How Jesus could be left alone?

[attofishpi]

How Jesus could be left along?

WTF does that mean? Fix the thread title :- How Jesus could be left alone?

[attofishpi]

It appears that the last thing that Jesus said was "Oh God why you have forsaken me?". How this separation could happen if Jesus and God are one.

I have thought of this a fair ol' bit with my gnosis.

Seems apparent to me that the system of 'God' has quite a TEST in store for man that quest_ion IT.

TEST_AMEN_t.

God will take you to the ultimate extreme B4 it relinquishes U from its test....from experience.

So.

Y did Christ (who yes, I believe is God incarnate) state this? C above.

[bahman]

How Jesus could be left along?

WTF does that mean? Fix the thread title :- How Jesus could be left alone?

Oh, sorry for mistake.

[bahman]

It appears that the last thing that Jesus said was "Oh God why you have forsaken me?". How this separation could happen if Jesus and God are one.

I have thought of this a fair ol' bit with my gnosis.

Seems apparent to me that the system of 'God' has quite a TEST in store for man that quest_ion IT.

TEST_AMEN_t.

God will take you to the ultimate extreme B4 it relinquishes U from its test....from experience.

So.

Y did Christ (who yes, I believe is God incarnate) state this? C above.

So you believe that God was testing Himself.

[attofishpi]

It appears that the last thing that Jesus said was "Oh God why you have forsaken me?". How this separation could happen if Jesus and God are one.

I have thought of this a fair ol' bit with my gnosis.

Seems apparent to me that the system of 'God' has quite a TEST in store for man that quest_ion IT.

TEST_AMEN_t.

God will take you to the ultimate extreme B4 it relinquishes U from its test....from experience.

So.

Y did Christ (who yes, I believe is God incarnate) state this? C above.

So you believe that God was testing Himself.

No. I am suggesting it was a test for US, that at our most extreme test from God, would we consider that we have been forsaken?

I am suggesting that Christ stated that, WITHOUT actually believing he had been forsaken.

[henry quirk]

I am suggesting that Christ stated that, WITHOUT actually believing he had been forsaken.

so: he was lyin'

[gaffo]

Mark is the oldest gospel and so the closet to the time of Jesus - 40 yrs after his death, and because of that i think it shows the more accurate picture of events and the man in question.

What of the author himself? Do his characteristics play into the aspects worth considering logically? How can you know his personal fears, biases, agendas, motivations, mental limitations?

don't be dumb!



Jesus left no surviving record!!!!!!!!!

do you not know this? if not, you have much more to learn before you and I can talk about this matter.

Have you read his original version?

Mark? - the original most likely was frist written in Aramiac - though could be wrong and the first might have been written in Greek.

no. I do not know either languages (though thousands/millions do know both - so they are free to read the surviving Greek versions of Mark (the oldest surviving is 200 yrs after the original work BTW - if that is important to you - i am just informing you of historical FACT).

I have a translation from the Greek to English, which - since i see no Greeks in the street since 1800 yrs ago to today - not in the streets over an error riddled translation of Mark (and the Greeks would know speaking both Greek and English!!!!!!!!!!!) - i hear only crickets, and so assume the English (and Volgate for all the Latin speakers over the last 2 millinia) translation is accurate.

Why would the time it was written be the most credible factor?

because of obvious reasons, like the work is closer to the time when it happened vs an latter work?

Duh!

Look at all the people today who claim what the truth is and how they see it -- at this point in time -- yet they are clearly influenced by countless issues, and in conflict with each other, despite writing about it at the same time!

nonsecuiter.

[gaffo]

There's the Jesus of the Gospels and there's the actual Jesus being one of the unfortunates who got crucified as so many other blokes the same year. End of story except that Paul made a resurrection drama out of it and the evangelists created a biography to prove Jesus was divinely born.

correct, for the one Jesus - prob 50 more each year from the time of Sparticus (200? BC) - to Domecian 280 AD - were put on the cross to die, but only Christ (and to be fair Sparticus too - though much less so) is remembered.

and all due to Saul IMO.

yes author of Mark also, but Saul was the 75-percent mover and shaker in not forgetting that one man (out of thousands forgotten) to not be forgotten.

how? by deifying him. otherwise, Jesus ends up one of thousands killed by rome for insurrection. and no christianity.

[gaffo]

How Jesus could be left along?

WTF does that mean? Fix the thread title :- How Jesus could be left alone?

by not formenting revolt against Rome, and instead, just lived the life of his dad, a simple stonemasion.

[gaffo]

Y did Christ (who yes, I believe is God incarnate) state this? C above.

So you are not a Markian/Matt/Lucian/ nor Pauline, but a Johnist.

ok, thanks for clarifying your view upon the nature of Christ.

[Lacewing]

Mark is the oldest gospel and so the closet to the time of Jesus - 40 yrs after his death, and because of that i think it shows the more accurate picture of events and the man in question.

What of the author himself? Do his characteristics play into the aspects worth considering logically? How can you know his personal fears, biases, agendas, motivations, mental limitations?

don't be dumb!

Jesus left no surviving record!!!!!!!!!

do you not know this? if not, you have much more to learn before you and I can talk about this matter.

I'm talking about Mark, the author. Don't be such an ass.

Have you read his original version?

Mark? - the original most likely was frist written in Aramiac - though could be wrong and the first might have been written in Greek.

no. I do not know either languages

So you're reading the result of various translations and versions created by more people with their own biases, agendas, and limitations.

so assume the English (and Volgate for all the Latin speakers over the last 2 millinia) translation is accurate.

Big assumption... which you clearly don't like to have challenged... but why shouldn't it be?

Why would the time it was written be the most credible factor?

because of obvious reasons, like the work is closer to the time when it happened vs an latter work?

Duh!

I already pointed out other factors to consider. Human nature is always a worthwhile consideration. You, however, seem to focus on very little without proof to believe what you want to.

And your asshole response indicates that you're not very smart either.

[gaffo]

It appears that the last thing that Jesus said was "Oh God why you have forsaken me?". How this separation could happen if Jesus and God are one.

I have thought of this a fair ol' bit with my gnosis.

Seems apparent to me that the system of 'God' has quite a TEST in store for man that quest_ion IT.

TEST_AMEN_t.

God will take you to the ultimate extreme B4 it relinquishes U from its test....from experience.

So.

Y did Christ (who yes, I believe is God incarnate) state this? C above.

So you believe that God was testing Himself.

make it simpler, he believes Jesus is God (as the Gospel of John does) - and only that gospel.

not mark not matt not luke nor sauls letters.

----get on the right mental field (i.e. understand his perspective) before you debate Sir.

[gaffo]

I have thought of this a fair ol' bit with my gnosis.

Seems apparent to me that the system of 'God' has quite a TEST in store for man that quest_ion IT.

TEST_AMEN_t.

God will take you to the ultimate extreme B4 it relinquishes U from its test....from experience.

So.

Y did Christ (who yes, I believe is God incarnate) state this? C above.

So you believe that God was testing Himself.

No. I am suggesting it was a test for US, that at our most extreme test from God, would we consider that we have been forsaken?

I am suggesting that Christ stated that, WITHOUT actually believing he had been forsaken.

agreed, your view is correct for a Johnite.

[gaffo]

I am suggesting that Christ stated that, WITHOUT actually believing he had been forsaken.

so: he was lyin'

the real world is not that simple.

in the real world we have a man killed who probably said a little, and none of it is recorded.

instead we have 4 authors, with 3 theologies - planting the last words of a man that was killed by Rome for insurrection. to serve thier theolgies decades later.


as i know you are well aware, but the smart man i know you are.

----------

knowing something about suffering and war and death, i can assume Jesus called out his mother's name (whomever his mother was - "mary" or someone else).

its interesting that none of the Gospels mention he did this - and so i know they are "lying" in this regard.

[gaffo]

What of the author himself? Do his characteristics play into the aspects worth considering logically? How can you know his personal fears, biases, agendas, motivations, mental limitations?

don't be dumb!

Jesus left no surviving record!!!!!!!!!

do you not know this? if not, you have much more to learn before you and I can talk about this matter.

I'm talking about Mark, the author. Don't be such an ass.

Have you read his original version?

Mark? - the original most likely was frist written in Aramiac - though could be wrong and the first might have been written in Greek.

no. I do not know either languages

So you're reading the result of various translations and versions created by more people with their own biases, agendas, and limitations.

so assume the English (and Volgate for all the Latin speakers over the last 2 millinia) translation is accurate.

Big assumption... which you clearly don't like to have challenged... but why shouldn't it be?

Why would the time it was written be the most credible factor?

because of obvious reasons, like the work is closer to the time when it happened vs an latter work?

Duh!

I already pointed out other factors to consider. Human nature is always a worthwhile consideration. You, however, seem to focus on very little without proof to believe what you want to.

And your asshole response indicates that you're not very smart either.

I stated that Mark is the oldest and so most accurate, then i stated that if the Latin and English translations are not accurate, i would have heard this from a millia ago to today - not heard this complaint.

i also stated that the oldest Mark is at least 4th generation translation - and dates to 250 AD - 200 yrs after the original work.

----------------

so stop being pigheaded, and if you are willing to discuss Mark, lets do it.

from a position of knowledge over ignorant vitriol (which to you value? - i'm asking here - if the latter we have nothing to discuss and goodbye).