What verse in the Bible says that?
Here is a good quick read, more concise and articulate than I could do.
Man sins in God’s garden, God is with them, so close that they can hear His footsteps. God is not weakened by their sin. He throws them out, because a sinful man cannot be in a Holy God’s presence. That was merciful. As it was to prevent them from being immortal, living forever apart from God is hell. So giving us a limited time on earth to be apart from Him was merciful. We would only have to live in this perverted world for a small time.
Dark cannot cover light, rather light exposes/illuminates the dark.
Jacob (a sinful man wrestled with God). God appears to many people who do not die, and God is not harmed by their sin. God is with us daily and is not harmed by our sin. He can stand to be in the presence of sin, He is not the wicked witch and sin is not water.
But there are many verses where a sinful man cannot be in God’s presence without dying. But there are also many verses of God coming to man. Jesus is God, He came to man, near sin. How can God not be near sin?
Again, like a king can visit his commoners all he wants. But a commoner cannot come to him unless requested without the penalty of death. The way the Jews came to God’s presence was as requested, and only when following strict purification rules.
But show me one verse that says sin weakens God and I might change my mind. God does not like sin, I will agree with that.
Back to the thread title, “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me?” This isn’t to say that God did forsake Him, but when looking at God through sinful human lenses, He felt abandoned, it doens’t mean He was. Just like god never abandons us. Just like Jesus put on human form and felt hunger and temptation during His life here, He also took on the weight of sin, and felt what it was like to be separated from God. But God never looked away, He is always there, especially when we need Him most.
God didn’t say, oh no, a sinful man, I’m melting…But man who saw a Holy God was about to die in His presence, required the “scepter” of the king to be extended to spare his life. God forgave Isaiah, and Isaiah was allowed to be in His presence.
100% agree. Huge fan of N.T Wright. Much of my understanding the Biblical narrative comes from N.T Wright.
I am assuming you meant some of this for me, as you quoted me a few times, but referred to reggie?
I don’t see how this goes against any scripture. I am trying to keep this as short as I can referring to scriptures that are fairly well known, but if you can’t find the connection, feel free to ask for a reference and I can find one for you.
I think it mainly comes down to semantics, which since we can’t really fathom the concept of the trinity, we just have to take it for its word. I will refer to them as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All are God, but Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father ect.
I know that only God deserves praise, and Jesus allowed praise, therefore Jesus was God, or it was in His blood. God created the universe, Jesus created the universe. God can forgive sin, Jesus could forgive sins. Jesus was God…in His lineage or authority, but not in person/role while He was on earth.
I guess there is no clear scripture of this, but it is how I make sense of it, that Jesus was fully God, but fully man, like a prince is fully royal, but can be fully commoner at his own will.
Much like a king is royal, and the prince and queen is royal, but the king is not the prince ect. The prince can act in a non-royal role, he is still royalty, but not the prince. If the price wore commoner clothes and asked to be treated as one, then he could not do such a thing. BUT, you can imagine, anyone who recognized the prince would treat him better out of the fear of knowing who he really is or could do, the prince still has authority of those who know him.
It’s like undercover boss, the CEO becomes the employee. While a lowly employee, He can’t fire anyone, is is just a new guy. But, he can take off the outfit and put his CEO hat on and fire you at any second. But Jesus knew the bigger picture and wanted to see the human process of life through to save man, so He never put on His “God” hat, until it was finished.
Jesus gave up His “Godly” role, and took a human role. He could sin, He could err, He could stumble. But He still had authority from God to forgive sins and heal people and command the seas and winds.
Jesus was a human, Jesus was tempted. One can only be tempted if one can sin. God cannot sin, but Jesus gave up this “role of God” when taking on form of man.
It is very difficult to understand or explain. But I didn’t mean to make it out as if I didn’t believe Jesus wasn’t God. I said in the beginning, that I will appear to contradict myself a lot, but not really. It’s very simple, yet very complex.
Just like I think that since the creation of our universe, the death of Jesus was in progress, yet on the other hand, I say the death wasn’t a “big deal”.
I can say that about my son. Meaning we have one mind, we agree on everything, we are of the same blood. I think the Father and Son are tighter than humans, but again, you can be “one” without literally being “one”. Just like the two human flesh’s become “one”.
They are one because they are both God, but the Father is not the Son.
It means what Co1 1:15 says, before the universe Jesus was God, so of course before Abraham.
I am not making some other interpretation of it either. I think I might have set you off with my one sentence that said Jesus was not God, which was a mistake on my fault, as it is difficult to articulate. I meant to say that Jesus was not in the role of God.
This is to go against what I have commonly heard that Jesus was fully God and was perfect from birth and had God powers and was fully God in the role sense and could not sin, which I don’t see scripture saying that at all.
I wasn’t trying to dismiss it, I was speaking relativistic. I am well aware of the brutal nature, I know that thousands of people were crucified. Relative to the burden Christ would bear (being separated from His Father which whom He is “One” with), a physical crucifixion was small fries. Just like a match is hot, but relative to the sun not so much.
I think that was most of the praying and sweating blood was from.
Or what about Isaiah 6:5-7 is an example — Isaiah cried “I am a man of unclean lips” and a heavenly being touched his lips with something that made him (Isaiah) clean. “Behold your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”
No blood, but sin was atoned for. God could forgive all sin in a second if He wanted to. He could also take away our free will if He wanted to. But it is illogical, so He won’t. Sin needs to have a high price, so we can know the weight of sin, and then know the holiness of God. If sin were forgiven with the snap of His finger, we would probably all continue to sin, and we would not know or understand God’s holiness. And could not properly worship Him.
I don’t think it can Hebrews 8:22 can be read so literal. Matt 9:5, Luke 5:23 “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” There was no blood there, yet sins were forgiven. Isaiah 1:11 “The multitude of your sacrifices-- what are they to me?” says the LORD. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.”
First we need to delineate between the sacrifice (as in an animal that died on an alter) and a sacrifice (as giving up something you treasure).
Lev 17:11:For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.
The sacrificing of animals was to point to what Jesus would do for them. It was more the heart of the sacrifice than the act (as with all things of God). It was in obedience to God, and it was a bit of trust that God would provide, they could afford to give up their best lamb. The animal was the sacrifice, but it was the clean blood sprinkled that “forgave” the sins. Much like the blood of the passover lamb is what saved the Israelites. But the blood wasn’t magical. The blood represents life. Jesus’ entire life was given for man, the reason He left heaven was for man, He lived as a servant for man, His life was the sacrifice, the blood (which is necessary) was a representation of that. This was God’s sacrifice (giving up a treasure)to/for us, it was costly, God had to give up His best (in heaven) part of Himself for us.
Again, most of this you are commenting on is my contradictions or an excerpt, not the other part I said or the post as a whole. The resurrection was a big deal, but I don’t see it as a miracle. I don’t think death was an obstacle that Jesus had to overcome and He was worried that He might not. I think Jesus sweat blood thinking of enduring this separation from God, knowing He would overcome it, but still had to endure it. Like pregnancy and/or labor, I bet it sucks to endure it, but knowing what comes afterwords is worth it, but you know it will come(not the best analogy as I know not all pregnancies end up in live birth). It’s not like “I have to conquer this obstacle so the baby will be able to come out, I hope I can and when I do celebrate with me for overcoming it”.
I think the hour of darkness was a necessity, that had to be endured, to save mankind. Jesus is LIFE, death couldn’t hold Him, death didn’t scare Him. I don’t see that resurrection as a miracle, rather a law of the universe, like gravity, I am not surprised when a buoyant object that was submerged, springs back upon the surface, I kind of expect it. So if that object never did surface, then yes, I would be suspect of the Messiahs claims. That is why the resurrection was important, it had to happen to validate who Jesus was, but it wasn’t a miracle or a surprise any more than God loving us is a surprise or a miracle, it just is what it is.
So relative to Jesus taking on all the powers of darkness, I think the resurrection wasn’t a big deal.
But other than the prophesies saying how He had to die on a tree and be pierced and no broken bones…The crucifixion wasn’t a big deal either. But Jesus blood/life had to leave Him, for us to have benefited from it. So in that sense, it was the biggest deal, but again, more His life than His death, but death was required so His life could end so we could benefit form it.
I just think too many people focus on the face value of the physical death/crucifixion and resurrection. When thousands of others died that way, and the resurrection, like it was a tough obstacle to overcome, like Jesus could have stayed dead? There is so much more meaning behind it, Jesus’ life in this place was a sacrifice (treasure forfeited) from Jesus and God for us, and an example how were were supposed to live before we rejected God. We should celebrate good Friday more than Sunday. Good Friday was good, the first time since the universe was created that it was finished! The following Sunday just proves/validates Good Friday after the fact. What happened first, the smoke or the fire? What is more important? Semantics really.
How is that logic consistent with scriptures? I thought blood was where forgiveness came from? Where is resurrection required for atonement? After “it is finished” was done, we were all potentially forgiven (it has to be asked for it’s not automatic). The resurrection is just validation of the sinless spotless lamb, Son of God who died for us. It told us after the fact. This doesn’t disagree with any other scriptures, it is just coming at it from a different perspective. You can read the whole NT and it still agrees with all that Paul says, even more I think.
The Bible is the only source I am using.
But this is really pointless semantics. I think we agree on the important things. Who God is, and Why Jesus came, and what He did for us. Looking at it like I do just makes more logical sense to me and explains things like: How knowing you would be raised to life in a few days, makes death a difficult thing. Or how giving something away you will get back in a few days is a sacrifice? I don’t see it like that any more. I see His life as the sacrifice (not his physical life) but His being, leaving heaven and His Father, and death not as an obstacle to overcome but as necessary enduring for mankind.