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

[Q8sobieski]

But isn't, according to Christianity, Christ God himself?

Your account would be less confusing if you said that Jesus and the Father were two separate gods. But to say that God is viewing himself as abandoned, and accursed, is..... unpalatable?

I think this is only because Muslims are terrified of shirk or anything that seems like polytheism. Most Christians do not worry much about that sort of thing since there is no premium placed on ideological purity in Christianity.

But, if I may, the Gospel of John explains the convoluted thinking which has Jesus elevated to God status. No, keep in mind, Christians only decided that Jesus was indeed "God" around the year AD 300. A common belief at the time was Arianism which eventually found its way into Islam. But John states:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. .... (SNIP) ...
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Christian looks are Jesus as the manifestation of all that is divine and the embodiment in human form of God's nature.

I think much of the theological confusion between Muslims and Christians stems from Muslims' literalness and Christians' love of metaphor. In this respect, there really can be no theological discussion between Muslims and Christians since both look at their respective books, and the stories recounted there in, in fundamentally different ways.

It is for this reason that I contend that the god of the Christians and the god of the Muslims are different figures. Jesus too is a fundamentally different character in the Koran than in the Bible. It is no use pretending that YHVH, Deus, and Allah are all the same.

 

[Keltoi]

In the eyes (of God) also, Christ was like one abandoned, one accursed, a sinner, a blasphemer, one ****ed, even if he is without sin and without guilt. The fact that he says "you have abandoned me" is certainly not a joke, a game, or hypocrisy. He is truly abandoned in all, as is the sinner when he sins...(p. 605)[3]

But isn't, according to Christianity, Christ God himself?

Your account would be less confusing if you said that Jesus and the Father were two separate gods. But to say that God is viewing himself as abandoned, and accursed, is..... unpalatable?

Your view shows a confused understanding of Christ's nature. Yes, Christ is God. However, in the context of Christ's humanity He was also Man. I gather from your description that you view this relationship as the totality of divinity staring through Christ's eyes akin to staring out of a Halloween mask. That is not the case.

Christ was both divine and human in perfect unity. Christ was fully God and fully Man. Christ being fully Man was submissive and at the mercy of God the Father. If that wasn't the case there could be no perfect atonement for the sins of mankind. That is why we refer to Christ the Son, and God the Father. They are not separate "gods", but One God who became manifest in the flesh through the Son, Jesus Christ.

I'm sure you don't believe it, but your question leads me to assume you view God as some constant physical form that is either here or there. That is not the Christian understanding and I assume is not the Islamic understanding either.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Associating other things with God, be it worshipping a stone statue, thinking the world is all there is and that probability decides all, attaching too much significance to worldly items, are all different forms of shirk.


Muslims do not take everything literally. If we did wouldnt we be christian when the Bible says "Jesus is the begotten son"?

Islam interprets scripture with God's perspective. Not the trinity's, not Ganesh's, not Zeus'.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Your view shows a confused understanding of Christ's nature. Yes, Christ is God. However, in the context of Christ's humanity He was also Man. I gather from your description that you view this relationship as the totality of divinity staring through Christ's eyes akin to staring out of a Halloween mask. That is not the case.

Christ was both divine and human in perfect unity. Christ was fully God and fully Man. Christ being fully Man was submissive and at the mercy of God the Father. If that wasn't the case there could be no perfect atonement for the sins of mankind. That is why we refer to Christ the Son, and God the Father. They are not separate "gods", but One God who became manifest in the flesh through the Son, Jesus Christ.

I'm sure you don't believe it, but your question leads me to assume you view God as some constant physical form that is either here or there. That is not the Christian understanding and I assume is not the Islamic understanding either.

I am not sure your post addressed my question.

You belive God forsook Christ.
Christ is God.
God forsook himself.

I believe that God does not forsake himself. Is not accursed or what have you. Is not human and divine at the same time, but when he shows lack of omnicience, is explained away by saying he emptied himself of divinity and selectively chooses when to have bouts of it.

Also, while we are on this, Keltoi, could you please explain to me why I should believe that God came down in human form, had himself, tortured and killed, in order to save us from his own wrath?:enough!:

 

[Woodrow]

Knowing the task and experiencing the result are two different things. However, on the issue of the "Why have You forsaken", there are two lines of thought. One belief is that He was quoting from the Old Testament in this instance. The other belief is that He was referring to His separation from God in those moments when the sin of the world was on His shoulders.

I would like to reply just in reference to the last sentence:

The other belief is that He was referring to His separation from God in those moments when the sin of the world was on His shoulders.

I believed that to be true during much of my Christian years, but now I find it to be an impossible concept, if Jesus(as) was God(swt). It makes no sense to have God(swt) seperated from God(swt)

Just a rambling thought, I doubt if this has anything to do with the point Bro. Dawud is trying to make.

 

[Q8sobieski]

I am not sure your post addressed my question.

You belive God forsook Christ.
Christ is God.
God forsook himself.
...

Also, while we are on this, Keltoi, could you please explain to me why I should believe that God came down in human form, had himself, tortured and killed, in order to save us from his own wrath?:enough!:

AntiKarateKid, can you explain to my why Muslims kill goats at Eid al-Adha (or is it Eid al-Fitr, I always forget)? It is quite similar.

The death of Jesus should not be understood as a diety coming down to Earth just to have himself tortured, as it seem to a literal reader. It represents a "blood sacrifice" and atonement for past sins. Christianity is, at its heart, a symbolic religion whereas Islam is highly literal. Until we understand that, we will always talk right past one another and accuse the other of being silly.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

AntiKarateKid, can you explain to my why Muslims kill goats at Eid al-Adha (or is it Eid al-Fitr, I always forget)? It is quite similar.

The death of Jesus should not be understood as a diety coming down to Earth just to have himself tortured, as it seem to a literal reader. It represents a "blood sacrifice" and atonement for past sins. Christianity is, at its heart, a symbolic religion whereas Islam is highly literal. Until we understand that, we will always talk right past one another and accuse the other of being silly.

Certainly not. The goat killing does nothing to relive sins. Perhaps you are thinking of the practice of "scapegoat"? Which is not found in Islam.

During the celebration of Eid al-Adha, Muslims commemorate and remember Abraham's trials, by themselves slaughtering an animal such as a sheep, camel, or goat. This action is very often misunderstood by those outside the faith.

http://islam.about.com/od/hajj/a/adha.htm


You have brought up nothing to support your worldview bubble of Islam being literal and not metaphorical.

So if I am so literal, why am I not christian when I read about Jesus pbuh being the begotten son?:rollseyes Hmm? Or how about Jesus pnuh saying "the father and I are one"? Christians interpret that literally, Muslims metaphorically.


Guess how I atone for my sins? I ask God for forgiveness and change myself for the better. No blood required.

Your metaphorical/literal view of Islam and Christianity is a blanket statement that not only lacks foundation but gives you ridiculously off the mark beliefs about Islam.

 

[Woodrow]

AntiKarateKid, can you explain to my why Muslims kill goats at Eid al-Adha (or is it Eid al-Fitr, I always forget)? It is quite similar.

The death of Jesus should not be understood as a diety coming down to Earth just to have himself tortured, as it seem to a literal reader. It represents a "blood sacrifice" and atonement for past sins. Christianity is, at its heart, a symbolic religion whereas Islam is highly literal. Until we understand that, we will always talk right past one another and accuse the other of being silly.

It is at Eid al-Adha and it is sometimes called a sacrifice, but it is more of an act of charity. One third of the meat is to be given to the poor. If we do not actually slaughter a goat we donate 1/3 the price of a goat to the poor.

The goat is eaten and not offered up as a burned sacrifice for atonement, etc. It is a memory type thing and has to do with being a reminder of what Allaah(swt) has given us.

 

[Triumphant]

I'm doing mental gymnastics here trying to understand the Bible!! I don't have to do this with the Quran

 

[glo]

I'm doing mental gymnastics here trying to understand the Bible!! I don't have to do this with the Quran

What you call 'mental gymnastics' I call 'actively engaging with the Word of God'.
The Bible is so alive and can be read on so many different levels, I don't think I will ever tire of reading, studying, pondering and applying it.

Salaam

 

[Dawud_uk]

What you call 'mental gymnastics' I call 'actively engaging with the Word of God'.
The Bible is so alive and can be read on so many different levels, I don't think I will ever tire of reading, studying, pondering and applying it.

Salaam

glo, how do you deal with the many contradictions in what you consider to be the word of God such as the one i have pointed out here?

 

[^[AnKaBooT]^]

actually,

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34

were the words of someone who god replaced for Jesus(a.s.) and jesus did not die on the cross.
His face wass changed to look like Jesus(a.s) and only after he was killed did the children of israel began to ponder if the crucified is Jesus(a.s.) then where is he?(the guy who was crucified and he agreed to capture Jesus(a.s.) but his face was turned to look like him so the captors got tricked into killing this guy)

If the Crucified is he(the guy who was crucified) then where is Jesus(a.s.)?

info about this guy,
He was one of jesus followers but he attempted to betray him by working for the romans and got his face turned to look like Jesus so he will be crucified instead Jesus(a.s) is i the fourth heaven.

 

[Zamtsa]

An Nisa(4):157 That they said (in boast) "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah"; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not. 663

For Christian: the crucified man was a bad man, while Jesus, he was made ascend to the 3rd sky through angels of Allahu Ta'ala, by His (Allahu Ta'ala) command.


QS.An Nisa(4):158 Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power Wise.


Infact Almasih Jesus son of Mary will descend to the earth, because he ain't die yet, and all at time, all Christians and Jews will become Muslim:


An Nisa(4):159 And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.


He will be judge with Al Qur'an and As Sunnah and he will do these things:

descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
(HR.Abu Daud (4324), Qishshah Ad Dajjal, Ash Shahihah (2182)


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (May peace be upon who follow the guidance) for Kafir

Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

 

[Keltoi]

I would like to reply just in reference to the last sentence:



I believed that to be true during much of my Christian years, but now I find it to be an impossible concept, if Jesus(as) was God(swt). It makes no sense to have God(swt) seperated from God(swt)

Just a rambling thought, I doubt if this has anything to do with the point Bro. Dawud is trying to make.

Actually, to the majority of Protestant theologians, which is the source I look to, it was a case of God forsaking God, as mind boggling as that concept might seem.

No Christian would suggest they know the full story of what happened between God the Father and God the Son on that day. That bit of info was not revealed through Scripture. However, those that believe Christ did experience separation from God on the cross will point to the statement itself. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" This sentence was the first time Christ is recorded as saying "God". Before He had always referred to Him as the Father. This is thought to possibly mean God the Father had momentarily left the Son.

Then there are those that suggest God the Father never left the Son, and that Christ was quoting from the OT.

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

This Psalm of David is about rejoicing in the fact that God will never abandon His people.

However, most take the statement at face value. Christ did feel abandoned by God. The questions of why, how, for how long, etc are not answered for us.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Actually, to the majority of Protestant theologians, which is the source I look to, it was a case of God forsaking God, as mind boggling as that concept might seem.

No Christian would suggest they know the full story of what happened between God the Father and God the Son on that day. That bit of info was not revealed through Scripture. However, those that believe Christ did experience separation from God on the cross will point to the statement itself. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" This sentence was the first time Christ is recorded as saying "God". Before He had always referred to Him as the Father. This is thought to possibly mean God the Father had momentarily left the Son.

Then there are those that suggest God the Father never left the Son, and that Christ was quoting from the OT.

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

This Psalm of David is about rejoicing in the fact that God will never abandon His people.

However, most take the statement at face value. Christ did feel abandoned by God. The questions of why, how, for how long, etc are not answered for us.

If God the father forsook god the son, then at that moment werent there two gods? When you separate your three in one godhead you get two entities.

You do not think that is polytheistic to say that god the father forsook the son when that is himself? Makes mores sense if you said they were two gods.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

What you call 'mental gymnastics' I call 'actively engaging with the Word of God'.
The Bible is so alive and can be read on so many different levels, I don't think I will ever tire of reading, studying, pondering and applying it.

Salaam

A famous quote by a bible scholar goes: There are more variations between Biblical manuscripts than there are words in the Bible.

So which Bible are you enjoying?

 

[Keltoi]

If God the father forsook god the son, then at that moment werent there two gods? When you separate your three in one godhead you get two entities.

You do not think that is polytheistic to say that god the father forsook the son when that is himself? Makes mores sense if you said they were two gods.

It might "make more sense", but it would be false. Again, I think you are putting limitations on God's divinity by placing Him in a box He cannot escape from. God is not of the flesh. Christ had a full human nature. The Son did not become the Son as a result of His birth. He was always the Son. However, upon accepting the limitations of the flesh, Christ was submissive and depended upon the Will of the Father. The Tri-unity is and always was God.

Having said that, as I mentioned, there are many who believe this separation never took place. That Christ was merely quoting a Psalm to voice the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.

It is almost pointless to guess given that there is no Scriptural description of what Christ meant or whether any separation occurred at all.

 

[glo]

A famous quote by a bible scholar goes: There are more variations between Biblical manuscripts than there are words in the Bible.

So which Bible are you enjoying?

I don't expect you really want an answer to your question ... do you??

To answer it anyway, I used to read the NIV only, but recently I have begun reading other Bible versions too.
Once a week I meet with other people from our church for Bible study. Between us we use several different Bible versions - and it is always interesting to read the differences in translation, and to use those for discussion and debate.
Those discussions alone are another way of getting to know and understand God's word better.

There are some Christians who will insist on one particular Bible version, and disregard all others.
Personally speaking, I don't have those concerns.
Reputable Bible versions are not just pulled out of thin air. They are written after careful study, consultation and discussion of Bible scholars and those who have knowledge and understanding of the oldest manuscripts.

I understand how important it is for Muslims to preserve the Qu'ran as closely to its original as possible (I have heard that some changes were made to the Qu'ran, but I have neither specific knowledge of this, nor do I want to take this thread too far off topic).

Christians, on the other hand, are ensured that God's Word and message will be preserved (even through different Bible version). Ever since the books of the Bible were put together in it's final form, people have trusted that God's hand and protection was in that process, and that those in charge of the process were guided by God.

Different Bible versions alike describe how God's relationship with his people developed.
They all contain God's message to us.
They all describe Jesus' life, teaching and purpose to us.
They all call us to seek to know God more through Jesus Christ, to take up our cross and follow him.

Peace

 

[Keltoi]

To add to Glo's post, the different versions of the Bible are primarily different translations. The King James will read much differently than the NIV because of the different language and different English words used to convey the original Greek or Hebrew.

 

[Q8sobieski]

During the celebration of Eid al-Adha, Muslims commemorate and remember Abraham's trials, by themselves slaughtering an animal such as a sheep, camel, or goat. This action is very often misunderstood by those outside the faith.

Exactly, it was a "sacrifice" and a recreation of the Abrahamic event. Abraham was attempting to sacrifice his son to God based on God's command. Much of religion is based on re-enactment rituals. Muslims re-enact Abraham's sacrifice and Christians re-enact Jesus' Passion (his last days) every Sunday. It is nice that the meat is donated to the poor. But wouldn't it be better if we were all vegetarians and thus left a lighter carbon footprint.

You have brought up nothing to support your worldview bubble of Islam being literal and not metaphorical.

This is common knowledge and I don't need to reference 100 examples of Muslim literalism. But I will give you this example. Muslims often bost that their book is read in the original language and claim that it has never been altered. If this were actually important to Christians; there would not be 1.3 billion Christians existing still 1400 years into Mohammed's mission. The claim falls on deaf ears reading Dostoyevski in Russian, Goethe in German, and Shakespeare in English are all nice but certainly not mandatory. Islam is legalistic whereas Christianity is more literary. Case in point: Islam has the Shariah and Christians are general content with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount.

Guess how I atone for my sins? I ask God for forgiveness and change myself for the better. No blood required.

Same with Protestants. Catholics have to "confess" to another person.