Jesus' last words

That's an excellent way to avoid the question...... Why did he say that?

 

No idea. Maybe a big FU o those that let him die?

 

if you are going to cite from the Bible - then give the chapter and verse - Often people bastardize and embellish - or just plain make stuff up - on the basis of passages in the Bible.

That Jesus was like any other man is not what the Trinity doctrine states - you are making stuff up as you go. The debate over the nature of the divinity of Jesus raged for 300 years after the death of Jesus until this debate was supposedly settled at Nicea. The debate then raged on for another 300 years.

Your statement is heretical to the Trinity. The defining feature of the Trinity is based on the inclusion of one word - "Homoousios" This was also the major contribution of Emperor Constantine - who wanted the bickering to stop .. and inclusion of this word was the way that he did it.

Eusebius - fellow who was commissioned to put the first Bible together - refused to sign and was expelled (took a forced vacation until he relented - changed his mind - made up with the Emperor - and signed) over "Homoousios"

You may be familiar with part of the creed - recited every Sunday in every Christian Church - "one substance with the Father" - by whom all things were made. .

This is what Homoousios means - that Jesus was the same substance as God.

To the Greeks, Romans, and all learned people at that time - and even many of the the unlearned and illiterate - There were two (2) kinds of substances.

There was the substance that trees, rocks, flesh and everything around us is made of - and there was the substance that God was made of.

Kind of like matter and anti-matter or matter and Dark Energy.

So it is not possible to be made of the same Substance as God in one moment ... and then not be made of the same substance as God in the next.

Just to be clear - this does not mean that your claim - "Jesus was just like any other man" - is wrong. It just means that your hypothesis is an anathema - heresy - with respect to the Trinity doctrine.

 

The Bible is not the only 'scripture' that says there is a 'spiritual'.war. It comes from earlier scriptures than the Bible, and is in other religions. What you 'see' in scriptures - and note I do NOT say the 'Light of scriptures' as there is no light in scriptures which is obvious by the different "We are right and you are wrong". 'Our interpretation is right, yours is wrong'..

The fact that scripture can be interpreted in so many ways by so many 'spiritual' people rather proves my point. Your belief in a Trinity is not new. In one form or another it appears in other beliefs.

The Bible says Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus was a Jew who's God was Jahweh. On the other hand Jahweh had a father called El - mentioned frequently in the Bible. El - the 'Chief God' had many sons, one of whom was Jahweh. El was worshipped under several names in the Bible. Even in Solomons time before the Kingdom was split,
the Northern states worshipping El (at Shiloh) and the Southern worshipping Jahweh. in Jerusalems Temple. After the split this continued until the 10 tribes were removed. The Southern kingdom returned from Babylon and assimilated all the attributes given to El and his other children under the title of Jahweh. Study the Bible and you will see this.

El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh; or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel, much like the American National Anthem was set to a beer hall tune by Francis Scott Key. El is called the father of men, creator, and creator of the creation. These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.

In 1 Kings 22:19-22 we read of Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the sons of god are the sons of El.

Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation. Quartz Hill School of Theology.

 

Jesus the Jewish Preacher was as human as you and I. His 'temptation' and his baptism were Jewish practises. His practices, preaching and following of Jewish rituals place him as a Jewish preacher.Gospel writers put words into his mouth that no Jew would ever say. Had Jesus ever said them he would have been ostracised by even his disciples.

As to the prayer? Who was around when he prayed it, to record it, or alone in the desert for 40 days and heard what happened.

For the Jew Satan was gods messengers and tested mens faith - as with Job and Jesus. Only Christianity turned Satan into God's enemy.

 

Interestingly, the commandment on this topic does not say there are no other gods but me... it tacitly admits the existence of other gods.... but enjoins us not to place those other gods before him

 

The Trinity is man made up construct. For 300 years various groups in the Christian Church had been debating the nature of the divinity of Christ .. and you had a broad spectrum. Some said just a man - others a man divinely inspired - to others he was a God. Not however God the Father. The early Church fathers all believed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father - regardless of how divine he was.

This presented a problem for those who wanted to view Jesus as a God - how can you have 2 Gods in Monotheism. Constantine - with one word "Homoousios" solved this problem. It means of the same substance - translated in the Nicene creed "one substance with the Father".

To the people of that time - there were only two kids of matter/substances .. that which God was made of - and that which everything else was made of. This act then turned Jesus into God - God the Father.

It makes no sense - because the Trinity makes no sense. It is a contradiction within a contradiction. Since they could not solve the divinity problem - the solution was "Lets just say Jesus was Both"....

The reality of course is that the disciples did not believe this - nor the early Church Fathers - nor Jesus.

 

It pays to remember that the biblical Gods were just ordinary men who were the rulers and chief priests of the dominant Middle Eastern empires during ancient times. That is why the God character hasn't been heard from in 2,600 years.

 

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and was God. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us". The Gospel of John, first chapter. Tell me who the Word was. Next you can read the first chapter of the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, where it clearly states that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last.

 

Believing a book with a known and, for its time, radical agenda is hardly proof of anything except gullibility. This book has been translated and re-interpreted so many times that no one can say with any certainty, other than hope, what it originally said. Especially when it was originally written by men with their own agenda.

I prefer my fiction in less stilted and self serving prose.

 

With a few exceptions, the basic ideas are in all versions.

 

Multiple "versions" with different wording leads to different meanings. The "basic" ideas are actually different to suit the writers political agenda.

 

Do you have some examples of where that is the case?

Some versions do omit verses, such as Acts 8:37 = https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts 8:37

That is significant because it removes the requirement to profess that Jesus Christ is the son of God before being baptized. That allows some branches to engage in baby baptizing.

 

Why should I have to provide examples? You just did and I don't care to re-read fiction of this ilk.

 

When people contribute to the topic with new information it increases everyone's knowledge. Based on your comment I thought you had some specific examples in mind that you could share with the readership. Over time, I have learned a lot from reading other opinions about various things.

 

But apparently you have not learned that when you provide proof of a negative statement it does you no good.

 

We are discussing a 2,000 year-old fairy tale. You can base your opinions on what is in it and how you regard the fairy tale. We are not doing math problems.

 

It's easy. You know when you die.

It's part of the witnessing process, after that of David. It's part of the process called tasting death. People, especially those religious, will experience an extreme feeling of being forsaken upon the process we call death. The words are for everyone (as everyone dies) to testify the truth that Jesus truly died a human's death.

 

I agree that it is a fairytale, so why do you insist that proof be provided? Proof of what, that it is all made up? Self evident when looked at with a non polluted mind.

 

Fairy tale is the lack of human testimonies. The Bible is composed of human testimonies which can be believed to be valid. This is the only way the truth of God can convey. Unless you can point out an alternative.

 

History requires no proof. You can tell this by reading any history book, page by page, then come back to tell us how many pages are supported by evidence.

 

Yes, actual verifiable truth, unchanged over the millennium from sources that are not displaying their political agenda and repeat these fables word for word, unchanging.

Your "human testimony" has changed vastly over the years and is about as believable as the tooth fairy.

 

Actual history, except apparently to you, is nothing but truth. It relates actual and true happenings and has evidence to back it up.

If you actually intend to dispute this, you are also saying that y our biblical history is false, so what is your point?

 

That's the same lie Muslims repeat.

 

Another lie Muslims also say, with no evidence to back it up. We have very early parts of the NT that show there was no change, and the Dead Sea Scrolls show there was no change in those books either.