20 replies to this topic

[Dying Seraph]

Greetings folks. It's hard to find a figure more important and more polarizing in the thoughts that are conjured through name, then Jesus Christ. For many he's a savior for others a madman.

This topic is rather straightforward and thus I shall be blunt. Why/how has Jesus stood not only the test of time, but how has he come to be through all this time the "son of God" (saviour) for so many? How did Jesus stand out among the rest at the time? Was it the convictions that Jesus lived by and the fact that he had a admirer in Paul there to help cement his stature?

Jesus in the Bible at least appears to make bold claims particilarly in the Book of John. About how no one may come to the father but through him. That again he is the son of God (granted other passages convey "son of man'") was nothing original. Others at the time were making as bold as claims as Jesus. Simon the Magus appears to have beleived himself divine and of God. We even get a likely fabled account (as there are a few different allegations to his demise) that he had his followers bury him alive for three days so that on the third he may rise from it. Another time he fly's around in the air only to be dropped like a stone at the prayer of Peter. But I digress.
Simon's mentor, Dositheus who seems to have been a contemperary of Jesus also made the bold claim to be the "son of God." One may argue to what degree each meant by that statement "son of God" however in the case of Dositheus and Jesus the attempt appears to be the same. A savior of sorts to their followers. That this is also known by the fact that Dositheus is recorded by either St. Epiphanius or Photius to have claimed to have been, the messiah sent here to fulfil the prophecy laid out by the prophets appears to convey what the Bible seems to have in mind for Jesus. So how, why did Jesus stand out as the Messiah when others also made the claim? How was "his message" (in quotations because we really don't know what Jesus had in mind let alone if what is written in the Bible as attributed to being said by Jesus was really stated by Jesus at all) any more original than anyone else? Was it that he had a fanatic in Paul that helped raise his stature? Was it his apparent message? How did Jesus come to stand the test of time and become not just a son of God but for many, "THE son of God?"

Edited by Dying Seraph, 28 June 2012 - 04:54 AM.

[Artaxerxes]

Why not?

[and then]

Aside from the fact that He fulfilled many many predictions written about His coming, death and resurrection I think He stood the test of time because He was who He claimed to be.  For those who do not accept this and do not accept any prophetic fulfillment as proof then there is no way to explain His being.  I fully expect to meet Him some day not so far away, possibly before I die - I'm 51 - and I also believe the scriptures that say that all eyes will see Him and that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is God.  I don't say these things to be provocative or to argue His existence....He hardly requires my help.  I say them because it's what I truly believe and it is my great hope.  By your own criteria it is extremely improbable that a mere mortal could have had such a lasting effect.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

he had the best publicits.

[Dying Seraph]

Artaxerxes, on 28 June 2012 - 05:09 AM, said:

Why not?

If that if honestly good enough for you...power to you. But why not is not good enough for me.

and then, on 28 June 2012 - 05:11 AM, said:

Aside from the fact that He fulfilled many many predictions written about His coming, death and resurrection I think He stood the test of time because He was who He claimed to be.  For those who do not accept this and do not accept any prophetic fulfillment as proof then there is no way to explain His being.  I fully expect to meet Him some day not so far away, possibly before I die - I'm 51 - and I also believe the scriptures that say that all eyes will see Him and that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is God. I don't say these things to be provocative or to argue His existence....He hardly requires my help.  I say them because it's what I truly believe and it is my great hope.  By your own criteria it is extremely improbable that a mere mortal could have had such a lasting effect.

In regards to the first bold, that is your right, but would just like to say that the gospels were written so many years after...it seems safe to say that we truly do not know what Jesus had in mind. Even those closest to him appear to have not gotten him or missunderstood him. Peter, Jesus's rock of the church himself appears to have been one that missundertsood Jesus most. So if they didn;t get him in his life time? WHat makes you think the claims attributed to him are real? Not tring to pick a fight with you I am genuinely trying to find out why.
In regards to what he fulfiled that seems debatable as well. For Christians yes. For Jews that were expectign a warrior like messiah to free em...hasn't happened. Others made prophetic messages as well. By my own criteria...improbable? Not at all I don't think. Simon appears to be one of the forefathers of Gnosticism so he appears to have been almost as huge as Jesus. So again why Jesus? Many others made bold statements as well. In regards to anyting being fulfilled...seems debatable. SImons name has lived up to today. In Gnostism he's a forefather. Naturally being another claiming to be son of God or from God, the Bible has to demean him and portray him as one attempting to buy salvation. Admittedly at least that's what I get from it. Hence the term Simony maintaining negative connotations to his name these millenium later.

When you say all eyes will bow and every tongue confess that he is God. You don't mean Jesus correct? As that would be sacrilage to equate Jesus to God so I can only imagine you mean the God of Jesus to be the correct God so that's why you follow Jesus?

It's not exactly my intention to argue his existance at all either. The fact remains many were willing to die for such matters conveys that whether one wants to accept it as real or not people were willing to die for it and thus believed it to be real. Thank you for the post.

SINcerely,

Edited by Dying Seraph, 28 June 2012 - 05:29 AM.

[Karlis]

and then, on 28 June 2012 - 05:11 AM, said:

~~~ ...


... I also believe the scriptures that say that all eyes will see Him and that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is God.   ...

You may say that I am being "picky" here, and then, but I would like to point out what I consider to be an error you (and most Christian denominations) make about Jesus; namely that "He is God".


I'm saying that Jesus -- having "God the Father" as His father -- makes Jesus of the same genus as his father, but Jesus is not "God, as the Father is God".


Scriptures state that only the Father has inherent immortality; and that the Father has "granted" immortality to Jesus. There is a difference. Scriptures, the one you mentioned -- and another -- show that only the Father has immortality-inherent.


Php 2:10  That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Php 2:11  And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Joh 5:26  For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; ...


That said, this is a point of discussion, but not one relevant to salvation,
Karlis

[eight bits]

Hey, DS

Predictably, I'll go with Doctor Carl. Jung (son of a Calvinist minister, nephew of theologians, many-great grandson of a Catholic theologian, ...) believed that the Christian genius was adapting ts message to changing circumstances.

So, in the beginning, Paul tells Gentiles that according to Jewish (Pharisee) teaching, if they join up with him, they'll never die. Now there's a sales pitch. When some of them do die, we see the first adaptation of the Christian message, possibly at 1 Corintians 15: 18, and then on through the rest of the chapter, especially verse 51

Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed

OK, then Jesus doesn't come back, and "the last man standing" of the first generation dies (John's beloved disciple?). So , first there is backpedalling (see John 21 - Peter misunderstood Jesus, you see...), and then repositioning.

You mentioned Simon of Samaria. Well, he wasn't the only one doing magic in the Christian circles. If you're doing exorcisms, resurrections and healings in the name of Jesus, then there must be somethng to the Jesus story, or so you can say. Add to this the willingness of Christians to extend charity to their non-Christian neighbors, their physical courage, and their organizational genius (the bishop system was a huge advance over the Roman governance methods), and you have an organization that can survive and grow until the late Fourth Century to becomne the state religion of a great Empire (the Eastern Roman), and the only political organization of any kind in a dead one (what had been the Western Roman).

And you can extend that thread onwards through the millennia. Nowadays, with thousands of varieties to choose from, there's a Christianity for every taste. If you prefer something traditional, then you can partake of the Orthodox-Catholic churches on a buffet basis (which annoys those who don't, but look at all the liberal Catholic pro-choice politicians, for example). And the pay-off for that? Theosis (in the Roman Church, the beatific vision), becoming indistinguishable from God in knowledge, power, etc, except that you'll have a body.

Whoa. Anything personal to Jesus doesn't seem all that important, just the role assigned to him.. Even Paul, a mere few decades after the facts (if they are facts) apparently wasn't hung up on biographical detail. When the Gospels do come along, Jesus is a pleasant fellow, unjustly killed, but he says and does nothing that will interfere with molding and remolding his "mission" as circumstances require.

All in my opinion, of course.

[Copen]

The belief is not based upon what Jesus said. It is based upon a personal encounter.  None of the others can or have done that.

[HavocWing]

eight bits, on 28 June 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

Hey, DS

Predictably, I'll go with Doctor Carl. Jung (son of a Calvinist minister, nephew of theologians, many-great grandson of a Catholic theologian, ...) believed that the Christian genius was adapting ts message to changing circumstances.

So, in the beginning, Paul tells Gentiles that according to Jewish (Pharisee) teaching, if they join up with him, they'll never die. Now there's a sales pitch. When some of them do die, we see the first adaptation of the Christian message, possibly at 1 Corintians 15: 18, and then on through the rest of the chapter, especially verse 51

Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed

OK, then Jesus doesn't come back, and "the last man standing" of the first generation dies (John's beloved disciple?). So , first there is backpedalling (see John 21 - Peter misunderstood Jesus, you see...), and then repositioning.

You mentioned Simon of Samaria. Well, he wasn't the only one doing magic in the Christian circles. If you're doing exorcisms, resurrections and healings in the name of Jesus, then there must be somethng to the Jesus story, or so you can say. Add to this the willingness of Christians to extend charity to their non-Christian neighbors, their physical courage, and their organizational genius (the bishop system was a huge advance over the Roman governance methods), and you have an organization that can survive and grow until the late Fourth Century to becomne the state religion of a great Empire (the Eastern Roman), and the only political organization of any kind in a dead one (what had been the Western Roman).

And you can extend that thread onwards through the millennia. Nowadays, with thousands of varieties to choose from, there's a Christianity for every taste. If you prefer something traditional, then you can partake of the Orthodox-Catholic churches on a buffet basis (which annoys those who don't, but look at all the liberal Catholic pro-choice politicians, for example). And the pay-off for that? Theosis (in the Roman Church, the beatific vision), becoming indistinguishable from God in knowledge, power, etc, except that you'll have a body.

Whoa. Anything personal to Jesus doesn't seem all that important, just the role assigned to him.. Even Paul, a mere few decades after the facts (if they are facts) apparently wasn't hung up on biographical detail. When the Gospels do come along, Jesus is a pleasant fellow, unjustly killed, but he says and does nothing that will interfere with molding and remolding his "mission" as circumstances require.

All in my opinion, of course.

I've known people who violently turned tables over, there is nothing pleasant about them.

Edited by HavocWing, 28 June 2012 - 02:51 PM.

[AngelsShadow]

Let's go a little more indepth shall we? Particularly focusing on the name "Jesus" this is just the English translation of his name, derived from the Latin name Jesus (Hey-soos), but because we pronounce the names (Jee-zus) it was just that, Jesus. However, this is not his real name. His actual name varies in different translations, Iesus in Greek, Yesua in Aramaic/Hebrew and also Yehosua in Hebrew. These names sound extremely close to Yahweh, which is the name of the Jewish and Christian "God". The closeness of his name could have some bearing on his reputation.

His name actually translates to three different things "Yahweh is Salvation" "Jehovah is Salvation" and "Yahweh Saves" this means that many would revear him as a sort of "Son of God".

Also consider his message. His massage was to serve Yahweh (God) with your very soul and every action, this appealed to people in a big way back then, because back then almost everyone was extremely religious and would basically buy into anything that had to do with Yahweh, because a great majority of his following was of Jewish faith.

Last, but certainly not least. Consider the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ, he was subjected to the worst type of torture imaginable, lived through the ripping of his beard, the crown of thorns being forced through his skull and the cat of nine tails, which ripped the very flesh from his back, exposing his bones and his organs, and then being nailed, when most people were tied, to a rough, wooden cross and left to die, but stayed on the cross, alive for three days, when most people died, just from being tied to it, after only a day, just from the sheer exhaustion of having to pull themselves up every time they tried to take a breath. He endured massive bleeding, extreme heat, exposed organs, extremely high risk of infection and a punctured skull for three days before finally dying. Then he was reported to have ressurected three days after being buried with a highly mutilated body.

Now consider the mentality of the people back then, wouldn't you worship someone who reported to have endured all of this and then raised from the dead?

So one of two things... Either A.) He was one hell of a tough cookie and could really take a beating, or B.) He really was the Son of God. It's up to you to judge.

[Dying Seraph]

First and foremost thank you to everyone for contributing, it's much appreciated.

Karlis, on 28 June 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

You may say that I am being "picky" here, and then, but I would like to point out what I consider to be an error you (and most Christian denominations) make about Jesus; namely that "He is God".


I'm saying that Jesus -- having "God the Father" as His father -- makes Jesus of the same genus as his father, but Jesus is not "God, as the Father is God"....

.....
Karlis

Greetings Karlis. I must thank you for posting even and isolating something I was having an issue with in that statement.

Since reading the great Isaac Newton rejection to the equality in the trinity, it's been my impression that the trinity is sacrilage. While Jesus and the holy ghost and the father are three specifically they all come from one whole or unity that of the Father or in the fashion of Meister Eckart that everything comes back to the oneness.  I don't understand how Jesus is equated to God other then to attempt to raise the stature of a human to godlike status. However your explanation and ideology is something I will be taking into consideration as well as in regards to the passages you provided thank you.

eight bits, on 28 June 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

Hey, DS

Predictably, I'll go with Doctor Carl. Jung (son of a Calvinist minister, nephew of theologians, many-great grandson of a Catholic theologian, ...) believed that the Christian genius was adapting ts message to changing circumstances.

So, in the beginning, Paul tells Gentiles that according to Jewish (Pharisee) teaching, if they join up with him, they'll never die. Now there's a sales pitch. When some of them do die, we see the first adaptation of the Christian message, possibly at 1 Corintians 15: 18, and then on through the rest of the chapter, especially verse 51

Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed

OK, then Jesus doesn't come back, and "the last man standing" of the first generation dies (John's beloved disciple?). So , first there is backpedalling (see John 21 - Peter misunderstood Jesus, you see...), and then repositioning.

Greetings Eight Bits!
Ahh and I wouldn't expect any less than Jung from you by now.

Your statement or that reflecting of Jung, "that the Christian genius was adapting its message to changing circumstances" is something I speculated but admittedly perhaps never fully digested to what degree such things transpire. And it seems sadly a whole lot more and in a grim fashion done to cover their tracks for lack of a better term.

Quote

You mentioned Simon of Samaria. Well, he wasn't the only one doing magic in the Christian circles. If you're doing exorcisms, resurrections and healings in the name of Jesus, then there must be somethng to the Jesus story, or so you can say. Add to this the willingness of Christians to extend charity to their non-Christian neighbors, their physical courage, and their organizational genius (the bishop system was a huge advance over the Roman governance methods), and you have an organization that can survive and grow until the late Fourth Century to becomne the state religion of a great Empire (the Eastern Roman), and the only political organization of any kind in a dead one (what had been the Western Roman).

I certainly did as well as his mentor and comtemporary of Jesus, Dositheus who more specifically than Simon made the same statements as Christ in that he claimed to be the Messiah sent by God. Simon in my studies never appears to make any more bold a statement than to simply come from God. Oh wait except that he and the prostitute he bought and whom insisted was Helen of Troy assumed a stature of divinity. However in any event you are correct Simon the Magus of Samaria, was not the only one participating in exorcism and the casting out of demons by using divine names.
It's interesting that before his conversion the bible says this of Simon, "This man is that power of god which is called great." (Acts8:10). So either this was untrue of when Phillip baptized Simon, it was after that he recieved "true magic" or the power of God. However even then Simon doesn't appear to have the holy spirit on his side because when Peter and John come strolling into town he is condemned buy the two.

Which leads me to my dilemna with something you presented. I am not certain that even after SImon's baptism by Phillip that he ever conjures the name of Jesus himself personally. Only after he appears to attempt to buy this gift of "this power that any man I lay my hands on, may recieve the Holy Spirit" from the way it's written out I get the impression that while Simon participated in magic I see no attempts to use the name of Jesus or the holy spirit until after the arrival of Peter and John. Yet then the Bible the next moment portrays Simon as weak begging for forgiveness...so I truly do not know what to make of any of this.. lol

What you stated cannot be denied. That,"there must be somethng to the Jesus story, or so you can say." And it also doesn't hurt as you conveyed that this new path of Christianity appealed more to the masses. WHich would've been the downtrodden, broken spirited etc. who need a message of hope more than anyone else. And it doesn't hurt that these early peoples lived by practicing the art of being charitable and kind to the "unfortunate" that were cast asides before.

Quote

And you can extend that thread onwards through the millennia. Nowadays, with thousands of varieties to choose from, there's a Christianity for every taste. If you prefer something traditional, then you can partake of the Orthodox-Catholic churches on a buffet basis (which annoys those who don't, but look at all the liberal Catholic pro-choice politicians, for example). And the pay-off for that? Theosis (in the Roman Church, the beatific vision), becoming indistinguishable from God in knowledge, power, etc, except that you'll have a body.

Whoa. Anything personal to Jesus doesn't seem all that important, just the role assigned to him.. Even Paul, a mere few decades after the facts (if they are facts) apparently wasn't hung up on biographical detail. When the Gospels do come along, Jesus is a pleasant fellow, unjustly killed, but he says and does nothing that will interfere with molding and remolding his "mission" as circumstances require.

All in my opinion, of course.

Just the role assigned to him. And what a great role ot have heaped on ones shoulders. Be it by a handed down burden or wilffully attempting to make it so it remains the role assigned to him. And I can't help but feel you on that regard about Paul not being too hung up on details.
The bold...I must admit rendered me speechless for a moment. lol I don't know if I am missunderstanding you which is quite likely and ask you bear with me. Jesus in the Book of John for example makes bold statements regarding how we need to throughhim to get to the father. Either Jesus didn't suggest at thing which I could accept. Or he did and this would certainly have a profound effect on the people hearing this. Especially since Jesus seems to have appealed to the most interesting lot of people that he eventually seemed to surround himself with. And again I may just be missunderstanding you and apologize if I'm not grasping you fully.

And thank you kindly for your opinion.

HavocWing, on 28 June 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

I've known people who violently turned tables over, there is nothing pleasant about them.

Well even the nicest person has a bad day. Especially if you have hair like Christ did and no cosmetics of hair stylist...anyone back then could've had a bad hair day.

SINcerely,

[Dying Seraph]

AngelsShadow, on 28 June 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Let's go a little more indepth shall we? Particularly focusing on the name "Jesus" this is just the English translation of his name, derived from the Latin name Jesus (Hey-soos), but because we pronounce the names (Jee-zus) it was just that, Jesus. However, this is not his real name. His actual name varies in different translations, Iesus in Greek, Yesua in Aramaic/Hebrew and also Yehosua in Hebrew. These names sound extremely close to Yahweh, which is the name of the Jewish and Christian "God". The closeness of his name could have some bearing on his reputation.

Greetings Angels...
Yes and there's also Jehu which would be Yehu in Hebrew "he is Yahweh."
I purposely left this off the topic because I worried I'd offend someone in regards to some of the unpleasant thoughts I have regardign Jesus and his role at least given in John. But that said I am glad you presented it.

Quote

His name actually translates to three different things "Yahweh is Salvation" "Jehovah is Salvation" and "Yahweh Saves" this means that many would revear him as a sort of "Son of God".

All are also certainly possible renderings but my favorite and coincidently I think serves both our point is Yehu "he is Yahweh." It's pretty much an all out declaration. And this is something...one of the aspects that has had me wondering the majority of the tales surrounding Jesus and his followers are all midrashes. Liek the whole connection of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 disciples of Jesus. Judas in an early midrash suggests to his brothers they trade Joseph in for money. Judas does the same thing to Jesus except for the 20 pieces Judas and his brothers got Judas Iscariot got a whole 10 pieces of silver more. It's things like this that make me question the validity of the stories surrounding Jesus.  

Quote

Also consider his message. His massage was to serve Yahweh (God) with your very soul and every action, this appealed to people in a big way back then, because back then almost everyone was extremely religious and would basically buy into anything that had to do with Yahweh, because a great majority of his following was of Jewish faith.

In regards ot his message...that is open to debate. We can speculate but the fact that all the accounts are written so far after the fact, it can be just as easy that these were not the messages of Jesus at all but his followers in an attempt at creating a sense of unity. Not saying you are wrong just saying I think it's impossible so say without doubt what the message of Jesus was.

You do understand that Yahweh has origins in the land of Midian correct? Outside of Israel Not exactly a Hebraic God until Moses comes along.

Quote

Last, but certainly not least. Consider the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ, he was subjected to the worst type of torture imaginable, lived through the ripping of his beard, the crown of thorns being forced through his skull and the cat of nine tails, which ripped the very flesh from his back, exposing his bones and his organs, and then being nailed, when most people were tied, to a rough, wooden cross and left to die, but stayed on the cross, alive for three days, when most people died, just from being tied to it, after only a day, just from the sheer exhaustion of having to pull themselves up every time they tried to take a breath. He endured massive bleeding, extreme heat, exposed organs, extremely high risk of infection and a punctured skull for three days before finally dying. Then he was reported to have ressurected three days after being buried with a highly mutilated body.

It's hard to consider the ressurection of a dead man when there are too many discrepancies in the account of Jesus' death and his rise from death.
You also do understand that Jesus in the end may have had his own doubts in his own God right? Jesus is said to have said, "My God, My God why have yuo forsaken me?" on the cross. This would suggest that even Jesus was may have had his doubts on the cross of his God saving him. So this guy who took it upon himself to die for the masses appears to even have doubted himself on the cross. HArdly the actions of a savior I'd imagine. Not to mention that Jesus' actions of mocking the ROmans was Jesus sealing his own fate and torture. When you mock the Romans you're gonna pay.

Quote

Now consider the mentality of the people back then, wouldn't you worship someone who reported to have endured all of this and then raised from the dead?

So one of two things... Either A.) He was one hell of a tough cookie and could really take a beating, or B.) He really was the Son of God. It's up to you to judge.

As far as Jesus rising from the dead...the likelier scenario is after Jesus died and vultures ate his body, he and the others on crosses were thrown into burning garbage heaps for sanitary reasons or placed in a mass grave. The account of Jospeph of Arithmea is riddled in inconsistancy that it seems very doubtul he purchased thebody of Jesus for the tomb as the Bible suggests where he rose again and thus an imbelished added account. But I can see how people would rather except that as it's more hopeful that Jesus died and rose then some dude being eaten by vultures and then dumped away.

SINcerely,

Edited by Dying Seraph, 28 June 2012 - 09:34 PM.

[ChloeB]

Karlis, on 28 June 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

You may say that I am being "picky" here, and then, but I would like to point out what I consider to be an error you (and most Christian denominations) make about Jesus; namely that "He is God".


I'm saying that Jesus -- having "God the Father" as His father -- makes Jesus of the same genus as his father, but Jesus is not "God, as the Father is God".


Scriptures state that only the Father has inherent immortality; and that the Father has "granted" immortality to Jesus. There is a difference. Scriptures, the one you mentioned -- and another -- show that only the Father has immortality-inherent.


Php 2:10  That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Php 2:11  And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Joh 5:26  For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; ...


That said, this is a point of discussion, but not one relevant to salvation,
Karlis

Second idea I've seen Karlis venture off the well-beaten Christian path, kudos for most excellent awesomeness.    I like people who think outside the box, even if it isn't my box,

[Dash--]

quote

"You also do understand that Jesus in the end may have had his own doubts in his own God right? Jesus is said to have said, "My God, My God why have yuo forsaken me?" on the cross. This would suggest that even Jesus was may have had his doubts on the cross of his God saving him. So this guy who took it upon himself to die for the masses appears to even have doubted himself on the cross."
quote


Not to agree or disagree with anyone,but I always understood this to be Jesus reciting Psalms 22.

[Dying Seraph]

Dash--, on 28 June 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

quote

"You also do understand that Jesus in the end may have had his own doubts in his own God right? Jesus is said to have said, "My God, My God why have yuo forsaken me?" on the cross. This would suggest that even Jesus was may have had his doubts on the cross of his God saving him. So this guy who took it upon himself to die for the masses appears to even have doubted himself on the cross."
quote


Not to agree or disagree with anyone,but I always understood this to be Jesus reciting Psalms 22.

The Bible conveys that Jesus appears to be making these statements on the cross. I understand what you are saying. Bear in mind it's not my intention to portray what I did as factual as I doubt it is, but that it's recorded Jesus said this while on the cross. And if so it conveys to me nothing of the mighty savior we are to see in him and his God it appears he doubts at this moment. It conveys the humanism in the mighty figure we get of Jesus. In fact we get a few different scenarios of Jesus hanging on the cross this one I presented is most fascinating to me because it conveys a sense of desperation into this poor human suffering.

SINcerely,

Edited by Dying Seraph, 28 June 2012 - 10:37 PM.