| Author | Message | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7274 Registered: 9-2006  |
Your cooked and I'm fried Your all wet and I'm all dried That makes us both candidates for Jesus.  | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 544 Registered: 3-2009 |
Lol. I was going to ask if someone would clearly draw the proposed conceptual distinction between forsake and separate. But River already asked. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 617 Registered: 7-2005 |
Jeremy For the moment my busy schedule prevents me to engage on this topic as I would like, I don't have time to evaluate Sproul's position. I think is less plausible to take Sproul's affirmations in an ontological sense. I know Sproul as somebody who's very, very careful to fine tune his position in order to stay away from heretical traps. What I can offer instead is a quick expansion of what I said previously, this time in the context of christological heresies. Because the former adventists who left the SDA church with me had fallen into Arianism, one of the most often arguments I heard from them was that Jesus Himself affirmed that the Father is greater than He was, also that only the Father knew the hour and the day of Jesus' second coming, the Son was not omniscient as the Father. They took these statements in an ontological sense, affirming ontological subordinationism. The right answer was to place these statements in the categories where they belong, in the categories of positions and relationships. When Jesus became incarnate He placed Himself in an inferior position to the Father, a change of relationship, He became subordinate to the Father, but not in an ontological way. He assumed voluntarily a position that changed the way in which He related with His Father, as the new Adam. This matches well with the judicial categories I mentioned before, because Jesus identified with and voluntarily took our position, He was born under law, He suffered the curse of the law, He fulfilled the law. He took the position of a condemned sinner in order for us to be placed in a position of becoming a justified saint. When we are justified we are also adopted in God's family and change positions, our relationship with God change, from strangers and enemies to members of the family and beloved friends. I think that making these distinctions between ontological categories and positional (or judicial, relational) categories prevent us from falling into subordinationism, and also help us understand the texts which speak separation from God. Once we were strangers, enemies, separate from God's family, now we are justified, adopted, part of the family of God. Gabriel | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7277 Registered: 9-2006 |
Quote: So what you're saying is that it would only be a partial redemption/atonement because only our bodies would be redeemed if Jesus only suffered bodily death? (end of quote) No, not what I am saying at all, a partial redemption is no redemption at all. River | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 958 Registered: 7-2008  |
I agree with your statement River. In my opinion..God doesnt do things halfway.The atonement for our sin was complete at the Cross. Jesus said.."it is finished". I trust the record of Scripture, not the beliefs of scholars past or present. Animal | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3712 Registered: 10-2004  |
Animal, No one on this thread, or who was quoted on this thread, ever denied that. Jeremy | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 959 Registered: 7-2008 |
I didnt say they did. I just wanted to state my belief, just as others here are sharing their beliefs. I think I am still allowed to do that on this forum as others are doing here on this forum and on this particular thread, Thank you. Animal | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1167 Registered: 7-2004  |
Jeremy, Based on our years worth of exchanges, I feel that you have earned a certain amount of latitude in these discussions. But at the same time, I feel like you have blown past some of the questions that I have asked. So instead of putting multiple questions in the same post, I will ask one at a time. On what basis could it be concluded that someone could be forsaken by God but not separated from God? Please focus on just the question and (I'm sure Seekinglight will appreciate this) I will walk through the logical elements of this doctrine. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3713 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, I have already answered that question by posting quotations which say it better than I could--for example:
Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 29, 2011) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3714 Registered: 10-2004 |
Another helpful way of looking at this might be to consider the original and immediate intent and context of this Psalm:
Now I don't think it can be denied that as well as being a Messianic prophecy, at the least the first verse (and others) would also apply to David and were his own prayers and feelings. So, this brings us to the following question: Was David separated from God? Who here would like to assert that "why have You forsaken me?" means that God had separated Himself from David? Any takers? Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 29, 2011) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1168 Registered: 7-2004 |
A withdrawal of divine protection has no relationship to separation? That sounds like a stretch to me. What specifically does the word forsaken mean in English? Is that word a proper translation? Do all of the other NT uses of the word support a definition of abandoned, left behind, or separated? | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1169 Registered: 7-2004 |
Would you say that someone claiming "O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer me" was experiencing separation? A plain reading of the words sounds like the author feels alone and isolated. Dou you have a different meaning for these words? | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3715 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, The original Hebrew word (azab) translated "forsaken" in Psalm 22:1 can simply mean to "neglect" to help. For example, it is used this way in a passage that many former Adventists are familiar with, Deuteronomy 14:26-27: "26And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household, 27And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee." [NASB: "Also you shall not neglect the Levite who is in your town,"] And I still believe that this is the contextual meaning in Psalm 22:1, "to neglect to help/deliver unto suffering." Strong's definition for azab is: "A primitive root; to loosen, i.e. Relinquish, permit, etc." For the Greek word (egkataleipo) translated "forsaken" in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, Thayer's Lexicon says the following (brackets "[...]" indicate Greek text in original): "1. to abandon, desert, ([...] equiv. to [...], in some place or condition), i.e. to leave in straits, leave helpless, (colloq. leave in the lurch): [...], Mt. xxvii. 46 and Mk. xv. 34 fr. Ps. xxi. (xxii.) ..." (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1459&t=KJV)
The author may have felt alone, but he knew that God had not abandoned him: "24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard." (Psalm 22:24 NASB.) Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 29, 2011) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3716 Registered: 10-2004 |
Also, compare Deuteronomy 31:17 with Psalm 22:1a and 22:4b. Jeremy | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1170 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, The Gospels aren't written in Hebrew. Please address the NT Greek use of the word. Unless you are going to deny verbal inspiration of the NT. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1171 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, In regards to verse 24, is it that David knew he wasn't alone right then, or that he hoped (or had faith) that he wouldn't be left alone forever? That the forsakeness was temporary, not permanent. I think that explanation fits better with the context starting in verse 19 leading up to this. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1172 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, Would you verify that the Greek "egkataleipo" is used in the LXX for Deut 14:27, from what I found it does not seem to be used. This would indicate that Jewish scholars saw a difference in how "azab" was used between these two verses. Furthermore I specifically asked about other NT uses of the word, would you please address that part of the question. This would go much smoother, although you may not want it to progress to the natural conclusions, if you would specifically answer my questions and limit your answers to my questions. If you find that the logical steps that I lead you through have a gap in their logic, we can return and discuss that. Thanks. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3717 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick,
This only makes sense if you are going to deny that Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 are a quotation of Psalm 22:1. (Jesus did not speak the words in Hebrew or Greek, but rather Aramaic: "Eli Eli lema sabachthani?".) Therefore, the original language (the Aramaic, or if we accept that He was quoting Psalm 22:1, the Hebrew) is the best. The Greek is simply a translation. This translation was, of course, verbally inspired. But the author still had to choose, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, a word that existed in the Greek language. Just as with translating into English, the closest word to match the original language may not be as precise as the original word in meaning. This does not at all take away from the verbal inspiration or accuracy or meaning of Scripture. And as I showed above, Thayer's Lexicon does give a similar meaning/usage for the Greek word (egkataleipo) as the Hebrew word azab can have. Besides Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, 2 Timothy 4:16 could possibly have this meaning. Other than those verses, the word is only used 6 times in the NT, so I don't know that we could expect to find a wide range of usage. As for the Aramaic word (sabacthani) itself, I came across the following definition:
Actually, it does not indicate any such thing. The words "you shall not neglect" are simply omitted and not translated in the Septuagint. The English version of the Septuagint simply reads: "...and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice and thy house, 27 and the Levite that is in thy cities, because he has not a portion or inheritance with thee." (http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Deuteronomy/index.htm) However, a parallel passage to Deuteronomy 14, Deuteronomy 12:18-19 is translated in the Septuagint. I don't exactly read Greek, but it looks to me like Deuteronomy 12:19 LXX, Psalm 22:1 LXX, Matthew 27:46, and Mark 15:34 do all use the same Greek word, or at least the same root words. Perhaps you can help me with that.
David wrote: "Nor has He hidden His face from him;" If you're going to talk about verbal inspiration, that doesn't sound like he is talking about the future to me. Also, you never answered my earlier question. Did God separate Himself from David? Was David left alone, simply because his enemies were threatening him? Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 29, 2011) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3718 Registered: 10-2004 |
Also regarding verse 24 of Psalm 22, it is the standard format in the Psalms for the psalmist to begin with complaints/negativity and to end the psalm with praise/positivity. Jeremy | ||
| Christo Registered user Username: Christo Post Number: 270 Registered: 2-2008 |
Hi Jeremy, thanks for bringing up the Aramaic. I have a question, one that I was thinking about just before I read your last post. The question is this: Why do we have to tie Matthew 27:46 To Psalms 22? Is it because some study bible told us to? Say we toss out the idea that psalms 22 is being quoted , and look at what Jesus said on the cross. So much was going on at that moment that the perfect words were uttered right then and there. Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani!!!! Like who put in the question mark. which translator of the Greek? I'm sure it was hard to utter those words up there on the cross given his suffering in the flesh, so to some he might not have sounded too excited, but his heart, the very heart of God was exclaiming his will. Whats not to get excited about Gods will. Lets also take a look at Gethsemane, when he was talking about taking this cup away from him. I don't know of a single carpenter who has not hit his thumb with a hammer, and I was in the trades for 25 years. It hurts real bad. Jesus was a carpenter. Jesus knew it was going to hurt up there on the cross, but he knew humanity would hurt real bad if they had to pay for their sins, so he laid himself down. There is no separation of God from himself. Jesus allowed everything to happen just the way it did, he could have called down 10,000 angels if he liked, but he didn't. Remember he could not have died until he took on our sin, it just couldn't have happened because he had no sin in him, and death is merrily a penalty of sin. How could he have died until he took on our sin, Notice he escaped death throughout his whole life up until the cross when he took on our sin. He was spared until the cross. They beat the crap out of him before the cross, and that would have probably killed anyone else, but Jesus had yet to take on our sin until the perfect sacrifice: himself. This was pictured in the Day of Atonement rituals. Lets look at the inclusiveness of the word sabaq, that you uncovered in your research.... to allow: Jesus laid himself down, and three days latter raised himself up....... to permit: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. WOW WHAT A REMEDY TO BE PERMITTED!!!....... to forgive: Forgive one another as I have forgiven you...... to forsake: I'm going to foresake punishing all of humanity cause I love people so much I'm going to take it in the chops....... Lets not forget that Jesus was in the ground for three days, and three nights primarily as a sign that he is the Messiah. Remember that other guy Lazzerath who was allowed to stay buried for three days so he would stinketh. Jesus delivered him, he delivered himself, and he delivered us. Jesus does it all. Jesus cried out once again, and gave up his spirit. Did he repeat Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani!!! or did he cry out in agony cause it hurt? I don't know. But at least his next to the last words , are actually proclaiming the Gospel, What beautiful thing. Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani! My God, My God, this was my destiny! Thank you Lord, Chris |
