DID GOD FORSAKE HIS SON?

James Honigman said:

...Our Father and our Lord never disagreed with each other. ...

Click to expand...

I agree with that and I also agree with Jesus and God, after all, I think I am one with them also, as disciples of Jesus should be.

that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
John 17:21

Ivan Hlavanda said:

But the beatings, mocking etc. weren't the wrath of God, but a rejection of Israelites of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Let me take the time to tell you how glad I am that you said that the suffering that Jesus endured in beatings and mocking and crucifixion was not God's wrath and punishment meant for us. Because I believe that would be a false Gospel. And I would like to apologize for misunderstanding you.

No the wrath of God was poured on Jesus on the cross, when the separation of the Father God and Son God happened. That is the ultimate punishment for sinners, that God separates them from Himself, and that is the punishment Jesus had to take for us.

Click to expand...

Here is a question I often ponder. If someone had no Love, would they even care they had no love? While separation from God (sin/ungodliness), is a matter of degrees, in all honesty I doubt that if someone were separated from God completely they would care. I imagine they could only feel fear if they felt anything at all.

friend of said:

Did He or did He not experience the full weight of sin on calvary?

Click to expand...

That very much sounds like the discipline or punishment for sin and not some intangible like "sin" itself.

bling said:

That very much sounds like the discipline or punishment for sin and not some intangible like "sin" itself.

Click to expand...

God does not use empty words...especially when demonstrating his gift to mankind. The reasin it sounds like punishment for sin is that He was punished for sin...our sin.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

I am not 100% sure if I fully understand what are you trying to ask here. But I do believe my answer will be satisfactory to you. So please ask if I do miss something, or you are not satisfied with the answer/I'm missing your point.

Why God and not Father? Jesus on the cross was crying out in anguish because of the separation He was then experiencing from His heavenly Father for the first and only time in all of eternity. It is the only time of which we have record that Jesus did not address God as Father. Because the Son had taken sin upon Himself, the Father turned His back. In some way and by some means, in the secrets of divine sovereignty and omnipotence, the God-Man was separated from God for a brief time at Calvary, as the furious wrath of the Father was poured out on the sinless Son, who in matchless grace became sin for those who believe in Him. How was it possible to God to be separated from God is beyond human intellect and thus I will only reply with everything; is possible upon God. That's the best I've got.

Click to expand...

Will there are other possibilities here:

You are assuming God did separate Himself from Jesus, yet Jesus address God as “Father” while on the cross, so that sound like God is present?

If Jesus was feeling personal real separation, then all the more reason to call God: “Father”?

We are told other places: Jesus prayed to the father and only later learn what He was praying for, so there is no need for Jesus to verbalize with precious limited breath a pray to God, unless there was someone there needing to hear this?

Would Jesus having to say “God” to quote Psalms 22 and not father, be support for the idea: this is part of quoting Psalms 22?

Do you feel Jesus became a sinner while on the cross or God never looks at sinning going on?

Is God beside the girl being raped?

Ivan Hlavanda said:

You did brought up a good point. That there is lots of meaning that has been lost in translation. Example the word 'peace' nowhere near covers the word 'shalom'. Thus there is the point you make about what “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” truly mean. See that's the problem we have to look things up sometimes and even when we have good Christian sources they can give two different answers. So I looked it up once again and Matthew uses out the Hebrew form which is Eli and Mark Aramic form which is Eloi. And thus if that's the case, is anything wrong with that? Is there anything wrong with one using 'Eli' and 'Eloi' if it has the same meaning? (I know that wasn't what I said before, it took me some research to do to find this explanation). Jesus died as a substitute sacrifice for the sins of the world, the righteous heavenly Father had to judge Him fully according to that sin. Why did then that be written in Aramic when Jesus shouted in Hebrew? Is that's what you are asking? Maybe Jesus said it in Hebrew and it was written in Aramic?

Matthew 27:44 "The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth."
Luke says (in 23:39), that one of them did it, and that the other reproved him and was penitent. The account in Luke may, however, easily be reconciled with that in Matthew by supposing that "at first both" of them reviled the Savior, and that it is of this fact that Matthew speaks.

Afterward one of them relented and became penitent perhaps from witnessing the patient sufferings of Christ. It is of this one particularly that Luke speaks.

Click to expand...

I do not want to get into a deep lengthy discussion of atonement at this time, but we can talk later on it if you want.

No that is not what I am saying. Have you read my post 31? I will give you my understanding and not just questions the way I teach my classes:

The Holy Spirit did a perfect job of protecting and preserving what was said and what we have in scripture today. The only way there would be a difference in Mark (Aramaic) and Matthew (Hebrew) would be for Jesus to say it twice, with Mark recording only one time and Matthew record only the other quoting. This would be consistent with all the other differences we find in the four gospels.

Christ appears to have used Greek when teaching most of the time (His scripture quotes are from the Greek Septuagint as an example) plus some phrases fit the Greek, but you can check this out. For Christ to use Hebrew or Aramaic would have to be done for some reason. That “reason” would not be because God only knows Hebrew or Aramaic.

The explanation for Jesus saying both “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” and “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”, requires Jesus to be quoting the first verse of Psalms 22.

To understand any Biblical New Testament verse, what I have been repeatedly taught by Biblical University scholars is it must be consistent with context, which we quickly forget. These New Testament letters were no written to us directly and rarely is anything directly addressed to us. All the writers and Spirit led individuals were excellent communicators, but they were mostly communicating directly to the audience within earshot or who the letter was addressed to. Those right their listening to Jesus, Paul, Peter and so on had the best chance of understand what the speaker was trying to communicate to them.

In this specific incident we know: Jesus is on the cross, with only mocks, thieves, Some Mary’s, John, some Spiritual temple leaders and Roman Soldiers around, Jesus being weak with little breath, this being the ninth hour, with just the few followers mentioned and in the context of what has just been said and what will soon follow his statement. All we have to figure out at this time, place and context, is why and to whom is Jesus talking.

Please read my previous posts:

Jesus just prior to saying: "My God, My God why have you forsaken me" was really being asked by the religious leaders: "You saved other so why can't you save yourself and come down from the cross and we will believe you", so what is the answer? Is Jesus saying: "you are right, I can't come down because God has forsaken me" or would Christ say: "I must stay to fulfill all prophecies concerning the suffering Messiah like you find in Psalms 22"?

throughfireytrial said:

God does not use empty words...especially when demonstrating his gift to mankind. The reasin it sounds like punishment for sin is that He was punished for sin...our sin.

Click to expand...

If God forgave our sins 100% then there is nothing left to be punished for, but like a wonderful Loving parent God can see to our just Loving discipline.

bling said:

If God forgave our sins 100% then there is nothing left to be punished for, but like a wonderful Loving parent God can see to our just Loving discipline.

Click to expand...

Read Romans 5:12-21
II Corinthians 5:21:
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
If God simply forgave our sins directly after sin entered into the world there would have been no need for Christ and His sacrifice for us on the cross.
You may look at the ceremonial laws as well in which the goats were cast lots for and one was sacrificed while one escaped into the desert never to be seen again. This was the meaning of it all...Christ our passover lamb was slain while we therefore escaped judgement.

bling said:

That very much sounds like the discipline or punishment for sin and not some intangible like "sin" itself.

Click to expand...

If we go down the road of sin, the road itsself has dire consequences that are tangible. I believe that sin, being contrary to God, carries it's own punishment in the damage that it does, since whatever we do to others eventually returns to us sevenfold in some manner. This is why God warns us of sin, for our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others. It's also why we should forgive and not return evil for evil.

bling said:

Jesus just prior to saying: "My God, My God why have you forsaken me" was really being asked by the religious leaders: "You saved other so why can't you save yourself and come down from the cross and we will believe you", so what is the answer? Is Jesus saying: "you are right, I can't come down because God has forsaken me" or would Christ say: "I must stay to fulfill all prophecies concerning the suffering Messiah like you find in Psalms 22"?

Click to expand...

I am just going to reply to this part as it is what time allows now...and even to this part I have a long answer, we can discuss the rest later. Now just to be clear.
The religious leaders said "You saved others so why can't you save yourself and come down from the cross and we will believe you" to which you gave two options for interpretation of Jesus's answer, the first which is "you are right, I can't come down because God has forsaken me" which is clearly wrong, I don't know if that's what you think I wrote or you think this is what I meant, which I apologise if you think that is the case because that's not what I meant. Of course Jesus could have come down from the cross, He was completely in charge of the situation. Every single moment He was in charge of the situation. Just to show one example "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." (Matthew 27:50) Jesus dismissed His spirit from His body and told it to go to the Father. Even this was in His control and not someone else's. Jesus had everything under control all the time. The cross was no defeat, but the greatest victory mankind has ever known. Jesus is no longer on the cross. He is not the suffering Christ. He is the victorious Christ. - this part I'm sure you agree with.

So then why would Jesus shout 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me'? Because God Father has forsaken God Son. The why, it seems to me, is not a question looking for an answer, but a way of expressing the horrors of abandonment.
Jesus knew ahead of time what he was doing and what would happen to him and why he was doing it. His Father had sent him for this. This very moment. And he had agreed to come, knowing all that would happen.

“Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, ‘Whom do you seek?’” (John 18:4). He gave himself up. So he knew. He knew it was coming. He knew everything.

The why is a moment of agony, not theological curiosity. The moment was one of agony.

the fact that he is not asking a question so much as expressing a horror is that the words are a reflex of immersion in Psalm 22, it seems. They are a direct quotation. But when you are hanging on the cross you don’t say: “Oh, I think I am going to quote some Scripture here.”

It either is in you as the very essence of your messianic calling or it is not. And if it is in you, then you give vent at the worst moment of your life with the appointment of your Father scripted in Psalm 22. That seems to be right at the heart of what is going on.

Jesus did not die as a martyr to a righteous cause or simply as an innocent man wrongly accused and condemned. Nor, as some suggest, did He die as a heroic gesture against man’s inhumanity to man. The Father could have looked favorably on such selfless deaths as those. But because Jesus died as a substitute sacrifice for the sins of the world, the righteous heavenly Father had to judge Him fully according to that sin.
The Father forsook the Son because the Son took upon Himself “our transgressions, … our iniquities” (Isa. 53:5). Jesus “was delivered up because of our transgression” (Rom. 4:25) and “died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). He “who knew no sin [became] sin on our behalf” (2 Cor. 5:21) and became “a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross” (1 Pet. 2:24), “died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust” (1 Pet. 3:18), and became “the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).

So why did Jesus say God and not the Father?
When Christ was forsaken by the Father, their separation was not one of nature, essence, or substance. Christ did not in any sense or degree cease to exist as God or as a member of the Trinity. He did not cease to be the Son, any more than a child who sins severely against his human father ceases to be his child. But Jesus did for a while cease to know the intimacy of fellowship with His heavenly Father, just as a disobedient child ceases for a while to have intimate, normal, loving fellowship with his human father.

By the incarnation itself there already had been a partial separation. Because Jesus had been separated from His divine glory and from face-to-face communication with the Father, refusing to hold on to those divine privileges for His own sake (Phil 2:6).

I don't know how much more can I explain my self. But please answer to all of the above if you can, what you agree with or disagree with. I'm not sure I can write more on this topic.

childeye 2 said:

Let me take the time to tell you how glad I am that you said that the suffering that Jesus endured in beatings and mocking and crucifixion was not God's wrath and punishment meant for us. Because I believe that would be a false Gospel. And I would like to apologize for misunderstanding you.

Click to expand...

Ok I see the flaw how I written that. Of course all of that was part of the suffering, but God Father poured His wrath on Son on the cross. The wrath is the abandonment, God Father abandon God Son on the cross. That's why Jesus cried 'My God, MY God, why have you forsaken me'. The moment was one of agony, not theological curiosity. The moment was one of agony.

childeye 2 said:

Here is a question I often ponder. If someone had no Love, would they even care they had no love? While separation from God (sin/ungodliness), is a matter of degrees, I doubt that if someone were separated from God completely they would care. I imagine they could only feel fear if they felt anything at all.

Click to expand...

Please read my post (109) above that I have written. To sum it up:

1. There was a real forsakenness for our sake.
2. He was expressing desolation, not asking for an answer.
   
3. He was amazingly fulfilling Scripture in the horror of it all and witnessing to the perfection of the plan of salvation.

throughfireytrial said:

Read Romans 5:12-21
II Corinthians 5:21:
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
If God simply forgave our sins directly after sin entered into the world there would have been no need for Christ and His sacrifice for us on the cross.
You may look at the ceremonial laws as well in which the goats were cast lots for and one was sacrificed while one escaped into the desert never to be seen again. This was the meaning of it all...Christ our passover lamb was slain while we therefore escaped judgement.

Click to expand...

I do not want to hijack this thread and get into an atonement discussion.

Please take the time to look up alternative interpretations to “be sin for us”, since the same Greek word is translated “sin offering” in other places. Can you even explain what Christ becoming ‘sin” means?

You might want to start with Lev. 5 before going into the day of atonement.

childeye 2 said:

If we go down the road of sin, the road itsself has dire consequences that are tangible. I believe that sin, being contrary to God, carries it's own punishment in the damage that it does, since whatever we do to others eventually returns to us sevenfold in some manner. This is why God warns us of sin, for our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others. It's also why we should forgive and not return evil for evil.

Click to expand...

Did the chief of sinners "Paul" go through dire consequences?

James Honigman said:

Of course not, but there will be thousands of sermons given around the world this week claiming He did forsake His Son. What is the truth, the Biblical truth? It is written in the book of Hebrews 13:5, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. That is the Lord's promise to us; does it make any sense that He would not extend that promise to His only begotten Son?


While it is true that our Beloved had to die a miserable death for us to have salvation, it is not true that our Heavenly Father forsook Him. And many Christians are saying, "Wait a minute, the Lord said those words on the cross Himself, I read it in Matthew 27:46." "He said, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Yes, He did say those words, but we, as believers upon Him, need to understand WHY He said those words. There is a good reason; our Lord was identifying Himself as our Messiah, teaching us, and fulfilling prophecy.


Go to Psalm 22, the crucifixion psalm, and read the 1st sentence of the 1st verse. It says, My GOD, My GOD, why hast Thou forsaken Me? That psalm was written by the Holy Spirit, through David, approximately 1,000 years earlier. Our Lord, while He was dying on the cross, was directing us to read that psalm, His crucifixion psalm. And the first thing we should realize is that our Lord Jesus, while addressing GOD directly, never called Him GOD; He always called Him Father.


If I might, I would like to suggest that everyone read the crucifixion psalm this Passover week. In the 8th verse you will see the Pharisees surrounding Him, saying, He trusted on the LORD that He would deliver Him: Let Him deliver Him, seeing He delighted in Him. In the 14th verse we can read of His agony: I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint. In verse 16 we read, They pierced My hands and My feet, and in verse 18 we see the Roman soldiers gambling for His garments: They part My garments among them, and cast lots upon My vesture.


In the last verse we read His instructions to this generation: They shall come, and shall declare His righteousness unto a People that shall be born, that He hath done this. Put another way, It is finished. The point of this post is for all Christians to understand what was really going on when our Beloved spoke certain things while being crucified. He was teaching us Who He was, and fulfilling prophecy. Our Father would never forsake Him.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what may or may not make sense to us. what matters is what the Scriptures say without commentary by us!

Matthew 27:46 King James Version (KJV)
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Because Jesus became sin for all mankind-- At about the ninth hour when things turned dark- that is when the Father poured out His wrath upon the son because He became sin! In three hours, Jesus suffered the wrath of everyones' eternal torment! During those three hours- no one everhas nor ever will experience that depth fo forsakenness. And He did that because of Hids deep abiding love for us!

Ivan Hlavanda said:

I am just going to reply to this part as it is what time allows now...and even to this part I have a long answer, we can discuss the rest later. Now just to be clear.
The religious leaders said "You saved others so why can't you save yourself and come down from the cross and we will believe you" to which you gave two options for interpretation of Jesus's answer, the first which is "you are right, I can't come down because God has forsaken me" which is clearly wrong, I don't know if that's what you think I wrote or you think this is what I meant, which I apologise if you think that is the case because that's not what I meant. Of course Jesus could have come down from the cross, He was completely in charge of the situation. Every single moment He was in charge of the situation. Just to show one example "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." (Matthew 27:50) Jesus dismissed His spirit from His body and told it to go to the Father. Even this was in His control and not someone else's. Jesus had everything under control all the time. The cross was no defeat, but the greatest victory mankind has ever known. Jesus is no longer on the cross. He is not the suffering Christ. He is the victorious Christ. - this part I'm sure you agree with.

So then why would Jesus shout 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me'? Because God Father has forsaken God Son. The why, it seems to me, is not a question looking for an answer, but a way of expressing the horrors of abandonment.
Jesus knew ahead of time what he was doing and what would happen to him and why he was doing it. His Father had sent him for this. This very moment. And he had agreed to come, knowing all that would happen.

“Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, ‘Whom do you seek?’” (John 18:4). He gave himself up. So he knew. He knew it was coming. He knew everything.

The why is a moment of agony, not theological curiosity. The moment was one of agony.

the fact that he is not asking a question so much as expressing a horror is that the words are a reflex of immersion in Psalm 22, it seems. They are a direct quotation. But when you are hanging on the cross you don’t say: “Oh, I think I am going to quote some Scripture here.”

It either is in you as the very essence of your messianic calling or it is not. And if it is in you, then you give vent at the worst moment of your life with the appointment of your Father scripted in Psalm 22. That seems to be right at the heart of what is going on.

Jesus did not die as a martyr to a righteous cause or simply as an innocent man wrongly accused and condemned. Nor, as some suggest, did He die as a heroic gesture against man’s inhumanity to man. The Father could have looked favorably on such selfless deaths as those. But because Jesus died as a substitute sacrifice for the sins of the world, the righteous heavenly Father had to judge Him fully according to that sin.
The Father forsook the Son because the Son took upon Himself “our transgressions, … our iniquities” (Isa. 53:5). Jesus “was delivered up because of our transgression” (Rom. 4:25) and “died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). He “who knew no sin [became] sin on our behalf” (2 Cor. 5:21) and became “a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross” (1 Pet. 2:24), “died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust” (1 Pet. 3:18), and became “the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).

So why did Jesus say God and not the Father?
When Christ was forsaken by the Father, their separation was not one of nature, essence, or substance. Christ did not in any sense or degree cease to exist as God or as a member of the Trinity. He did not cease to be the Son, any more than a child who sins severely against his human father ceases to be his child. But Jesus did for a while cease to know the intimacy of fellowship with His heavenly Father, just as a disobedient child ceases for a while to have intimate, normal, loving fellowship with his human father.

By the incarnation itself there already had been a partial separation. Because Jesus had been separated from His divine glory and from face-to-face communication with the Father, refusing to hold on to those divine privileges for His own sake (Phil 2:6).

I don't know how much more can I explain my self. But please answer to all of the above if you can, what you agree with or disagree with. I'm not sure I can write more on this topic.

Click to expand...

Isaiah 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

When I read that he was bruised/crushed for our transgressions and our iniquities and the correction of our wellbeing, I hear it's meaning as he came down from heaven and became flesh and suffered so as to deal with the actual cause of our sin and depravity, not to experience or become our sin and depravity within himself, nor to endure through God's wrath. And with this in mind look at these scriptures:

Hebrews 2:14.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Revelation 1:8
I was dead, and see, I am alive forever and ever; and I have the keys of Death and of Hades .
1 John 3:8
He that commits sin is of the devil; for the devil sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Romans 5:21
That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

The above scriptures all indicate that Jesus came to die because only through death could he defeat the devil who is the source of all sin. My understanding is that the devil had a hold over mankind that through death and resurrection Jesus took away from him. I personally believe that he had to be sinless for the law to have no power of death over him. Wherefore death could not hold him and he now has taken captivity captive. I don't see how Jesus experiencing God's wrath would accomplish anything these scriptures are talking about.

bling said:

Did the chief of sinners "Paul" go through dire consequences?

Click to expand...

Of course. Separation from God by degrees is what sin is. If there are no consequences that are bad, then the word abomination has no meaning.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

The religious leaders said "You saved others so why can't you save yourself and come down from the cross and we will believe you" to which you gave two options for interpretation of Jesus's answer, the first which is "you are right, I can't come down because God has forsaken me" which is clearly wrong, I don't know if that's what you think I wrote or you think this is what I meant, which I apologise if you think that is the case because that's not what I meant. Of course Jesus could have come down from the cross, He was completely in charge of the situation. Every single moment He was in charge of the situation. Just to show one example "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." (Matthew 27:50) Jesus dismissed His spirit from His body and told it to go to the Father. Even this was in His control and not someone else's. Jesus had everything under control all the time. The cross was no defeat, but the greatest victory mankind has ever known. Jesus is no longer on the cross. He is not the suffering Christ. He is the victorious Christ. - this part I'm sure you agree with.

Click to expand...

Would you agree: “Christ is constantly looking to help those around Him?”

Did Christ help those around Him at the cross, even more then just in His suffering, humiliation and murder and asking God to forgive them?

Who is around Him at the cross and what did Christ do for them?

Ivan Hlavanda said:

So then why would Jesus shout 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me'? Because God Father has forsaken God Son. The why, it seems to me, is not a question looking for an answer, but a way of expressing the horrors of abandonment.

Click to expand...

Do you believe Psalms 22 is at least a prophecy concerning Christ on the cross, because if you do: The Psalmist said in verse 24: For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him, but has listened to his cry for help.

So, either the psalmist lied or God did not forsake Christ?

You might want to do a study of lament Psalms specifically, since many are written as diatribes. Paul picked up on this in writing Romans which is filled with diatribes. Briefly, diatribes in scripture are like a debate between an imaginary false teaching and the correct teaching. There is usually a question given and just before or right after the question the support for the false conclusion is given in the case of Psalms 22 the question is given first “Why have you forsaken me?” so the support for the wrong conclusion is given first, up to verse 24, so you are thinking God has forsaken him, but then you have the right answer being “God has not forsaken him” and have support for that conclusion.

I know this seems confusing, but if you were a Jew who really knew the Psalms you would not have a problem understanding Lament Psalms and what Psalms 22 is saying. Look at Romans also.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

the fact that he is not asking a question so much as expressing a horror is that the words are a reflex of immersion in Psalm 22, it seems. They are a direct quotation. But when you are hanging on the cross you don’t say: “Oh, I think I am going to quote some Scripture here.”

Click to expand...

Jesus a lot of times quoted scripture to the religious leaders of the day to help them realize, who He really was. So, to do it on the cross to help the religious leaders of the day would be in keeping with who He was.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

The Father forsook the Son because the Son took upon Himself “our transgressions, … our iniquities” (Isa. 53:5). Jesus “was delivered up because of our transgression” (Rom. 4:25) and “died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). He “who knew no sin [became] sin on our behalf” (2 Cor. 5:21) and became “a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross” (1 Pet. 2:24), “died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust” (1 Pet. 3:18), and became “the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).

Click to expand...

This gets into the whole atonement process which I could write a book on and do not what to hijack this thread to discuss.

nolidad said:

It doesn't matter what may or may not make sense to us. what matters is what the Scriptures say without commentary by us!

Matthew 27:46 King James Version (KJV)
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Because Jesus became sin for all mankind-- At about the ninth hour when things turned dark- that is when the Father poured out His wrath upon the son because He became sin! In three hours, Jesus suffered the wrath of everyones' eternal torment! During those three hours- no one everhas nor ever will experience that depth fo forsakenness. And He did that because of Hids deep abiding love for us!

Click to expand...

Respectfully, I doubt this is what you meant to infer. Because I can't see how anyone could suffer an eternal torment for three hours?

childeye 2 said:

Of course. Separation from God by degrees is what sin is. If there are no consequences that are bad, then the word abomination has no meaning.

Click to expand...

What consequences did Paul have?

bling said:

What consequences did Paul have?

Click to expand...

For one thing, he ended up persecuting the Christ when he thought he was serving God. Are you seriously challenging that sin has bad consequences?

bling said:

Will there are other possibilities here:

You are assuming God did separate Himself from Jesus, yet Jesus address God as “Father” while on the cross, so that sound like God is present?

If Jesus was feeling personal real separation, then all the more reason to call God: “Father”?

We are told other places: Jesus prayed to the father and only later learn what He was praying for, so there is no need for Jesus to verbalize with precious limited breath a pray to God, unless there was someone there needing to hear this?

Would Jesus having to say “God” to quote Psalms 22 and not father, be support for the idea: this is part of quoting Psalms 22?

Do you feel Jesus became a sinner while on the cross or God never looks at sinning going on?

Is God beside the girl being raped?

I do not want to get into a deep lengthy discussion of atonement at this time, but we can talk later on it if you want.

No that is not what I am saying. Have you read my post 31? I will give you my understanding and not just questions the way I teach my classes:

The Holy Spirit did a perfect job of protecting and preserving what was said and what we have in scripture today. The only way there would be a difference in Mark (Aramaic) and Matthew (Hebrew) would be for Jesus to say it twice, with Mark recording only one time and Matthew record only the other quoting. This would be consistent with all the other differences we find in the four gospels.

Christ appears to have used Greek when teaching most of the time (His scripture quotes are from the Greek Septuagint as an example) plus some phrases fit the Greek, but you can check this out. For Christ to use Hebrew or Aramaic would have to be done for some reason. That “reason” would not be because God only knows Hebrew or Aramaic.

The explanation for Jesus saying both “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” and “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”, requires Jesus to be quoting the first verse of Psalms 22.

To understand any Biblical New Testament verse, what I have been repeatedly taught by Biblical University scholars is it must be consistent with context, which we quickly forget. These New Testament letters were no written to us directly and rarely is anything directly addressed to us. All the writers and Spirit led individuals were excellent communicators, but they were mostly communicating directly to the audience within earshot or who the letter was addressed to. Those right their listening to Jesus, Paul, Peter and so on had the best chance of understand what the speaker was trying to communicate to them.

In this specific incident we know: Jesus is on the cross, with only mocks, thieves, Some Mary’s, John, some Spiritual temple leaders and Roman Soldiers around, Jesus being weak with little breath, this being the ninth hour, with just the few followers mentioned and in the context of what has just been said and what will soon follow his statement. All we have to figure out at this time, place and context, is why and to whom is Jesus talking.

Please read my previous posts:

Jesus just prior to saying: "My God, My God why have you forsaken me" was really being asked by the religious leaders: "You saved other so why can't you save yourself and come down from the cross and we will believe you", so what is the answer? Is Jesus saying: "you are right, I can't come down because God has forsaken me" or would Christ say: "I must stay to fulfill all prophecies concerning the suffering Messiah like you find in Psalms 22"?

Click to expand...

Excellent response !