>"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Bros... what did he mean by this?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
>"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
>"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Bros... what did he mean by this?
|
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
he was quoting Psalm 22 in which David had prophecied his crucifixion.
Nice headcanon anon
>uses the exact same words as the first line of the Psalm
>then says the exact same words as the last line immediately before dying
it's just a coincidence bro. could not POSSIBLY have been intentional.
Correct. This is headcanon because the Psalm that Christ is actually quoting is 21.
>he doesn't know about types and antitypes in The Bible.
NGMI.
This is all cope. I think Zizek is right when he says that Christianity is the most atheist religion. Jesus comes down to earth to teach universal love, gets prosecuted and his final words are literally proclaiming that God is dead and humanity's only salvation in light of this fact is universal love.
Interesting thought but very speculative. Maybe that's a possible symbolic meaning but I don't think that was Jesus' intention. Also most Christians don't see it like that, so can it still be called the message of Christianity if no Christian believes it?
I don't think that Jesus actually even said those words.
Christianity is the religion of paradox. I very much like what Zizek said about this moment but he tends to use paradoxes comically in the small c sense, and the heritage of Christian paradox is deep, especially on the mystical side, and of course does not start with him. Christianity is the most atheist religion and therefore it is the most theist religion too. God becoming an atheist on the cross is certainly a mystery worthy of the incomprehensibility of the divine.
>this is a cope, please accept this vague bullshit from funny sniffling communist meme man instead
Correct
It makes way more sense if the whole thing is just a con and the cult leader finally cracked and broke character when he realized he was really about to die
You wouldn't "break character" by literally appealing to a prophetic text.
Did you even know it was a quote from the Psalms before you clicked on this thread? Be honest.
>the atheist didn't respond to whether or not if he didn't know the basic context for what he was criticizing
womp womp, sage
>it makes more sense if you completely ignore all the parallels between the Psalm being quoted and the context it was quoted in and apply your own modern materialist reductionist worldview instead
>direct word-for-word quotation of a prophetic text that any reader of Jesus' time would have understood
>"this is a cope, please accept this vague bullshit from funny sniffling communist meme man instead"
Your argument doesn't at all make sense if you look exegetically and rationally and take off the glasses where any simple allusion to the scriptures is taken as a prophecy. Psalm 22 doesn't necessarily prophesise the crucifixion, it's also entirely appropriate and entirely explainable by the context of David's situation at the time. The allusion that Jesus makes is also chosen appropriately to what Jesus must have been thinking and feeling during the crucifixion, so it doesn't remove the problem the OP is asking at all. Just because you explain what he's alluding to, it doesn't explain why he said it.
Can you maybe accept that there might be more to the Gospels than just "proofs" that Jesus was the son of God -- ie. poetry, beauty, mystery? They are not just evidence documents, they are spiritual texts.
>Psalm 22 doesn't necessarily prophesise the crucifixion
It very obviously parallels certain direct elements of the crucifixion narratives (the insults and accusations leveled against Jesus by the high priests, literally mentioning casting lots for garments)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_22#New_Testament
>Just because you explain what he's alluding to, it doesn't explain why he said it.
Jesus was human and he didn't want to suffer. He was empathizing with David. Single pieces of scripture can have more than one immediate meaning at the same time; something can be both poetic (as David wrote it) while also being prophetic (what Jesus later experienced) at the same time. This is how anyone in the ancient world would have understood it.
Yes indeed -- and the parallelism could either be explained as a prophecy, or as a literary technique because the evangelists and Jesus himself would have been steeped in knowledge of the Psalms. Since you do accept that there is "more than one immediate meaning" to scripture (indeed 4 levels traditionally) then I think we fundamentally agree with each other.
To quibble I don't personally think however there's a necessary either/or distinction between the poetry of David and the poetry of Jesus. The seven last words of Christ are clearly not all merely for the sake of fulfiling prophecy. Apart from theological interpretations, the only commonality is that they are all deeply affecting and extraordinary things for Jesus to have said on the cross.
>as a prophecy, or as a literary technique
The ancient view would see this as a yes and rather than an either or.
Also the Psalms having prophetic capacities is taken for granted by israeli Rabbis and the Talmud, who would obviously have no confirmation bias in favor of Jesus whatsoever.
>https://aish.com/psalms-about-future-events/
>https://www.sefaria.org/Gittin.57b
I dont like the "God is dead" type of so called Radical Christians who have decided to follow Zizek's line of thought because they tend to be super woke "communists". In many ways, they are simply a mirrored reaction to prosperity gospel types. Both missing the point
None of this is the Gospel, read Psalm 22, pay attention to the rest of the New Testament, and come back. If you didn't get it, read a second time.
This. Psalm 22 also ends with God being the proper ruler of all nations (not just Israel) and rejoicing for a "people not yet born" (the Christians). It was literally the Psalmist/King David prophesying Jesus and Christianity.
He was telling you to buy the self titled System of a Down album.
That shit slaps
Wait, the album is called Toxicity. I have failed.
But I thought he was God?????????
Is he saying "Me, why have you forsaken I"????????
Yes. It is supposed to be introspective.
>philippians 2
Bc God the Son becomes man, so He also assumes the position of a human servant before God the Father
Why did Jesus need to die for God to forgive humanity's sins? Couldn't God just forgive everyone without Jesus dying?
Religion is all about making sacrifices, not about living a shallow life cooming all day to chinese drawings
>not about living a shallow life cooming all day to chinese drawings
Leave me and my Chinese drawings alone
why not make a cooler sacrifice tho, a naked dude in a cross is quite lame.
If your sacrifices are all about pleasing god so he wont punish you, then you're as shallow as me cumming to cartoons.
Why would he sacrifice himself to himself?
Not to go Jordan Peterson but in a certain sense that's what everyone does when they engage in meaningful work: they sacrifice their present sense for the benefit of their future self, or in a larger sense and in Jungian terms they sacrifice their "self" in order to give birth to their "Self".
Sounds more like Hinduism or Buddhism. What you've just said is almost verbatim found in the Upanishads.
It makes sense symbolically or psychologically, I won't deny that Christianity has that kind of power. I honestly always get a bit sad when I see Mary crying at the cross as well.
It's just that I grew up believing that there was a real metaphysical need for Jesus to die to pay for the really metaphysically existing sins of humanity, the symbolic meaning was always secondary. I just don't see how this makes sense.
I might have a very different view of Christianity if I had heard of those perspectives as a child but anything even slightly doubting the metaphysics or historicity of Christianity was seen as blasphemous. I will probably forever be unable to take Jung's perspective 100% seriously or to understand someone who might have converted in their 20s, I no longer have that psychological flexibility.
>Why would he sacrifice himself to himself?
Because that's the human condition that God internalized through being Jesus.
>Ali, Ali why have you forsaken me
Why was He begging an arab man to save him?
i honestly don't understand why he said this. i tried googling it one time and all the articles were saying "it shows his profound faith in God even in his moments of intense suffering." but i don't quite see how that makes any sense whatsoever on any level.
it's literally just Psalm 22. it's not complicated, he's just quoting pertinent scripture.
but why would he quote psalm 22 at such a moment?
>God promises to make the Messiah one of David's line
>David composes a song that describes the exact manner of Christ's death in detail and alludes to the subsequent spread of the faith to the gentiles all over the world
>Christ quotes it on the cross in case it wasn't heavy-handed enough already for the slow mfers who didn't get it
he's spelling it out for you. this is something that happens in the NT all the time; Christ fulfills a Messianic prophecy and either he or someone else quotes the relevant OT passages.
i see
Cult leader huffed too much of his own product and only realized he was actually toast at the last minute. Many such cases!
What reason do we have to believe that anything truly prophetic was going on? How could Matthew know such a detail of Jesus' death decades after the events? Also as someone who knew the psalms and was a follower of Jesus he would have had a strong incentive to insert that prayer into the text to make it seem like prophecy was fulfilled.
Even if Jesus really said those words, what does it show? He could have just recited the psalm because he saw himself as the Messiah, regardless of whether he truly was or not. If people know the prophecy it's easy to try to fulfil it, especially if it just means saying a few words.
I heard some israelite point out that in the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, no one is present to record it. No disciples, just Romans and Jesus. How would the writers of the gospel know what was said there? Unless Jesus told them about it after the resurrection.