"My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?" Was Jesus Really Sinless?

[Rhondazvous]

You know there was a law of Moses that said they couldn't mix 2 different kinds of cloth (stuff that gets woven together).
That was given to illustrated to us, that we are not supposed to mix the old testament with the new.
You guys love to do that (along with many Christian leaders).

a New Covenant, just like a new testament (or will) voids the old one.
Jesus FULFILLED the old one.
It was in place until the curtain of the temple was split when He died- He said "It is finished".
Meaning- both His suffering as the Lamb of God, in our place, And that old covenant was over with.
What is left of the old covenant is prophecies, shadows and types and promises.  NOT the laws.

Jesus was sent to the Jews.
He then sent His apostles with the Spirit of God to the gentiles.

Jesus HAD to be without blemish- just as the lamb for the old covenant had to be without blemish.
Because only one without sin could pay for another, in the accomplishment of total justice.
A divine exchange, in this case- the Judge taking the penalty for the guilty.

The problem with that argument is that when Jesus taught his disciples to disregard the Sabbath they were still operating under the old covenant and so was he.
 Galatians 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

[Cyberman]

We take everything you say with a grain of salt.

Only a grain? Nothing less than 95% of a lethal dose works for me.

[Iroscato]

We take everything you say with a grain of salt.

Followed by a gulp of tequila.

You forgot the lemon, guys

[Rhondazvous]

But, clearly here, somebody changed. If it wasn't god who changed, then it must have been Jesus.

But, but, but Jesus = God....or so the asswipes claim.

Oh my, Now that IS a problem. Jesus was flesh and there was time when he was not born yet, which means god had to become flesh. The word "become" implies change.  This can't be. So they'll just give the word "change" a meaning to which we are not privy.  That's so cute.

---

Is it really "Why hast thou forsaken me"?

Or is it just another translation error and was really "Why hast thou de-foreskinned me"?

You're sick

[Crossless2.0]

Ever hear of an illustration?
Take what I said about mixing cloths as a shadow and type.  
Maybe that will go down better?

Regarding your 'shadow and type' nonsense, here is Nietzsche in a quote I have posted elsewhere on the typically dishonest exegesis Christians like to impose on the Hebrew Bible:

From Daybreak, Book I, section 84:


"The philology of Christianity. How little Christianity educates the sense of honesty and justice can be gauged fairly well from the character of its scholars' writings: they present their conjectures as boldly as if they were dogmas and are rarely in any honest perplexity over the interpretation of a passage in the Bible. Again and again they say 'I am right, for it is written ' and then follows an interpretation of such impudent arbitrariness that a philologist who hears it is caught between rage and laughter and asks himself: is it possible? Is this honorable? Is it even decent? How much dishonesty in this matter is still practiced in Protestant pulpits, how grossly the preacher exploits the advantage that no one is going to interrupt him here, how the Bible is pummeled and punched and the art of reading badly is in all due form imparted to the people: only he who never goes to church or never goes anywhere else will underestimate that. But after all, what can one expect from the effects of a religion which in the centuries of its foundation perpetrated that unheard-of philological farce concerning the Old Testament: I mean the attempt to pull the Old Testament from under the feet of the Jews with the assertion it contained nothing but Christian teaching and belonged to the Christians as the true people of Israel, the Jews being only usurpers. And then there followed a fury of interpretation and construction that cannot possibly be associated with a good conscience: however much Jewish scholars protested, the Old Testament was supposed to speak of Christ and only of Christ, and especially of his Cross; wherever a piece of wood, a rod, a ladder, a twig, a tree, a willow, a staff is mentioned, it is supposed to be a prophetic allusion to the wood of the Cross; even the erection of the one-horned beast and the brazen serpent, even Moses43 spreading his arms in prayer, even the spits on which the Passover44 lamb45 was roasted all allusions to the Cross and as it were preludes to it! Has anyone who asserted this ever believed it? Consider that the church did not shrink from enriching the text of the Septuagint46 (e.g. in Psalm 96, verse 1047) so as afterwards to employ the smuggled-in passage in the sense of Christian prophecy. For they were conducting a war and paid more heed to their opponents than to the need to stay honest."

[Rhondazvous]

We take everything you say with a grain of salt.

smelling salt

[vorlon13]

Such notable Mormons as Brigham Young maintain Jesus followed God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply.

I take it other stripes of Christers feel Jesus failed on that one.

[abaris]

We are told that Jesus obeyed his father. This is what he said about himself. No, this is what was written about him. Like Pythegorus before him, Jesus left no writings of his own that we know about. But was he really the obedient son?

Moot point. There's the trinity, the core of christianity. So Jesus could only obey or disobey himself. And he was talking to himself. Three different personality disorders, one being. That's what the trinity boils down to. Jesus could only have an argument wit his image in the mirror.

[Minimalist]

So - to quote jebus:

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

So who was he talking to?  Himself?


BTW that is not from Matty 27 it is from Psalms 22 which brings up the point of why was jesus plagiarizing while he was supposed to be dying?

[Rhondazvous]

That's the question I always swept under the carpet when I was a Christian sitting up in church: If Jesus is god why didn't he ever say so? Why did he equivocate? When the jews were going to stone him for calling himself the son of god, he quoted psalms "Have I not said ye are all gods? Ye are all sons of the most high." 

So we are  dealing here , not only with a murderous psychopath, but a split personality as well.  The hero with three faces?