Philosophy Now Forum

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'm not a christian, but I'll hazard a guess...

Jesus is god, but he's also man.

"Oh God why you have forsaken me?" is his human frailty and fear.

In that moment: Jesus felt very human.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:07 pm 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.

that is Gosp of Mark (which had a theology that Jesus was never God, but a man - the most pure man - whom God adopted as his son).

so as an adopted son did not have the mind nor powers of his Godfather.

that quote is also a reference to the OT Psalms i think - which one not sure, but context prob matters, so find the reference and read that part of psalms for understanding.


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

BTW there are 3 other Canon (4 actual surviving, but Gospel of Peter is not Canon) Gospels.

in John, Jesus never said your above when he died, instead he said "it is finished"

and so understood the mind of his dad, being his dad in body form (never born, nor adopted), and went willingly to his slaughter for the sins of the world.

- ya the Gospels are not in agreement about the nature of Christ!

shock of shocks!!!!!!!!

just read each one and of the 4 you will see 3 theolgies.

Mark

Matt/Luke

John

and no you have to pick one, you cannot make them all fit into one theology.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:14 pm I'm not a christian, but I'll hazard a guess...

Jesus is god, but he's also man.

"Oh God why you have forsaken me?" is his human frailty and fear.

In that moment: Jesus felt very human.

nice try, but no.

read your bible.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:14 pm I'm not a christian, but I'll hazard a guess...

Jesus is god, but he's also man.

Jesus is God in Gospel of John

Jesus is God's Son in Matt/Luke - born as God's Son - literally YHWH impregnated mary.

Jesus was not God's son but the son of a man, and later was adopted by YHWH as his son on the river Jordan via John the Baptist as a young adult - Gospel of Mark.

I like Gosp of Mark the best because Jesus in it is the most human and so can relate to him.

i disslike Gosp of John for the same reasons, in that gospel Jesus is the least human and is a robot with all the answers and so do not nor wish to relate to that version of jesus.

me not being a robot nor one with all the answers.

no

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:57 am I like Gosp of Mark the best because Jesus in it is the most human and so can relate to him.

i disslike Gosp of John for the same reasons, in that gospel Jesus is the least human and is a robot with all the answers and so do not nor wish to relate to that version of jesus.

Naturally you can just go with, or make up, whatever suits you amidst and from all that is made up as well.

It would make no sense for anyone to claim that what they choose to go with from the Bible is the best and most true interpretation, because such ideas and stories are simply what others have written based on their own limited and skewed understanding/awareness and beliefs at the time in which they lived.

It really does seem very primitive and fearful to base one's life, beliefs, and understandings on ANY book of old beliefs. There is value and wisdom from all directions and sources now and always, to be artfully woven into an ever-broadening awareness that is not so dependent on (or limited by) a certain identity or story.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:26 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:57 am I like Gosp of Mark the best because Jesus in it is the most human and so can relate to him.

i disslike Gosp of John for the same reasons, in that gospel Jesus is the least human and is a robot with all the answers and so do not nor wish to relate to that version of jesus.

Naturally you can just go with, or make up, whatever suits you amidst and from all that is made up as well.

It would make no sense for anyone to claim that what they choose to go with from the Bible is the best and most true interpretation, because such ideas and stories are simply what others have written based on their own limited and skewed understanding/awareness and beliefs at the time in which they lived.

It really does seem very primitive and fearful to base one's life, beliefs, and understandings on ANY book of old beliefs. There is value and wisdom from all directions and sources now and always, to be artfully woven into an ever-broadening awareness that is not so dependent on (or limited by) a certain identity or story.

the difference is i come to "the bible" via textual criticism, and this is a logic mindset that aims for the most accurate understanding of whom, what and where.

1. There is no Sola Scripture (unified vision/theology), instead there are 53? books nearly all were written by different persons (about half of them were written by more than one author - added to centuries later (i.s. ending of Amos was added to centuries later - to remove the original authors claim that the jewish god would leave the jews and instead adopt the etheopians if they continued to act like dicks).

2. Textual criticism give primacy to the timeline, so the earlier the work the more accurate. so since mark was written in 70 AD, and John 28 yrs later, i choose the former as the more accurate account of events and the nature of the man around those events.

and ignore John - Matt/Luke also back up Mark in events, where John is the outlier nearly allways - so john is not historical due to having been written much later than the others about the same person and the events around him.

- so sure you can "pict and choose" - like any ignoramous. that is your right, and too many do.

or you can use logic and textural criticism the understand what to pict and choose and do the picking and choosing properly and accuratley.

thanks for reply.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:26 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:57 am I like Gosp of Mark the best because Jesus in it is the most human and so can relate to him.

i disslike Gosp of John for the same reasons, in that gospel Jesus is the least human and is a robot with all the answers and so do not nor wish to relate to that version of jesus.

Naturally you can just go with, or make up, whatever suits you amidst and from all that is made up as well.

It would make no sense for anyone to claim that what they choose to go with from the Bible is the best and most true interpretation, because such ideas and stories are simply what others have written based on their own limited and skewed understanding/awareness and beliefs at the time in which they lived.

It really does seem very primitive and fearful to base one's life, beliefs, and understandings on ANY book of old beliefs. There is value and wisdom from all directions and sources now and always, to be artfully woven into an ever-broadening awareness that is not so dependent on (or limited by) a certain identity or story.

Yes.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:42 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:26 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:57 am I like Gosp of Mark the best because Jesus in it is the most human and so can relate to him.

i disslike Gosp of John for the same reasons, in that gospel Jesus is the least human and is a robot with all the answers and so do not nor wish to relate to that version of jesus.

Naturally you can just go with, or make up, whatever suits you amidst and from all that is made up as well.

It would make no sense for anyone to claim that what they choose to go with from the Bible is the best and most true interpretation, because such ideas and stories are simply what others have written based on their own limited and skewed understanding/awareness and beliefs at the time in which they lived.

It really does seem very primitive and fearful to base one's life, beliefs, and understandings on ANY book of old beliefs. There is value and wisdom from all directions and sources now and always, to be artfully woven into an ever-broadening awareness that is not so dependent on (or limited by) a certain identity or story.

Yes.

no.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:44 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:42 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:26 pm
Naturally you can just go with, or make up, whatever suits you amidst and from all that is made up as well.

It would make no sense for anyone to claim that what they choose to go with from the Bible is the best and most true interpretation, because such ideas and stories are simply what others have written based on their own limited and skewed understanding/awareness and beliefs at the time in which they lived.

It really does seem very primitive and fearful to base one's life, beliefs, and understandings on ANY book of old beliefs. There is value and wisdom from all directions and sources now and always, to be artfully woven into an ever-broadening awareness that is not so dependent on (or limited by) a certain identity or story.

Yes.

no.

Are you saying that the gospel that you don't like is a lie?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:06 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:44 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:42 pm
Yes.

no.

Are you saying that the gospel that you don't like is a lie?

no, the author of John probably believed everything he wrote about the life of Jesus, and his theological view that he was God, and not His Son - born or adopted, was an honest belief by him. likely he did not invent that concept, but was a member of a congregation in Asia Minor of Jews that took that view, and he wrote down oral stories that he had heard for years to pen and paper.

what i am saying - as i said before - is that 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. There were at least two older works, now lost "q" and one other that Matt and Luke refer to, but not Mark.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:46 pm 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? Have you read his original version? Why would the time it was written be the most credible factor?

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!

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. The gospels are first and foremost propaganda. It's not unlikely that his cry of desperation, why hast thou forsaken me, is the same feeling felt by so many humans abandoned by the god they once believed in.

In short, an unjustified conclusion ending in an accusation! What else is new in a world where corruption has long buried justice.