| Author | Message | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7278 Registered: 9-2006  |
Actually I think you guys are net picking the same bone, the question was, in the original title of the thread, “Was Jesus forsaken?” Forsaken, refused to help, hid his face from his calamity, left alone. You guys go nit picking over words trying to answer the question, the Hebrew means this, the Greek means that and on and on. Forsaken in any other term is still forsaken, it is written in the understandable term it is meant to be written. Was Jesus at any time ever separated from himself, I don’t think so, not at least in terms a living person may ever understand. Now we could shoot Rick to try and check it out, but…Houston, we have a problem, Rick can’t come back and tell us the story!  So in the end, forsaken is forsaken, the God man was forsaken, but not because the father did not care, but just the opposite. He had to finish it, and that’s what he said, “It is finished.” Yall ignore the point I have been trying to make all along, The sacrifice must be complete, else we don’t have completed atonement, but we do. The original question was not, “Was Jesus separated from himself? But was he forsaken of God? Yes he was, in order that we might live. Imagine yourself laying dieing in a hospital room and your beloved wife is very aware of it, she wishes beyond anything she could be there with you, yet by necessity she cannot be there while you face death alone with strangers gawking at you in your plight and in your aloneness. Or the same thing with a father and son. Upon this happening, it turned dark and there was an earthquake which leads me to believe that God was very upset because he could not help his son, as I said, not out of purposeful neglect, but out of necessity…our necessity…for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. We should not ask this question without considering the Gospel, because for one thing, it is none of our business, our business is to accept the gospel and if we are not careful here we can neglect the Gospel and its true meaning for us. Now God, being one God, how can he be in two different setting in the role of father and son? There are some aspects of the father, son and Holy Spirit role I just don’t understand, and I’m not going to ask because yall don’t know either. Now Jeremy, Colleen said, “He became sin, and He became a curse (Gal 3:13)...how? I've no idea. What did this mean for hell? Again, I don't know exactly what happened. Yet we know His atonement was complete, that He nailed the curse of the law to the cross, that he broke the power of sin and death. We know that God forsook Him...but exactly what that means in a "scientific" way, we just aren't told. But we have to know that He knew no sin, He became sin, He became a curse, the Father crushed Him and gave Him as a propitiation in His blood...every horrific thing the Bible says about the wages of sin..Jesus took those wages and paid the price for us. I really believe that we have to be content to live with a bit of mystery. When we try too hard to nail down the HOW of these biblical facts, we sorta crush the life out of them! At the same time, I never want to ignore details that make Jesus, his nature, his work, his death and resurrection less than they are. I just don't think we can completely explain exactly what happened to Jesus, the God-Man, when He died. We know God cannot die; we know Jesus died; we know He was separated from the Father; we know the universe hung together in Him during those three days...but How?...we aren't told... Now she says, “When we try too hard to nail down the HOW of these biblical facts, we sorta crush the life out of them! That is the point I am trying to make here, lets not strangle on a gnat and swallow a Bowing 707 lest we forget for one moment to be thankful. River | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3719 Registered: 10-2004  |
Here are some additional passages to consider:
Jeremy | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7281 Registered: 9-2006 |
Those are Beautiful words to this old boy's ears Jeremy. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7282 Registered: 9-2006 |
Don't they ever sleep in Arizona? | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1173 Registered: 7-2004  |
Jeremy, Christ's words were in Aramaic, but the translation is in Greek and the translation is verbally inspired, so your argument is empty. Once again you are providing reams and reams of words that have nothing to do with actually answering my questions to you, many of which you aren't addressing. If you are saying that verbal inspiration is inaccurate, then you are headed down the SDA path of an imperfect, fallible Scripture. It seems that to support this pet doctrine of yours so far we have trampled to important doctrines, the substitutionary atonement and the infallibility of Scripture. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1174 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, there is a reason the I specified context. Verbal inspiration is never devoid of the immediate literary context. So, instead of taking the verse that your entire argument seems to hang on and read it alone, let's read it in context. 19 But you, O Lord, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! notice how this sets up the future. Currently God is far off (David is forsaken) but he pleads with the Lord to not be far off and the come to his aid. 20 Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! 21 Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen! 22 I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you: again, notice that the I will tell and will praise is future, verse 24 is part of the future telling and praising that David promises to do when God delivers him. 23 You who fear the Lord, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel! 24 For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him. Context supports the idea that David experienced being left alone by God, but that nonetheless David cried out to Him in the faith that God would ultimately answer and David promised that he would praise God for hearing him when he cried out. Even when feeling abandoned by God, when he is not hearing answers to his prayers, David can express that anguish to God and have the faith that when the chips are down, God will do what is needed. And David in anxious to be able to tell that story, and to praise God for that when it occurs. Setting aside all of the Messianic aspects of this psalm, that message, in context, is a wonderful message about faith.
I did answer you with the following: 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? | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1175 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, Let me summarize the questions of mine that I do not believe you have answered up to this point. 1)Would you say that someone claiming "O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer me" was experiencing separation? 2) A plain reading of the words "O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer me" sounds like the author feels alone and isolated. Do you have a different meaning for these words? 3)Can you defend that concept that "A withdrawal of divine protection has no relationship to separation"? 4) What specifically does the word forsaken mean in English? 5) Is forsaken a proper translation of the Greek? 6) 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: 1176 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, Let's look at your defense of other uses forsaken in the NT.
Mark 15:34 is simply the parallel account to Matt 27:46 so it doesn't provide us with any new insights on the word use. So I will continue on to 2 Tim 4:16 At my first defense no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me. May it not be charged against them! From a simple reading of this passage, Paul was left alone (separated, forsaken). If you are claiming that this can be seen as the same use as Jesus words on the cross then they would say, My God, why are you not standing next to me, why have you deserted me. I don't believe that there is any NT use of the word that would support your conclusions. | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 2486 Registered: 5-2007  |
TIME OUT FOLKS As I read this thread what I am seeing, other than the delving into the topic of the thread, is two strong-willed good students of scripture butting heads. Perhaps for the sake of the rest of us you could, respectively, share the biblical foundation for what you are sharing and leave it lay there knowing that not everyone sees it as you do. That way, each one of the rest of us can make up our own mind under the leading of the Holy Spirit. My own view is this: The resolution of the debate between you two centers on several related topics. 1. How do you understand the relationship of predestination versus free-will of man, a mystery? 2. How can a holy God never come in contact with sin yet is fully aware of our sin and where Jesus took on our sin without having a sin nature or ever sinning? 3. Jesus, knowing he would be victorious over sin and would return from the grave, why did he ask the Father; “If possible’ take this cup from me”? 4. Even though both of you would deny this, I suspect deep down that one or both of your are harboring the effects of the SDA heresy of ‘Soul Sleep’ where Jesus would have become non-existent. 5. Why does the bible say it is a curse to hang from a tree? Fearless Phil | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3720 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, You are ignoring the past tense in verse 21 of Psalm 22, and are also ignoring the poetical nature of the psalm. I am going to back on out of this thread now, as we are starting to go in circles, and your (totally baseless) accusations are getting more and more outrageous. I never said that verbal inspiration is inaccurate, in fact I explained the exact opposite. And I have answered your questions. I've put in a lot of time, effort, and research to answer your questions--just because you may not have liked the way I answered them does not mean that I did not answer them. Your demands of "answer these questions and these questions only and only in the way I want you to!" reminds me too much of the SDA poster "Azenilto Brito" over on 4TG. And as I said over there, there are such things as "leading questions" and/or questions built upon false premises, and I'm not going to fall into that trap. Also, when I answered the same way that you did, and asked you questions, you say I did not answer and that you answered me when you did not! Also, it's difficult to discuss something when you've never even told us exactly what your position is on the subject. I provided plenty of linguistic evidence to support my argument, which you refused to deal with, and I even showed you absolute proof from Deuteronomy 14:27 that in King James English, the word "forsake" does not have to have anything to do with "separation." Also, you've never explained how anything I have said tramples on the doctrine of substitutionary atonement--a very serious charge to just casually throw out there. And what you call a "pet doctrine" of mine has actually been the historic belief of the Christian faith ever since the Church was founded. If you think that I have "trampled...the substitutionary atonement," then I don't even want to know what you think about St. Augustine!:
Now I know how River felt when you kept falsely accusing him and misconstruing his beliefs in the same way on another thread recently. I was going to speak up and say something when I noticed it, and I wish I had. Rick, I really do respect you as an able Bible student and brother in Christ, and I have benefited very much from a lot of what you've written over the years in various places. But it really does seem that the way you've been posting on here recently has been getting under a lot of people's skin, for one reason or another. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3721 Registered: 10-2004 |
NOTE: CARM has a very good article on this subject on their website, that I came across at: http://carm.org/jesus-cross-father Jeremy | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1177 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, I have asked you to follow through a simple series of questions and logical steps in an attempt to show you the gaps in your logic. You have avoided the content of most of these questions by providing lengthy answers on unrelated concepts. Your unwillingness to directly address these questions without introducing multiple red-herrings tells me a great deal about the strength of your position. I, and others on this thead, have objected from the start that the view you presented in which Christ did not actual take on our sins in the sense of these being imputed to Him nor did He actually experience what should have been the punishment for our sins strikes at the very heart of the substitionary atonement. I don't know how anyone can be more clear than that. I told you exactly what my position is, my position is that what the Bible literally says is true, even if we can not explain all of the implications of it being true. Jesus became sin (most likely an imputation). Jesus was not only cursed, but became the curse itself (again most likely through imputation). Jesus actually experienced being forsaken by the Father, He was not simply calling people's rememberance to a passage. I'm not certain what all was entailed in experiencing being forsaken, but I believe that Jesus was telling the literal truth with His words. (And I believe that both the website that you linked in the OP and some of your statements here require that we accept the concept that Jesus didn't truly mean exactly what He was speaking). Jesus literally died for our sins (contrary to what you said it was not his blood that saved us, but His death that saved us--this is an important distinction in this discussion and I believe that you are teaching a grave heresy when you claim it is only the blood that does the salvational act). In regards to questioning your view of the infallibility of Scripture, you stated:
Although you provided the caveat that his doesn't take away from the accuracy of Scripture, in truth it does. You are claiming that the words chosen by the authors of Scripture may not always be the most accurate way of describing what was said by Jesus. So you are stating that Scripture is not completely accurate, just mostly accurate. Your presentation of inspiration sounds heavily influenced by the SDA view--
(Message edited by ric_b on June 30, 2011) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3722 Registered: 10-2004 |
Simply more misrepresentations of my beliefs. 1. I absolutely believe and have always affirmed that our sins were imputed to Jesus and that He bore them and paid the punishment for them--in fact I was the one having to stress to you first in this thread the point about our sins being imputed to Christ, in regard to 2 Corinthians 5:21. 2. I absolutely believe and have always said that Jesus literally died for our sins and that it is His death that saved us. (In one post on this thread, perhaps you were confused by my statement where I said I was concerned about people saying that "He also had to suffer spiritual separation/death"--by this I meant "spiritual separation/spiritual death" NOT physical death!) I have always said that it is His shed blood/physical death that saved us! 3. I never once claimed that the words chosen by the authors may not be the most accurate way of describing what Jesus said. In fact, I said that they gave us the most accurate possible way of describing what He said by giving us the actual, exact Aramaic words that He spoke (which language you wanted to ignore). And of course they chose the most accurate Greek words in translating what He said--the Scriptures have no mistakes. The Scriptures give us all of the information we need to accurately interpret them. I have never once claimed anything different, or espoused the SDA view. In fact, even when I was an SDA I was one of the minority that believed in verbal inspiration and inerrancy. Jeremy P.S. To clear up any confusion, I believe Rick is actually accusing me of denying penal substitution, not substitutionary atonement (which includes the ransom, satisfaction, governmental [Arminian], penal substitution [Reformed], etc. theories of atonement). This is perhaps because I said some things which are compatible with the governmental theory (but are also compatible with the penal substitution theory). To be clear, I believe in the penal substitution theory of the atonement (despite Rick's false accusations to the contrary). To learn more about the various theories of atonement, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_theory_of_atonement (Message edited by Jeremy on June 30, 2011) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3723 Registered: 10-2004 |
Strawmen may be the easiest targets to knock down, but it doesn't make it right. Jeremy P.S. I utterly reject the quote from the White Estate posted above. (Message edited by Jeremy on June 30, 2011) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1178 Registered: 7-2004 |
In an earlier post Jeremy has said:
I have understood this to mean that Jeremy is teaching that it was Jesus blood that paid the price for our sins. There is some support for viewing His blood as paying for our sins, see for instance Rev 1:5, 1 John 1:7 and perhaps Rom 3:25. But the overwhelming message in Scripture is that it was His death that paid for our sins, see for instance Rom 5:8,10; 1 Cor 1:13, 22-24 (indirectly) 1 Cor 15:3, Gal 2:20-21; 1 Pet 3:18. This is why Paul can say he was teaching nothing but Christ and Him crucified. There really should not be a dichotomy between the death of Christ and the blood of Christ, as they should be linked together. But placing a focus on only the blood does not seem consistent with the Biblical emphasis but does seem to be a convenient support for downplaying the substitutionary aspect of the atonement and emphasizing only the sacrificial nature of Christ. It may seem like splitting hairs. And I believe it does seem this way because the sacrificial nature of Christ's death is real and true. But there is an important hair that needs to be split theologically, because Jesus' death is not just a sacrificial one, nor is it just about fulfilling the steps of the OT sacrificial system. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1179 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, Let's talk seriously about misrepresentations and false accusations. Because that is what your post above is full of. You false stated that I had never stated what I believed. I answered that I had, and laid out again what I have stated as my beliefs. You have then assumed that each of these statements of what I believe must be an accusation that you don't believe those, so you list these as me misrepresenting your beliefs. It is clear that you have moved fully into a personal attack mode without any regard for the facts. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3724 Registered: 10-2004 |
And how many times do I have to tell you that you "understood" it wrong? By "blood" I meant His shed blood/death--I do and have always linked them together. If you had read my post that I linked to more than once on this thread from 2 years ago, or read my webpage about Matthew 27:46 that I linked to, then you would see that I say over and over again that it His death that saved us, and I do link together His blood and His death. Enough is enough, Rick! Please quit making up strawmen. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3725 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, That is not true. You specifically accused me of 1, 2, and 3 in my above post. I did not assume that you were accusing me of those things. You stated it specifically in post 1177. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 30, 2011) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3726 Registered: 10-2004 |
Can we please get a third party objective reader in here to attest to some facts here? Colleen? Jeremy P.S. Perhaps this thread should be closed. I never intended to start such a firestorm, and I apologize for contributing to it.  (Message edited by Jeremy on June 30, 2011) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1180 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy lets let the facts speak for themselves. In one post you claim
yet in a previous post, which I quoted along with my criticism of your approach you said
Having to select a word that is only close to the same meaning and is inprecise indicates that the words are not 100% accurate, but only as close to accurate as they could get them. This is not the same thing as being 100% accurate and infallible. Then you make this strange statement
This indicates to me that you think Scripture needs to be decoded, that the literal words of Scripture can not be completely trusted in every case, but instead we need to realy on properly "interpreting" those words to tease out what they really mean. As much as I respect your research abilities and your passion, I think that you are skating on thin ice in this approach to Scripture. And it worries me that you don't see these departures even when your own words are pointed out to you. |
