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

[vorlon13]

Did Jesus witness the word to the money changers at the temple, or did he just go there and tear up the place without warning ??

[Minimalist]

Dear Vicki.


You really need to speak to a rabbi so you don't keep trying to tell jews how to be jews and thereupon making a fool of yourself.

https://outreachjudaism.org/crucifixion-psalm/

Notice that the English translation from the original Hebrew does not contain the word “pierced.” The King James version deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word kaari (כָּאֲרִי) as “pierced,” rather than “like a lion,” thereby drawing the reader to a false conclusion that this Psalm is describing the Crucifixion. The Hebrew word כָּאֲרִי does not mean pierced but plainly means “like a lion. The end of Psalm 22:17, therefore, properly reads “like a lion they are at my hands and my feet.” Had King David wished to write the word “pierced,” he would never have used the Hebrew word kaari. Instead, he would have written either daqar or ratza, which are common Hebrew words in the Jewish Scriptures. These common words mean to “stab” or “pierce.” Needless to say, the phrase “they pierced my hands and my feet” is a not-too-ingenious Christian contrivance that appears nowhere in Tanach.

As has been noted many times, xtians are not above lying to make their points. Perhaps King James thought this was just a way to make things a little clearer for the sheep? Xtians and clarity do not go together.

[RobbyPants]

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.

And the laws against eating pork was meant to illustrate that we shouldn't blindly eat bullshit.

[Rhondazvous]

If you want to know what Jesus was up to with “Why have you forsaken me?”, it's essential to read all of the relevant psalm here.

In this, a suffering yet faithful person calls to God for help, with a very successful outcome; the ending with the Gentiles learning to praise God, awakening of the dead and deliverance of future generations being massively important.

Quoting the psalm doesn't change the fact that he did many things he'd been told not to do. If he lived at all, he was forsaken for his own sin by a god who sends people delusions to make them believe a lie. (Thessalonians 2:11), How can god send people a delusion and not be the author of confusion?  How can he make people believe a lie and not be a liar?  How can even Jesus trust such a god?

[Vicki Q]

Dear Vicki.


You really need to speak to a rabbi so you don't keep trying to tell jews how to be jews and thereupon making a fool of yourself.

...

As has been noted many times, xtians are not above lying to make their points.  Perhaps King James thought this was just a way to make things a little clearer for the sheep?  Xtians and clarity do not go together.

You make a good point, that the Hebrew word is very uncertain. 'King James' chose a translation that suited his purposes, and most translations have followed it. This might work well for apologetic purposes, but as can be readily seen, there is none to be had. Thank you for pointing it out.

The (NRSV) version I linked to translates Psalm 22:16 as “My hands and feet have shrivelled”, with a footnote saying “Meaning of Heb uncertain”. Which leaves me uncertain how I was misusing a translation of “piercing”.

Furthermore, my explanation was that the Psalm retold the meta-narrative of the OT/NT and was as such a summary of the controlling narrative for Jesus death. This isn't based on a particular translation of one word, but on a reading of the Psalm as a whole, and how it fits in as explanatory to the Good Friday and Easter events.

As to the question of deceit- the Hebrew word can mean many things. I'm sure you've researched how marginal the various translation possibilities are, (dependent on a small mark!). You may be right, as Xians are not above lying if they think it will further the Gospel, but the KJV decision may well be just opportunistic because it is very hard to translate.

As for the question of clarity- I can only speak for myself, and repeat that I am here specifically to clarify. As such challenges to clarify are more than welcome. However in this instance, I remain a little puzzled as to how I was misusing a specific translation of a word that I wasn't using, and how that leads to me making a fool of myself. Perhaps you could clarify?


Indeed it would appear that my core point- the Psalm as interpreting the crucifixion events rather than being evidence of Jesus disobedience remains intact. It still remains a remarkable piece of writing.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

   MinimalistDear Vicki.



You really need to speak to a rabbi so you don't keep trying to tell jews how to be jews and thereupon making a fool of yourself.

...

As has been noted many times, xtians are not above lying to make their points.  Perhaps King James thought this was just a way to make things a little clearer for the sheep?  Xtians and clarity do not go together.

---

You make a good point, that the Hebrew word is very uncertain. 'King James' chose a translation that suited his purposes, and most translations have followed it. This might work well for apologetic purposes, but as can be readily seen, there is none to be had. Thank you for pointing it out.

The (NRSV) version I linked to translates Psalm 22:16 as “My hands and feet have shrivelled”, with a footnote saying “Meaning of Heb uncertain”. Which leaves me uncertain how I was misusing a translation of “piercing”.

Furthermore, my explanation was that the Psalm retold the meta-narrative of the OT/NT and was as such a summary of the controlling narrative for Jesus death. This isn't based on a particular translation of one word, but on a reading of the Psalm as a whole, and how it fits in as explanatory to the Good Friday and Easter events.

As to the question of deceit- the Hebrew word can mean many things. I'm sure you've researched how marginal the various translation possibilities are, (dependent on a small mark!). You may be right, as Xians are not above lying if they think it will further the Gospel, but the KJV decision may well be just opportunistic because it is very hard to translate.

As for the question of clarity- I can only speak for myself, and repeat that I am here specifically to clarify. As such challenges to clarify are more than welcome. However in this instance, I remain a little puzzled as to how I was misusing a specific translation of a word that I wasn't using, and how that leads to me making a fool of myself. Perhaps you could clarify?


Indeed it would appear that my core point- the Psalm as interpreting the crucifixion events rather than being evidence of Jesus disobedience remains intact. It still remains a remarkable piece of writing.

It's been my observation that some people hate the various versions because they like to translate the original manuscripts themselves every time they refer to the ancient fairy tale.  Evidently they are very accomplished linguists and far more knowledgable than the guys who wrote the various versions in their own vernacular using their favorite idioms to express the underlying ideas.  Most of it is still BS however it's translated.  Personally I like the Message version because it uses the most colorful language.  

[Rhondazvous]

Indeed it would appear that my core point- the Psalm as interpreting the crucifixion events rather than being evidence of Jesus disobedience remains intact. It still remains a remarkable piece of writing.

By that line of "reasoning," you have to admit the beautiful princess really did prick her finger and fall asleep for a 100  years just like the good fairy said she would, so Sleeping Beauty must be true. No book can fulfill its own prophecy. Xtians have ransacked the Jewish scriptures to find stuff they can interpret as types of Christ, but it all still depends on interpretation rather than actual foretelling.

[dyresand]

No jesus killed killed a kid infancy of thomas.
A kid bumped into him jesus used magic and striked him down.
He also cursed people when he got angry.

[Cyberman]

Not to mention cursing a fig tree when he got 'ungry. All that power in one unstable character - not exactly the best combination.

[dyresand]

Not to mention cursing a fig tree when he got 'ungry. All that power in one unstable character - not exactly the best combination.

pretty much god of the bible was much as a asshole when he was in his human form. It's no wonder why Thomas books were removed from the bible since they are canon to the story.