Why not go right to the father? Who cares about the son? Usually he's a bit spoiled and nepotistic. Best to just go to where the real source of wealth is generated.

I have wondered how Christians rationalized Jesus' last words --- "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" — Gnostic Christian Bishop

If this was said at all, it probably indicates that he thought there was going to be some sort of End of Times miracle that was going to happen around the time of his death that did not transpire. Of course all the christology over the years layers it with whatever makes the narrative of the trinity and resurrection story look good, so there ya go.

That's an assertion, depending on interpretation, that is not accepted across the board denomination-wise. Beyond that is who or whatever referred to God as in the Creator of Heaven and Earth?

Seeing as per the book itself humans were created 'with regret' and would 'work until they return to dust' I doubt any negative opinions from them would be of much thought.

For the sake of argument in line with your premise, perhaps the first part was simply an exclamation as it is today and the latter directed toward those present.

Also, if you have a very close knit family. You could say you, your wife, and son are 'one' as in together and form a single unit. That said you are still you and your wife is still your wife. All that aside you really can't expect to be able to fully understand everything to a tee seeing as a major theme is 'God is beyond human comprehension'. Isaiah 55:8, as one example.

Oh there most certainly was. The entire society and civilization was besieged and destroyed. Just about 500 years later to the date. Give or take some. Just long enough for the followers to plan ahead based on what was foretold and maybe even enjoy a few generations or so. For what it's worth. Then again you could argue all that was commonplace at the time.

Oh there most certainly was. The entire society and civilization was besieged and destroyed. Just about 500 years later to the date. Give or take some. Just long enough for the followers to plan ahead based on what was foretold and maybe even enjoy a few generations or so. For what it's worth. Then again you could argue all that was commonplace at the time. — Outlander

Oh great, Rome was destroyed and we got the freakn Middle Ages.. a joy that was :roll:.

Yes because you were there right. Witnessed it all first hand or something? It was no joy. But, allegedly, it happened. Something I was told was there's neither point or sense in worrying about what already happened. Save for the fact, and this is my assertion, you take note of applicable lessons and contributing factors and ensure they are paid attention to and addressed in order to move forward, restore, maintain, or at minimum prevent further degradation. Not here to create excessive skeptics or 'conspiracy theorists' simply any philosophy that excludes skepticism is hardly one at all. When you have some philosophies that make you question whether or not a person standing right beside you even exists you clearly have a bit of leeway to question a bit more.

Well my point was that for all of Rome's dominating tendencies.. the dominating religious institutions of Church and feudalism with little by way of non-religious speculation, its rapid de-urbanization and decentralization of authority seemed to be a worse alternative. Sure, Aristotle was rediscovered in the Near East and Spain and slowly reintroduced into European universities, but the fact is it had to be rediscovered, besides which, Aristotle possibly lengthened the sclerotic emphasis on relying on only a few old thinkers rather than promote new discoveries based in empiricism. It wasn't until people like Francis Bacon, Galileo, and later Descartes, and Spinoza for this to be the new paradigm for how the Western world would proceed in its intellectual ideas. The LESS time devoted to theology and the more to the natural world, the more focus on practical use of materials and processes (engineering), newly mathematicized scientific method, and ideas on social institutions increased standards of living and knowledge of how the universe and humans work in general.

Of course, now that we have started the merry-go-round for technology for technology sake, we have lost our tendency to ponder existential matters, bigger picture ideas of why we choose to keep procreating and maintain civilization in the first place.

I have wondered how Christians rationalized Jesus' last words --- "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Jesus probably didn't say that. That statement is taken from Psalms 22:1.

Why not go right to the father? — schopenhauer1

Because Jesus ascended, in the myth, to Yahweh's right hand an judgement seat and has to be gone through to get to the Father whom Jesus basically retired. In older terms, he became the Hand of the King.

If this was said at all, it probably indicates that he thought there was going to be some sort of End of Times miracle that was going to happen around the time of his death that did not transpire. Of course all the christology over the years layers it with whatever makes the narrative of the trinity and resurrection story look good, so there ya go. — schopenhauer1

He likely was expecting a miracle, and knew he had failed in his bid to have the messianic prophecy happen. That failure to do so wasted his suicide and he knew it and that is why the majority of Jews rejected him as savior.

Regards
DL

For the sake of argument in line with your premise, perhaps the first part was simply an exclamation as it is today and the latter directed toward those present. — Outlander

Jesus would not call those present 'my god".

'God is beyond human comprehension'. Isaiah 55:8, as one example. — Outlander

The bible says that sure. Which means that all of what is said of god is either speculative nonsense or an outright lie from those who say anything about god. Right?

Regards
DL

Jesus probably didn't say — Relativist

Jesus probably didn't say anything anywhere, given that he is a mythical character.

As Joseph Campbell said, he is likely just one of his Heroes of 1,000 faces.

Regards
DL

What I meant to suggest, and solely for the sake of argument, was as relateable as Jesus was, it may have just been an exclamation.

If you and I are standing in line at the grocery store and you reach into my cart and rip open a package of turnips and call yourself 'the turnip man' I or another might have said '(oh) my God, what is wrong with you?!', for example. The exclamation is toward you but of no descriptive quality.

it may have just been an exclamation. — Outlander

The scribes, I am sure, were quite careful in putting exactly what they wanted people to read as coming out of Jesus. They would not want readers to start reading other word and putting them in Jesus' mouth.

We are to read what is said, and not what we want the words to say.

In fact, the bible itself says not to add or subtract from what is said.

When the bible was written, almost no one read holy books literally, but to start second guessing the wording of the myth would have us likely miss the message it was trying to give.

Regards
DL

Maybe Jesus and the Jewish sect he belonged to believed Yahweh was the son of El Elyon. Judaism wasn't a monolith back then as there were different sects. Nor had it always been strictly monotheistic. The angels were sons of God Most High, and each nation had its own god, Yahweh being Israel's. But that fell out favor at some point when Yahweh and El were merged into the one God of Judaism.

However, that doesn't mean some Jews didn't still hold on to the older beliefs. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Qumran community. 1st Enoch is very much into angels, and Enoch is transformed into the angel Metatron after he ascends through the heavens. Here we learn that the sons of God who had children with the daughters of men prior to the flood were the Watcher angels.

In the Jewish-Christian Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus descends from the seventh heaven, taking on the form of an angel for each heaven before becoming human.

And here's an interesting quote from Paul:

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, [and] being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. — Philippians 2:6-11

So Jesus preexisted as the "form of God", which could be understood as a begotten son of the Most High (Father). Note that Paul mentions those who are in heaven. That would include the other angels. But Yahweh is the special or chosen angel. Maybe the highest and firstborn Archangel through whom God created the cosmos. That would also make Yahweh the Logos of Philo and the Gospel of John, which could be linked to the ancient divine Wisdom tradition.

Yahweh also was had a secret name, and was often referred to by The Name. Christians thought that was Jesus.

Christians thought that was Jesus. — Marchesk

Maybe — Marchesk

There could be and are many maybes in the contradictory scriptures. I took what I think is the majority view.

Few Christians that I know of have admitted to breaking the first commandment and put Jesus above Yahweh. At least none admit it when I accuse them of doing so.

Christians tend to run from such questions and any that have to do with morals and ethics.

If they would stop doing that, I could and would get a better view of their real beliefs.

Regards
DL

I took what I think is the majority view. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The majority view is the view that prevailed later on. It's not the one the earliest Christians held, most likely.