it interesting that Jedi was even given as an option. That's why I picked it. I am an Agnostic-Catholic (culturally Christian but intellectually agnostic). I do, however think the teachings of Yoda and Obi-wan Kenobi are perfectly valuable.

Anyways, you are entitled to your views of the sacrifice but you should know that you are mistaken.

Then, in reality, I AM NOT entitled to my views because you have told me that I am wrong. This is an invalidation of my view.

Not caring about such basic things as the authenticity of scripture and revelation will not further you down the path of guidance.

I am not sure why that is.

 

[Zamtsa]

Al Qur'an(Kalamullah) has stated that Allahu Jalla Jalaaluhu:


Thaha(20):5 (Allah) Most Gracious is firmly established on the throne .


His creation is everywhere:

6 To Him belongs what is in the heavens and on earth and all between them and all beneath the soil.


His hearing and knowledge are everywhere:

Tha Ha(20):7 If thou pronounce the word aloud (it is no matter): for verily He knoweth what is secret and what is yet more hidden.


He has more than 99 beautiful names.
8 Allah! there is no god but He! To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names.


He will not only give safety and salvation on the earth, but will also give the eternal reward in the Paradise. And His seeing is everywhere:


An Nisa(4):134 Whoso desireth the reward of the world, (let him know that) with Allah is the reward of the world and the Hereafter. Allah is ever Hearer, Seer.


And His angels are everywhere to note what every people doing.

Qaf (50):16 It was We who created man and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular
17 When two (guardian angels) appointed to learn (his doings) learn (and note them) one sitting on the right and one on the left.
18 Not a word does he utter but there is a sentinel by him ready (to note it).

Every Monday and Thursday, the note of everybody are shown.


That's about everywhere.

 

[Imam]

Peace

I will try to resume the original issue of the thread

Here is Martin Luther:

Christ was and remains just and did not commit any sins ....But at the moment in which he suffered, he took upon himself everything that is ours as if it were truly his, suffering even for that which we should have borne because of our sins and which the ****ed already suffer....etc
John Calvin:
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried. Though in the cry which Christ uttered a power more than human was manifested, yet it was unquestionably drawn from him by intensity of sorrow. And certainly this was his chief conflict, and harder than all the other tortures, that in his anguish he was so far from being soothed by the assistance or favor of his Father, that he felt himself to be in some measure estranged from him. etc
John Gill:The whole of it evinces the truth of Christ's human nature, that he was in all things made like unto his brethren; that he had an human soul, and endured sorrows and sufferings in it [6] etc


.

Such Quotes don't answer the big question......


let's redirect to the Question:

as a matter of fact, both Mark and Matthew's use of (Psa 22:1 ) proved to be disastrous not only to the lines of their passion but also to the those who argue for a trinity....

both the writers of Mark and Mathew fused allusions to Jesus' death in their hearsay passion story with a range of texts from the Old Testament

they tried to make their passion story with Old Testament flavor .... not only they quoted the Old Testament for a claim of prophecy fulfillment but used the Old Testament language

such as (Psa 22:1 ) My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

their obsession with the Old Testament language proved damaging to their story line and that is the case of


Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

and

Matthew 27:46
Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"



what is the context ?


the context mentions a well planned mission of salvation which the man-God was not only aware and expected its details but also he affirmed it :

And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him(Matt. 17:22-23).

And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the way he said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify (Matt. 20:17-19).

Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead *the third day.(Luke 24:46).


He even was angry at Peter and called him a Satan when he showed his care for the fate of his teacher ,asking God to protect him from any hurt ..

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" 23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Matthew 16 :21


He further ,expressed his own readiness to suffer, asking Juda to hurry up his betrayal.

After the piece of bread, then Satan entered into him. Then Jesus said to him(Juda), "What you do, do quickly." John 13:27 |!!!



In spite of all that we are told that such zealous incarnated God ,cried hopelessly as if he was taken by surprise and been forsaken by God (who is said to be the same of his material)


Is there anything more absurd than that?!!

we have only two choices:

Either what he had on the cross was something he willed or not,there is no in between....

If he willed it, then logically he was aware of the consequences and the pain,and it would be shameful for him,whatever degree of pain he may felt, to accuse God of forsaken him

what he was expecting God to do,otherwise?!! to save him from the cross and damage the plan of salvation?!!!
What was he looking for?!!!


If what happened on the cross was against his will , then we have to go again to the blue yonder ,investigating the miasma of the trinity:
How Jesus and God as said to be one substance have two wills? ONE substance must only have ONE will.
If Jesus and God are one substance then how can ONE substance forsake itself?

It is absurd if God wanted and didn't want the plan of salvation at the same time....


No wonder Dennis McKinsey wrote:

These aren't the words of a man who went to the Cross willingly to die for our sins. These are the words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be. They certainly aren't the words of someone who has the situation under control.
How could Jesus be our Savior when he couldn't even save himself?


Tom Harpur says:
"The idea of the Second Person of a Holy Trinity knowing what it is to be God-forsaken has only to be stated to be recognized as absurd"
For Christ's Sake, pp. 45.

 

[Keltoi]

Peace

I will try to resume the original issue of the thread

Okay

Such Quotes don't answer the big question......


let's redirect to the Question:

as a matter of fact, both Mark and Matthew's use of (Psa 22:1 ) proved to be disastrous not only to the lines of their passion but also to the those who argue for a trinity....

both the writers of Mark and Mathew fused allusions to Jesus' death in their hearsay passion story with a range of texts from the Old Testament

they tried to make their passion story with Old Testament flavor .... not only they quoted the Old Testament for a claim of prophecy fulfillment but used the Old Testament language

such as (Psa 22:1 ) My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

their obsession with the Old Testament language proved damaging to their story line and that is the case of

Talk about hearsay. Whoever wrote this should be writing fantasy fiction. The authors of Mark and Matthew give no explanation for Christ's last words on the cross. Which is why we are having this conversation. It is the height of absurdity for someone to write a little article attempting to explain what their thought processes were in writing the Gospel account, outside of what we do know, which is that they believed Christ was the Messiah who died and rose again.

Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

and

Matthew 27:46
Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"



what is the context ?


the context mentions a well planned mission of salvation which the man-God was not only aware and expected its details but also he affirmed it :

And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him(Matt. 17:22-23).

And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the way he said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify (Matt. 20:17-19).

Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead *the third day.(Luke 24:46).


He even was angry at Peter and called him a Satan when he showed his care for the fate of his teacher ,asking God to protect him from any hurt ..

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" 23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Matthew 16 :21


He further ,expressed his own readiness to suffer, asking Juda to hurry up his betrayal.

After the piece of bread, then Satan entered into him. Then Jesus said to him(Juda), "What you do, do quickly." John 13:27 |!!!



In spite of all that we are told that such zealous incarnated God ,cried hopelessly as if he was taken by surprise and been forsaken by God (who is said to be the same of his material)


Is there anything more absurd than that?!!

This simply shows a mistaken understanding of what Christ, as the Son of God, actually was. When we say that Christ was of the flesh, experienced pain, thirst, fear, cold, etc, that is exactly what we mean. He was fully divine and fully human. That is the area in which non-Christians have a hard time coming to terms with. In fact, Christians have a hard time coming to terms with this. Nevertheless, that is what Christ is believe to be in Christianity.

As for the statement "Why hast though forsaken me?", we are given no explanation for it. We are left to wonder whether it was a literal cry of despair when a theorized moment of separation occurred, or it was a quote from the OT showing that Christ knew God had not and would not abandon Him. In any event, it hardly makes the event "absurd", as Christ in human form would feel fear, pain, and weakness. Otherwise it would be no perfect sacrifice achieving redemption for all time.

we have only two choices:

Either what he had on the cross was something he willed or not,there is no in between....

If he willed it, then logically he was aware of the consequences and the pain,and it would be shameful for him to accuses God of forsaken him

Being aware of God's plan for Him does not equal lack of despair. Jesus was a human being, regardless of the divine nature He emptied Himself of. But again, any conclusion about what Christ actually meant by this statement is conjecture by anyone.

what he was expecting God to do,otherwise?!! to save him from the cross and damage the plan of salvation?!!!
What was he looking for?!!!

No, there is enough evidence from Christ's statements that He knew He would not be saved from the cross. This why the theory of separation was formed in the first place, and also why the other theory was developed. This moment in time was God's alone, and we were not given a script for it.

If what happened on the cross was against his will then we have to go again to the blue yonder ,investigating the miasma of the trinity:
How Jesus and God as said to be one substance have two wills? ONE substance must only have ONE will.
If Jesus and God are one substance then how can ONE substance forsake itself?

Christ stated that His will was His Father's. However, there were two wills at play here. How could this be? I don't claim to know. But the fact remains that Christ was tempted, which God could not be. Why would Satan attempt to tempt Christ if it was fruitless? Perhaps because Christ's human will was at play. To achieve human perfection, Christ depended upon the Will of God. However, He was a human being, and we must assume that the possibility of failure was there, as evidenced by Christ's Temptation and Christ's reaction to Peter when he stated that God would not allow Christ to be taken and killed.

It is absurd if God wanted the plan of salvation and didn't want it at the same time....

That would be absurd, and isn't the case.

No wonder Dennis McKinsey wrote:

These aren't the words of a man who went to the Cross willingly to die for our sins. These are the words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be. They certainly aren't the words of someone who has the situation under control.
How could Jesus be our Savior when he couldn't even save himself?

Who said Christ had the "situation under control?" That is a very odd statement, and a statement that shows a distinct lack of understanding of Christ's purpose and the goal of salvation.

Tom Harpur says:
"The idea of the Second Person of a Holy Trinity knowing what it is to be God-forsaken has only to be stated to be recognized as absurd"
For Christ's Sake, pp. 45.

Does it? Or does it show a mistaken understanding of what Christ as God and Christ as Man actually means?

 

[Imam]

It is the height of absurdity for someone to write a little article attempting to explain what their thought processes were in writing the Gospel account, outside of what we do know

I didn't go outside their writing nor played the guessing game. If you have a difficulty believing that their passion was inspired by the Old Testament esp, Isaiah 53 and even the psalm ( which contains the passage under discussion) then go visit me there
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/134274075-why-jews-dont-believe-jesus-2.html

I'm a person who knows well how to support my thoughts with academic work and documentations......

In fact, Christians have a hard time coming to terms with this. Nevertheless, that is what Christ is believe to be in Christianity.

no wonder for me here,I have met dozens of those who used to swallow anything in the Bible even if it doesn't make sense or contradictory....
you are not the first and will not be the last.

As for the statement "Why hast though forsaken me?", we are given no explanation for it. We are left to wonder whether it was a literal cry of despair when a theorized moment of separation occurred, or it was a quote from the OT showing that Christ knew God had not and would not abandon Him. In any event, it hardly makes the event "absurd", as Christ in human form would feel fear, pain, and weakness. Otherwise it would be no perfect sacrifice achieving redemption for all time.

in other words ,your guessing that it could means something or its opposite,

well let's address the two of your guessing (was cry for despair) or (was cry for hope):

it was a literal cry of despair when a theorized moment of separation occurred, Being aware of God's plan for Him does not equal lack of despair

He wasn't taken by surprise in order to feel despair ,he not only knew that he is going to have such experience but more important he knew that the difficulty would only last for few time and then he will be resurrected again....

It would be shame on him distrusting and accusing his substance of forsaken him if he already read the bible:

Psalm 9:10 Those who know your name will trust in you,
for you, LORD, have never forsaken those who seek you.

a quote from the OT showing that Christ knew God had not and would not abandon Him.

That is a muddle !

Jesus says (My God My God why have you forsaken me) and you say (God had not and would not abandon Him)

Just why don't you believe jesus?

which to believe his words or your guessing?


Now let's see Keltoi versus Keltoi

He was fully divine and fully human.

versus

Jesus was a human being, regardless of the divine nature He emptied Himself of.

any conclusion about what Christ actually meant by this statement is conjecture by anyone.

and I would say any conclusion about what Christ actually meant by this statement other than what he really said , words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be,is conjecture by anyone

simply nothing in the passage would makes us think something other than ,that he means what he says and he says what he means....

there is enough evidence from Christ's statements that He knew He would not be saved from the cross

so why he cried for help?

But the fact remains that Christ was tempted, which God could not be. Why would Satan attempt to tempt Christ if it was fruitless? Perhaps because Christ's human will was at play.

If he is the man-God then logically his divinity was at play too...

I have better answer than yours to the question:

Christ was tempted, which God could not be. Why would Satan attempt to tempt Christ if it was fruitless?

the answer in a word :because Jesus is not God.

He was a human being, and we must assume that the possibility of failure was there..

There is a possibility that a human fail ,but it is impossible for a man claimed to be fully God to even imagine the failure..

you ask why?
the normal man can choose either the right path or the left path
while the fully-man fully-God has only one choice ,the right path and only the right path ...
Jesus according to you is God in the flesh and you claim that there was possibility for failure...
so would it be sane to say:

the God that failed ?!!

either Jesus is God (so logically he can't fail nor be tempted), or he isn't,there is no in between.....

 

[Dawud_uk]

Greetings, Dawud

Your reply highlights how differently we are thinking.
Something that is obviously a great stumbling block to you isn’t a problem for me at all.

Perhaps it helps to remind yourself that most Christians do not consider the Bible to be God’s dictated word.
Some discrepancies may be due to people describing the same events to different audiences with a different emphasis on certain things (As I tried to explain previously with regards to your comments about the different Bible accounts. I see the different accounts complementing each other, rather than contradicting each other.)
There are other discrepancies in the Bible, which I personally would put down to human error. (I don’t consider the points you made in your OP to be among those)

Some Christians believe that the Bible is indeed God’s directly translated word and to be taken completely literally.
I am not one of those Christians, so I cannot explain to you how those people would explain or accommodate certain discrepancies. You would have to ask them yourself …

This conversation in touching the topic of how we read and interpret scripture. (A very interesting topic, which may be worth starting a whole new conversation thread on)

Does not even the Qu’ran, which Muslims believe to be Allah’s directly translated word, require a certain amount of interpretation and discernment?
What I mean is, the reader needs to be aware of when certain passages where passed down to Muhammed, what the political/social circumstance was at the time, how the order of the books in the Qu’ran were decided on, and by whom.
During Ramadan I took the time to read the Qu’ran for myself, and I have come to realise that it is not as clear and directive as I had believed (or perhaps been led to believe by many threads I have read here in this forum).
For example, instructions on how to relate to non-believers differ according to the situations and times Muhammed found himself in at the time of the revelations.
The reader needs to be aware of those circumstances and take them into consideration when reading and interpreting those passages.

(Would you agree? I hope I am making sense! )

Even more so then with many parts of the Bible and the Hadiths, both of which are much more narrative in nature.
When you read Hadiths, do you not need to ask yourself in what circumstance Muhammed found himself at the time of the event? Who he was addressing in his teaching? Whether his instructions where intended to a particular audience at that particular time, or whether it is relevant to Muslims even now?
Do you look what scholars say about certain Hadiths? How they interpret them? What relevance they give them?
If you do, then it is not much different for me, when I read the Bible.

Of course God doesn’t lie or make mistakes. I am sure we can agree on that.
But if he allows certainly discrepancies and human errors, then he must have his reasons for it. I could hazard a guess as to why, but there is probably not much point in doing that.
Better to trust that God knows best!

Salaam

this is taking me back to the confusing part of my life where i became a believer in a Creator but just couldnt accept christianity as true.

you see to me this is all confusing, you are supposed to have God 'inspiring' people to write different contradictory things deliberately...

or he has make mistakes.

so either God is lying or God is making mistakes, neither works for me. my God is not a liar, my God does not make mistakes.


regarding the Quran and sunnah and the need for context, exactly, that is very important but that context is almost totally lacking from the bible, it has been written down many years after the events, most bible scholars accept it was written by people who never met jesus christ (as) and the context is rarely there.

with almost every ayat and every hadith we know when it was revealed / spoken / acted upon, what was the context around it etc.

 

[Dawud_uk]

The core books were always the same for Arians and Trinitarians. There were other gospels around at the time of the Council of Nicea but their rejection, I believe, was based more on their literary content rather than their theological qualities. Having read many of these Gnostic Gospels, I find their literary quality simply rather poor.

then you are poorly informed, there was over 300 different gospels brought to the council of nicsea, plus many other books and letters etc.

that is not a few minor differences.

plus, many of these works do not survive simply because it was declared illegal to hold a copy, if you were caught you were declared outlaw, i.e outside the law and anyone could do what they pleased with you with no roman law coming down on them.