Jesus' cry from the cross

[Obsidian]

I only quote the parts that I feel are important. And if there's only one part that's mentioned or only one part that's important, sometimes I don't quote at all. What do you feel like I'm not addressing?

Oh well, I'll do it for you:

I already explained that I think Psalm 22:24 is a quotation, and a prediction of the future. Do you want me to exegete the entirety of Job, Habakkuk, and Jeremiah? I don't think those people were lying at all. God definitely abandoned Job, for the most part.

What do you mean by "far" in your last sentence?

I mean that God is not helping David/Jesus. If God were helping David, he wouldn't have to write a whole song about getting God to help him. In the context of Jesus, I guess "far" means that God is about 72 hours from helping him.

[The Remonstrant]

Psalm 22:1
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

Is the Psalmist also lying/delusional/exaggerating when he says that God is far from helping him? Obviously not. It is literal truth.

This was already addressed by DDW and I. Why do you persist in ignoring our posts as if your concerns haven't been addressed? (I have interacted with you before and this appears to be an irritating habit of yours, Obsidian.)

Observe the 24th verse of Psalm 22 (ESV): "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."

It is one thing to feel utterly abandoned by God and quite another to claim it as an indubitable theological truth. Jesus would not by "lying" by vocalizing his distress on the cross. Surely you familiar with the Psalms and the Prophets. The language of forsakenness and abandonment is given voice to throughout numerous passages of the Hebrew Scriptures by suffering servants of Yahweh God. Are we to suppose Job, Habakkuk and Jeremiah were all liars in expressing their angst? It would be a mistake to read all their statements as infallible propositional truths in the first place.

I sure hope you are not that literal in your relationships. Hint: When a woman says, "You don't love me anymore" she is using a rhetorical emotional device. She isn't literally saying she literally believes you don't literally love her any more. Sheesh.

[foudroyant]

Hello Obsidian,

What do you mean by "far" in your last sentence?

Thanks

[Obsidian]

Psalm 22:1
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

Is the Psalmist also lying/delusional/exaggerating when he says that God is far from helping him? Obviously not. It is literal truth.

[The Remonstrant]

LOL!!!! Remonstrant, chill. OMG I am laughing so hard.

First, Piggo is my pet name for One Bad Pig. He started this thread. I was appealing to him as the thread starter to put a stop to the misogynistic comments, he is the only one who can.

Second, I was agreeing with you about Foud's misogynistic comment, I wasn't saying you were misogynistic. I quoted you in agreement with you.

I hope that clears things up. I am laughing so hard you think I called you Piggo.

...

For some reason, I confused this thread with mine. (I also have a thread active on the Theology 201 forum regarding Jesus and the cross.) The confusion was mine, I see. All is well. Thank you for helping to clear the air for me.

[foudroyant]

Me? A misogynist? Never.
The same can be said of a guy. If he told a woman "You are definitely the most beautiful woman in the world" but then he saw another woman later that day and thought she was even more beautiful was he wrong in his first assessment or did he acquire some knowledge that he previously didn't have until he had seen the second woman?
Do you think this applies to Christ (obtaining a more/deeper realization) or did He always see the whole picture?

[Darth Xena]

Honestly, I do not know what you are talking about. I was addressing the posts following yours that were deviating from the opening post. I noted that your post was relevant in that you were addressing Obsidian's (mis)understanding of Jesus' cry from the cross. The posts following yours picked up on your comments and were going off into gender relations (and therefore deviating from the opening post). That was my criticism. I was hoping to circumvent further comments not addressing the opening post. There is no hint of "misogyny" present in any of my posts here. The "piggo" comment is thus completely unwarranted.

LOL!!!! Remonstrant, chill. OMG I am laughing so hard.

First, Piggo is my pet name for One Bad Pig. He started this thread. I was appealing to him as the thread starter to put a stop to the misogynistic comments, he is the only one who can.

Second, I was agreeing with you about Foud's misogynistic comment, I wasn't saying you were misogynistic. I quoted you in agreement with you.

I hope that clears things up. I am laughing so hard you think I called you Piggo.

[The Remonstrant]

Piggo, as thread starter, please put an end to the misogynistic insertion. [Emphasis added.]

Honestly, I do not know what you are talking about. I was addressing the posts following yours that were deviating from the opening post. I noted that your post was relevant in that you were addressing Obsidian's (mis)understanding of Jesus' cry from the cross. The posts following yours picked up on your comments and were going off into gender relations (and therefore deviating from the opening post). That was my criticism. I was hoping to circumvent further comments not specifically addressing the opening post. There is no hint of "misogyny" present in any of my posts here. The "piggo" comment is thus completely unwarranted.

[Darth Xena]

DDW was confronting Obsidian's approach to Jesus' "cry of dereliction". It was, therefore, relevant.

I really hope we are not about to go off on some extended gender relations rant derail of this thread now.

Piggo, as thread starter, please put an end to the misogynistic insertion.

[Darth Xena]

Yes, when a woman says that she is lying to manipulate the man's emotions. Unless she truly believes it -- in which case she is either delusional, or correct.

Good luck with that. You will be a social retard if you live liked that.

[Darth Xena]

But if i was to read a story, and read that the woman told the man, "you don't love me anymore," i would have to assume that she meant what she stated, because it's a statement. That statement literally means that her perspective literally sees the man as having no love toward her. I can't just assume that she's being emotional, I have to find out whether or not she is. That's why we have to search the text to understand the meaning of Jesus statement, so we have the correct context. No assumptions, No pre-suppositions, etc. Only text, we must let the text define the text, so what do we do? Keep looking until we find the evidence, or enough evidence, that defines the statement.

[The Remonstrant]

DDW was confronting Obsidian's approach to Jesus' "cry of dereliction". It was, therefore, relevant.

I really hope we are not about to go off on some extended gender relations rant derail of this thread now.

[Obsidian]

Yes, when a woman says that she is lying to manipulate the man's emotions. Unless she truly believes it -- in which case she is either delusional, or correct.

[IamLives]

I sure hope you are not that literal in your relationships. Hint: When a woman says, "You don't love me anymore" she is using a rhetorical emotional device. She isn't literally saying she literally believes you don't literally love her any more. Sheesh.

But if i was to read a story, and read that the woman told the man, "you don't love me anymore," i would have to assume that she meant what she stated, because it's a statement. That statement literally means that her perspective literally sees the man as having no love toward her. I can't just assume that she's being emotional, I have to find out whether or not she is. That's why we have to search the text to understand the meaning of Jesus statement, so we have the correct context. No assumptions, No pre-suppositions, etc. Only text, we must let the text define the text, so what do we do? Keep looking until we find the evidence, or enough evidence, that defines the statement.

[foudroyant]

I sure hope you are not that literal in your relationships. Hint: When a woman says, "You don't love me anymore" she is using a rhetorical emotional device. She isn't literally saying she literally believes you don't literally love her any more. Sheesh.

Yeah but DD that's a woman...you can't always go by what they say anyway because it most often means the opposite!



Saw this from W.E. Vine:

Note: A recent translator renders this verb in Matthew 27:50 "uttered a scream," an utterly deplorable mistranslation and a misrepresentation of the nature of the Lord's "cry."

http://www.studylight.org/dic/ved/view.cgi?n=624

Anyone know who Vine is referring to?