An open question to all christians here :
How do you interpret this line ?
Just a reference to psalms 22 ? or something else ?
It’s the other way around- that is Psalm 22 is a prophecy of the separation from the Father the Son would go through.
It shows the completeness of Christ’s humanity at that moment. His relationship with the Father is completely severed. He truly has become sin for us, although he “knew no sin”. It is the cup that he briefly hoped he might not have to drink of.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
It’s the other way around- that is Psalm 22 is a prophecy of the separation from the Father the Son would go through.
It shows the completeness of Christ’s humanity at that moment. His relationship with the Father is completely severed. He truly has become sin for us, although he “knew no sin”. It is the cup that he briefly hoped he might not have to drink of. [/quote]Quite so. Jesus is as much a man as any of us minus sin by virtue of His not being fathered by Adam. He is the only ever divine man. One could reverently say that God died for our sins AS A MAN. God cannot die nor can the second person of the trinity be dissected from the other two, however “the man Christ Jesus”(1 Timothy 2:5) “who knew no sin, was made to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him”(2 Corinthians 5:21).
He was made to be sin. He was treated by the Father as sin itself in the stead of those whom He would save. The sentence was paid in full in the death of the man born God Jesus Christ and that payment was declared accepted when He rose again because having no sin of His own death could not hold Him. He stepped from that grave alive forevermore bringing all those with Him that had been given Him by the Father before the foundation of the world.
This is the blessing of Abraham pursued in mystery by all those giants of the covenant who had gone before (Hebrews 11-12). The mighty prophet Isaiah especially, does not cease from proclaiming this most magnificent and glorious of all events in all of history yet 750 years in his future. It is also the answer to why God would decree that Adam fall into sin(another whole discussion). The unthinkable mercy and love of an offended God who would Himself condescend into His own creation in Christ to reconcile the world unto Himself.
^^^This
This statement was significant because it is the one statement in scripture that absolutely proves Christ’s humanity.
Your probably the only Atheist I’d discuss scripture with, well you and forlife…
Anyway, this can be a huge topic, but on the surface, it could be Jesus was just quoting the Psalms and was so weak and tired that that’s all that can come out. But it’s obviously, quite a deliberate act. It’s part of the action of emptying himself, including of his divinity. The full humility or purging his divinity to experience the wholeness of his humanity. The statement was a prayer and a fulfillment of the scriptures as well as an expression of humility.
Humanity hurts…
I am curious, why are you interested in that statement?
[quote]
I am curious, why are you interested in that statement?[/quote]
Because I still try to understand how christians conceive the dogma of Hypostasis and the (apparently dynamic) relationships between the two nature of Christ.
And whatever the interpretation, i think this crucial moment is a very interesting one in that respect.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
I am curious, why are you interested in that statement?[/quote]
Because I still try to understand how christians conceive the dogma of Hypostasis and the (apparently dynamic) relationships between the two nature of Christ.
And whatever the interpretation, i think this crucial moment is a very interesting one in that respect. [/quote]Hypostasis? Pretty good man. I’m impressed. =] The incarnation is ultimately one of the most profound and beautiful mysteries in all the gospel. Just like the trinity. We have no direct earthly experience with more than one person per being so it is in that sense foreign to us. The concept of an eternal immutable God “becoming flesh and dwelling among us” is also foreign to say the least. We do not know the precise divine mechanisms by which God executes His purpose. If we did it wouldn’t be God we were talking about. He does not fit between human ears.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
I am curious, why are you interested in that statement?[/quote]
Because I still try to understand how christians conceive the dogma of Hypostasis and the (apparently dynamic) relationships between the two nature of Christ.
And whatever the interpretation, i think this crucial moment is a very interesting one in that respect. [/quote]
Ah, ok. Yes, it’s an imporant moment in it seems a potential separation has occured at this point. I have some good stuff on the hypostatic union…Do you want a philosphocal perspective, a theological one or both. I’ll see what I can dig up, but don’t worry. I won’t post a bunch of links unless they are super relevant.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Indeed.
But in a way, it’s no more and no less foreign to us than my “less than one person per being” alternative proposal.
[quote]
Ah, ok. Yes, it’s an imporant moment in it seems a potential separation has occured at this point.[/quote]
Precisely.
Actually, i wanted to hear your own perspective. And you already expressed it 
That being said, feel free to post any link you want. I’m always interested.
Especially if you can find something about the early (pre-nicean) debates on this question.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Hmmmm, I find your interest in the topic interesting, only because I don’t consider hypostatic union that astounding or much of a reach, nor even to the eye’s of an atheist that farfetched.
Rather than get all technical, I will do as you requested and give you my take as you requested. Hypostatic union really speaks to the duel nature of not only Jesus, but all people, and indeed all living things, at least to some degree. As you probably know we consider humans indeed to have a dual nature and indeed even all living things. It looks at things a little differently. That a biological entity, functions because it play host to a metaphysical entity. This is evidenced by life itself. What I mean is that even now scientists doctors have the means to make a biological being perform it’s biological processes manually, but they cannot make it have life. Indeed, nobody really knows what life is, but for us theists, being alive is a spiritual component. No matter how many things biologists can assemble, they have never been able to give anything life. They’ve been able to toy with living things and control their biology, but never have been able to actually give them life itself. So as far as non-human living things, they still have a dual nature. That’s not the same as saying they have a ‘soul’, they may or may not, I have no idea, but they do have some at least form of dual nature. And of course, as you well know their biological processes and such are governed by rules and laws which also attests further to their dual nature.
Now getting to people, as you of course know, we believe in a dual nature that not only includes the ‘life force’ itself, but we claim a soul and that most if not all people have one. This soul is our spiritual nature made ‘in the image of God’. People often confuse this with personality, or life style or some other form of observable trait. While it may play a role, that’s not what ‘it’ is. I don’t pretend to know what a soul is in total, but we can know some stuff. It is our spiritual link, our muse and connection to that other existence. Having a true spiritual experience can almost make the soul a ‘sensible’ thing. (You know I mean sensible in the that we can somehow sense it, not something prudent, right?)
People who have had near-death experiences have reported a sense of the soul slipping out of the body. Whether or not you believe them or not doesn’t really matter, I’ll tie this reported experience in a minute. The point of mentioning this goes to something that the church teaches reagarding the topic. That when the ‘host’ been has been damaged past a certain point it can no longer ‘host’ or contain this spirituality or soul.
So getting the hypostatic union of Jesus, everything about him was the same as us except for his body was the host of God himself, His soul, His nature. And if you’re a Christian, and believe Jesus is consubstantial with God himself this makes sense. His body is the container, or host and his spiritual nature is God. Which by default gives him the ability to tap into greater power than we could ever hope. But what makes this interesting is technically and theorhetically, if Jesus did not have a mission he could have gone his whole life, perhaps knowing he was different in some way but never exploring how. Indeed, Isaiah refers to the fact that Jesus at least for some period of time, wasn’t aware or didn’t really know who he was. I don’t know if it was revealed or discovered, but he didn’t pop out preaching and healing.
So how this all ties together with ‘Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani’ is perhaps just like the people in the NDE’s that his soul or his divinity was indeed slipping away and he could sense it? Or that he was at that point stripped of his divine power, what ever it was it seems pretty clearly that it was his human nature taking over at this point.
What are your thoughts on this?
[quote]
What are your thoughts on this?[/quote]
I don’t know.
Each time i try to understand the early christologic debates, i get the feeling that these men (the first christians) faced a theologic mystery, and used greek philosophic concepts to solve it. As if phusis and ousia were required to understand it.
As a result, I sometimes wonder if the nazoreans/ebionites and the so-called “judeo-christians” weren’t actually closer to the original teaching of Jesus.
Actually, I’m not sure Jesus taught anything directly and explicitly about its own divinity. Maybe just a silent and serene smile.
And then, this cry.
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Actually, I’m not sure Jesus taught anything directly and explicitly about its own divinity. >>>[/quote]Do you mean in general or in these words from the cross?[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Maybe just a silent and serene smile.
And then, this cry. [/quote]Awright, you’re weirdin me out now. Is this some kinda “French” thing? =]
[quote]kamui wrote:
Well it is still a mystery and it’s far from solved, but you can get understanding about it. I just don’t share your discomfort of it.
[quote]
As a result, I sometimes wonder if the nazoreans/ebionites and the so-called “judeo-christians” weren’t actually closer to the original teaching of Jesus.
Actually, I’m not sure Jesus taught anything directly and explicitly about its own divinity. Maybe just a silent and serene smile.
And then, this cry. [/quote]
Well he did in the ‘Last Supper discourse’ in the Gospel of John. But I am a little confused at what you seeking the answer to?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Do you mean in general or in these words from the cross?[/quote]
In general.
Remember that, in my eyes, the canon has been established by failible men. Therefore there may be some truth in the apocrypha, and some falsehood in the canonical texts.
[quote]Awright, you’re weirdin me out now. Is this some kinda “French” thing? =]
[/quote]
weirdin you out ??
I didn’t get to this one yet either =[
[quote]kamui wrote:
Each time i try to understand the early christologic debates, i get the feeling that these men (the first christians) faced a theologic mystery, and used greek philosophic concepts to solve it. As if phusis and ousia were required to understand it.
[/quote]
Paul said exactly this:
1Ti 3:16 (KJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…
I would submit that trying to use philosophic thought processes is then exactly what you shouldn’t be doing in trying to come to a better understanding.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Each time i try to understand the early christologic debates, i get the feeling that these men (the first christians) faced a theologic mystery, and used greek philosophic concepts to solve it. As if phusis and ousia were required to understand it.
[/quote]
Paul said exactly this:
1Ti 3:16 (KJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…
I would submit that trying to use philosophic thought processes is then exactly what you shouldn’t be doing in trying to come to a better understanding.[/quote]
And why not?
And what I want to know is what is Kamui’s end game. Is this really the question? It sounds more like a beginning than an end. But I can be wrong, of course. Maybe it is the end game.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
^^^This
This statement was significant because it is the one statement in scripture that absolutely proves Christ’s humanity. [/quote]
Well, and that he was born of woman.