Who was Jesus talking to when he said...

Actually, Jesus was calling out to God, the Father, who, at that very moment had to turn away from His son, because of our sin--the sin and disease of the entire world was laid on Him, which separated Him from His Father...unbearable. God is holy and cannot behold sin, hence the fulfillment of the prophecy that He would become the curse for us. He died for us, in our place. Not accepting Jesus, we will have to pay for our sin ourselves.
 
Alabaster said:
Actually, Jesus was calling out to God, the Father, who, at that very moment had to turn away from His son, because of our sin--the sin and disease of the entire world was laid on Him, which separated Him from His Father...unbearable. God is holy and cannot behold sin, hence the fulfillment of the prophecy that He would become the curse for us. He died for us, in our place. Not accepting Jesus, we will have to pay for our sin ourselves.
Click to expand...

Besides the fact jesus was probably not real, that allegory is scapegoating and nothing more and nothing less. Humans like to find someone to pay the price, be the lightning rod, scapegoat, blame etc. Actually something quite negative masked and prettified and embellished as something other through contrived rationalization and storytelling.
 
Why would jesus who is supposedly human according to your belief die and be crucified for the sins of everyone else?
Click to expand...
Mod note: Please do not discuss personal beliefs in Comparative Religion. We have Religion subforum for that.
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************


The theory of Occam's razor can only be applied against the existence of god in that a god is an unnecessary figurehead.
Click to expand...

This is a common misuse of Ockham's proposal. His proposal was that it made sense to test theories moving from the simpler (less entities) to the more complex. It is a methodological proposal and not a metaphysical one. Adn he was clear about this. We all know examples of situations where complex phenomena were discovered adn there are many in the history of science itself where some people thought this or that was more complex and this turned out to be the case. Reducing O's Razor to something like the simpler explanation is more likely to be true is both a misunderstanding of Sir O and not very good thinking. It is also bad science.
 
Avatar said:
Mod note: Please do not discuss personal beliefs in Comparative Religion. We have Religion subforum for that.
Click to expand...


Is there a way to answer the title question of this thread without expressing a personal belief? (meaning, perhaps this thread should be moved over to religion. It also does not seem very comparative.)
 
If we accept for the point of argument
that jesus was god become man

Here he had become man
to the extent that he was doubting Gods existence.

It is a cry of dispair.
 
Grantywanty said:
Is there a way to answer the title question of this thread without expressing a personal belief? (meaning, perhaps this thread should be moved over to religion. It also does not seem very comparative.)
Click to expand...

Of course. There are many gods available to choose from and that's the subject of CR, i.e., which god was Jesus addressing based on the linguistic interpretation. Personal belief has very little to do with this.
 
Avatar said:
Of course. There are many gods available to choose from and that's the subject of CR, i.e., which god was Jesus addressing based on the linguistic interpretation. Personal belief has very little to do with this.
Click to expand...

Seeing as Jesus was referring to God as His Father, we must believe He was referring to Jehovah, El Elyon, The Most High God.
 
sounds like word-ology...like numerology. The attempt to find meaning in radomn convergences of either word fragments or aligned numbers. Both should never be applied to the bible which is an easily translatable text.
 
Yeah, I agree with you in this in relation to the starting post of this thread, reminds me of numerology where everything can be concluded from anything.
 
Avatar said:
Of course. There are many gods available to choose from and that's the subject of CR, i.e., which god was Jesus addressing based on the linguistic interpretation. Personal belief has very little to do with this.
Click to expand...


OK. I thought comparative religion would mean that we would compare facets of different religions. I would have thought discussions of one facet of one religion would fit better on Religion.

I don't think the Bible is clear who Jesus is referring to: if he is God then it is to himself, if he is a facet of God then he is talking to another part of himself, and so on. Every answer I think will be a personal opinion even if you consider it an opinion about linguistics, I can't see it as anything other than a theological interpretation based on personal belief.

But I'll bow out here since you clearly have thought about it and more debate will distract.
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: To whom was Jesus talking when he allegedly cried out from the cross in Greek, no less, and said, "Eli, eli, lama sabachtheni?" (My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?)

Let me explain... "El" is a shortened form of "Elias," the sun god "Helios," to whom Jesus called out from the cross. "El" is the sun. The "Elohim" also represents the many stars. Also known as the "Ali," who were associated with gods. "Ali" is Egyptian in origin and represents the "Atum," "Aten," and the "Amen," who are all part of "Elohim." "Atum" was later known as "Adam."

Jesus, as the sun of god, was crying out to his heavenly father/creator god, the sun, "Eli" and/or "Helios" who had abandoned him on the cross that day. Then the skies grew dark and stormy as the sun set behind the earth and died.
Click to expand...

Uhh, Jesus did not speak Greek. He spoke an ancient Arabic dialect. That dialect does not have a Greek etymology, so you're looking at it backwards. Don't confuse people simply because there was no equivalent translation.

Linguistically, "to forsake" is not synonymous with "to abandon." To forsake is passive, and denotes an implication that another has not kept a promise; to abandon is active, and means that one has been left without anything.

My answer is simple. Even the Son of Man had to experience death with doubt in his heart (as had and do many people), or else he could not open the gates of heaven as the Messiah.

Peace be with you.
 
Alabaster said:
Yeah, a lot of people are good at doing that. Where does it get anyone? There are absolutes.
Click to expand...

I concur. There have to be absolutes. Otherwise we're living in a pretty arbitrary world with no real definitions. While this comforts certain ones...It is know to be culturely obscure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top