lama sabachthani [Archive] - Tzaddikim Discussion Forums

Matthew23

06-18-2002, 02:58 PM

Matthew 27:46
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Why did our Messiah say these words as He hanged from the cross?

Here's my thoughts:
I did a search for the words "will forsake" at my favorite online bible site. I was looking for some other time in the bible when G-d had forsaken someone. The first scripture that came up on the search was Deuteronomy 31:6. Well that one didn't exactly give me what I was looking for. Instead, I got whacked upside the head with a surprise. I had actually heard part of the verse many times before... "for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you." Along with that verse popped up many others having nothing to do with G-d forsaking anyone. Rather they all had to to with Man forsaking G-d. So, I had to come and give you my thoughts on this.

I saying, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" J-sus had obviously been forsaken by G-d. Well, the bible says that G-d will not forsake His people so...

J-sus, having taken the sin of man with Him on the cross, became sin for us (redundant?). He has taken our place, He was our substitute and was forsaken in that moment By G-d for our sake.

hyssop

06-18-2002, 05:27 PM

Matt,

If I understand you, you're saying that it was not J-sus; so who/what, exactly, was on the cross in the moment Yahweh left the scene of the crucifixion?

Matthew23

06-19-2002, 02:09 PM

Oops. Maybe I didn't explain my thoughts too clearly. I didn't mean that it was not J-sus who was on the cross, I was just trying to explain why He was forsaken at that time. He was forsaken because He had our sin on Him. G-d was always with Him until that one moment. Just think how He must have felt! I understand why He was forsaken, but what I still don't understand is... Why didn't He know why He was forsaken?

chris

06-19-2002, 05:53 PM

Shalom Matthew23! Check out Psalms 22. Yeshua did know He was forsaken, He was fulfilling the prophecy of Psalms 22.

hyssop

06-21-2002, 03:27 AM

Excellent, Chris! I was not aware of Psalms 22 and you, my friend, are right on: "He was fulfilling the prophecy of Psalms 22."

And what does Psalms 22 say was going on?<BLOCKQUOTE>Psalms 22 KJV<HR>[6] But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. [7] All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, [8] He trusted on the L-rd that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

. . .

[12] Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. [13] They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. [14] I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. [15] My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. [16] For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. [17] I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. [18] They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. <HR></blockquote>There is nothing in these scriptures that I can see to indicate that Yahweh left the scene because He saw Yashua as the substitute for this "assembly of the wicked" who were killing Yashua.

However, there is another possibility: perhaps, Yahweh left the scene because, had He stayed, He would have destroyed all those who were killing His Son. Yashua was fulfilling Yahweh's plan, according to the scriptures. Had Yahweh destroyed the wicked who were killing His Son, the plan would not have been completed.

And Matthew, I don't know that one could say that Yahweh really forsook Yashua. Yes, He left the scene of the crucifixion, but He raised Yashua to eternal life--a far cry from being forsaken (permanently). Maybe, "for the L-rd your G-d goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you," is talking about permanently forsaking the individual.

chris

06-21-2002, 07:24 AM

:) It humbles me deeply, Psalms 22. Oh the things He went through for the likes of me!! He died alone, truly alone, upon that cross. Forsaken by his disciples, his fellow Jews, even by His Father. G-d had to forsake Him. G-d has no part with sin, and Yeshua became sin for us. G-d could not even look upon Him. But when that sin and curse of Adam was burned up in the fires of Hell, G-d reached down into its belly and pulled His Son up to everlasting life. (((He is risen)))

Matthew23

06-21-2002, 02:35 PM

Thanks for replying, you guys. Chris, thanks for pointing me to Psalm 22. That's definitely a great piece of prophecy, and I see what you mean about the fullfilment of scripture.

J-sus was definitely forsaken on the cross. He said it Himself. What is puzzling to me though is that He asked the question "why?"(Matthew 27:46)

Any ideas?

chris

06-21-2002, 02:50 PM

Shalom Matthew23!

I don't know for sure. Some say that after they had mocked and spit upon Him, beat Him to the point of death, pushed a crown of thorns upon His head, made Him carry that cross some of the way, nailed Him to a cross (naked), stood the cross up b4 all to see, He was so delirious with pain, embarassment, and grief that He cried out "WHY!!" This is a good enough explanation for me, but I imagine it was also for the fullfilment of Psalms 22:

Ps 22:1 My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

Matthew23

06-21-2002, 07:33 PM

I understand the fullfilment part. But what I don't understand is this:

J-sus, the Son of G-d should have known what His Father's plan was and therefore should have understood why He was forsaken.

I have my own theory on this. This might sound corny, but I just thought of this about five minutes ago after reading your post. I don't exactly have the best ways of expressing myself, but here goes:

First of all, I believe that J-sus has two natures, one of man and one of G-d (Yahweh). I know I'm opening up a can of worms here on this particular message board by saying that! But anyways, I think that when the man J-sus was forsaken by G-d, the man did not understand why He had been forsaken, because the all knowing G-d in him was gone! Does that make sense? Is it ridiculous or not?

chris

06-21-2002, 07:42 PM

Blessings Matthew23

Not corny. I try my best to always respect another's believes and opinions. So whatever is on your mind, please feel free to speak it! I personally do not think Yeshua is part of a trinity, but that is a whole other can of worms... LOL! Think about this though: what if He did not say "Why hast thou forsaken me?" What if He said something else? He would not be fully fulfilling Psalms 22. Jews could use this to say "He was not the Messiah." Remember, Psalms 22 was already written at the time, and those devoted rabbis and pharisees probably had that particular passage memorized. Yeshua was both fullfilling and giving those Jews a sign that He truly was the Messiah.

Always keep questioning... :)

Searching

06-22-2002, 01:09 AM

Salutation Matthew and Chris,

Chris, I have seen some of the threads that you have mentioned at Theology Forums. I am not ignoring you...I just have had little time lately...trying to get A's in my classes eh?

Matthew,

So you know...I am younger than you. I am twenty-two, and a college student. I met Hyssop and Folks a while ago.

In this thread, I understand that you feel that Messiah was a substitute sacrfice. Let's get this straight...Good. I don't hope you don't change your beliefs unless convienced. There Should be no other way.

Being 'new' to this board and this trane of thought...I am Curious if you would care to start a new thead about 'substitutionalism'.

You see...I have a september 12th story as well. I am sure it is a bit different, however all are good eh?

Anywho...I have a few questions about Messiah not being a substitute as well....I hope we could colaborate.

We can 'gang up' or should I say reason a bit about New Testement scriptures about this doctrine.

You see, often when I think about "what the Father Wants" against a substitute...I often have to think about what "I" would expect from someone. 'Blood?'...some one "in the Place?" In my opinion is apauling. But we must 'think' using scriptures eh? I have questions myself.

We must ask questions...and I am sure we both have them...

You see...When I 'see' the Old Testement scriptures...'Substitutionalism' is a definite no no. In the New...It sometimes seems correct.

A 'scientist' must observe all aspects....eh? Even if the US looses to Germany.

Well, Let's see what we can get to eh?

Till Tommorrow,

Start if you wish...happy to oblige (sp?).

Peace,
Valid Name....

Searching

chris

06-22-2002, 08:22 AM

Shalom Searching, I did not think you were ignoring me. I just told you so you would know. Please, take all the time you need. There are many times when I cannot reply too quick. Really, I don't mind. In fact I want you to get those A++'s!

MyNameIsYura

03-03-2003, 07:36 PM

What I don't get is how Trinitarians view this.

Okay, how can the Father leave the Son if the Father and the Son are one God?

Let's say I have one pencil that was broken, but I taped it together, and let's say one part of the broken part is the father and the other part is the son. So if I put the pencil in my pocket, how can I not put both the father and the son into my pocket? As soon as you separate the broken parts, you no longer have a full pencil, both you have 50% of the father side and 50% of the son side of the broken pencil.

So the Father is only 50% God and the Son is 50% God? But wait, let's not forget the Holy Spirit, so no, it's more like 33% each now.

But then it bring the question of Colossians 2:9. The deity in Colossians 2:9 is singular deity, so who was this singular deity? If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is that singular deity, then do I have a paradox for you.

James 1:17 Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

Please look up in the dictionary what the word "variation" means if you don't know.

So now here's the question. Was the fulness of deity in Jesus before he was born from the womb of Mary?

Now answer this, if the singular deity in Colossians 2:9 is all three members of the Trinity, then how can that be since James 1:17 say the Father cannot change in any shape or form?

Now better than that, if the singural deity in Colossians 2:9 is all three members of the Trinity, then you must acknowledge that all three members died on the cross and went to preach to the dead.

Menachem

08-14-2006, 01:06 PM

Hello everyone I am new here so be patient with me i have a few comments about this Psalm and how and why jesus was not quoting it so please bear with me.

Shalom Matthew23! Check out Psalms 22. Yeshua did know He was forsaken, He was fulfilling the prophecy of Psalms 22.

I would like to first concentrate on the phrase "Eloi/Eli, Eloi/Eli Lama sabachthani"

written in greek as this is in the NT: source (http://greeknewtestament.net/)
ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι

now bear with me. there is an idea that he quoted from Psalm 22:2 now my question is why is it that none of the Psalm rederings in either greek, hebrew or Aramaic match up with this quotation by jesus which is supposedly Psalm 22:2

here is what the LXX reads on Psalm 22:1: source (http://septuagint.org/LXX/Psalms/Psalms22.html)
κυριος ποιμαινει με και ουδεν με υστερησει

he obviously did not quote the LXX.

The Hebrew says:
אֵלִי אֵלִי לָמָה עֲזַבְתָּנִי
saying in Hebrew "Eli, Eli, Lamah Azavtani"

The Aramaic Targum to this psalm says:
אֵלִי אֵלִי מְטוּל מַה שְׁבַקְתַּנִי
saying in Aramaic "Eli, Eli, Metual Mah Shevaktani"

So which one did he quote from?

the letter reconstruction from the Greek letters to the Hebrew leters would be this:
σ =ש

β= ב

χ=ח

θ =ת

ν=נ

ι=י

thus making the word read in its transliteration back as שבחתני since the "Chi" in greek is the equivalent to the Chet and not the Qof in hebrew. the word reads as rendered. So it is not he word from the Targum based on its backwards transliteration.

So, I repeat, Which one did he supposedly quote from?

Shalom,

smadewell

08-14-2006, 06:44 PM

I haven't a clue. Enlighten us.

Menachem

08-15-2006, 03:21 PM

I haven't a clue. Enlighten us.

I was hoping that one of you all would enlighten me as to why it is thought that he is quoting Psalm 22:2.

smadewell

08-16-2006, 10:28 PM

This same question was asked over on the Jerusalem Perspective Forum by someone else. Thought it was you. Either way, this just doesn't seem to be my year for people wanting to hear, let alone listen to, anything I have to say.

Sorry. Can't help. :(

Menachem

08-21-2006, 05:14 PM

smadewell

08-25-2006, 01:39 AM

Oh! You're a countermissionary! Well, well, well.... I can relate to that. I'm not a missionary. I've got enough problems of my own.

Personally, I think the historical Yeshua was just advancing a 1st century Baalei Teshuvah movement. No, he wasn't YHVH. No, he never fulfilled the office of the King-Messiah. I think he was a Hillelite and since Hillel said Yisrael had already seen the Messiah in Hezekiah, probably because he was disgusted with the King-High Priest debacle of the Hasmoneans ... Hillel wanted to create generation upon generation of Anointed Ones by actualizing the Sinaic Ideal through the school system the plebeian sages had established. In short, the Hillelites were themselves trying to get the people to internalize the Torah through recitation and memorization. (Er uh ... that is all the "New Covenant" is, right? Having the Law internalized....) While these Sage-Prophets focused on training the Anointed Ones (schoolchildern) ... Yeshua was focusing on getting the Chilonim (Secular) and Am Ha-Eretz ("People of the Land") on board this Hillelite program via a Repentance/Kingdom movment.

But then, my view is not acceptable to 99.99% precent of the Gentiles or the Jews.

So basically, you're question is a rhetorical one and you're not looking for an answer to the question. You just want to use this blurb to dismiss the historical Yeshua and/or the Church's mythological construct, which based loosely on the historical man. Can't say as I blame you, especially in light of what the Church and Messianics have done to and with the historical Yeshua.

Still, I don't subscribe to the "throw the baby out with the dirty bath water" school of thought. Oh well.... To each his own....

smadewell

08-25-2006, 02:36 AM

thus making the word read in its transliteration back as שבחתני since the "Chi" in greek is the equivalent to the Chet and not the Qof in hebrew. the word reads as rendered. So it is not he word from the Targum based on its backwards transliteration.

So, I repeat, Which one did he supposedly quote from?

So your whole beef amounts to the a mistransliteration or a scribal error of one letter? Do you have supporting evidence where a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew or Aramaic word uses a Greek "CHI" for a Hebrew/Aramaic "CHET" rather than a "QOF"...? What are you saying they should have used here? A Greek "KAPPA" or a Greek "XI"...?

It's your case.... Prove it. Give us an example that clearly demonstrates they should have used a KAPPA or a XI instead of a CHI.

Also, it would hold a lot more water if there was a universal standard for transliteration today, which there obviously isn't. If there is, then a lot of people aren't following it. Is it tzadik or tzadiq? Hmmm....

While you're at it ... I've got a guy on another forum who rejects Hillel as a historical figure because there's no evidence for his life in any 1st century document. Can you help me out with that? Not being an ass here. I'm serious. This guy is a real pill and I'd love to shut him down.

Menachem

10-19-2006, 10:01 AM

So your whole beef amounts to the a mistransliteration or a scribal error of one letter? Do you have supporting evidence where a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew or Aramaic word uses a Greek "CHI" for a Hebrew/Aramaic "CHET" rather than a "QOF"...? What are you saying they should have used here? A Greek "KAPPA" or a Greek "XI"...?

it is simple linguistics. What you are doing here is providing an avenue to avoid the conclusion given without addressing the premise or the conslusion. You are answering a question with a question. The burden of proof is on your side for disproving my claims not vice versa. FYI, the Qoppa, yes the letter is defunct and no longer used would have been the proper letter for the Qof.

It's your case.... Prove it. Give us an example that clearly demonstrates they should have used a KAPPA or a XI instead of a CHI.

Its not a Kappa its the Qoppa. Greek must not be your strong point. Besides the burden is not mine to do anything at this point is it your burden since you are arguing the negative to provide the necessary evidence to bring down my claim. When you answer a question with a question you show an inability to answer the claim adequately.

Also, it would hold a lot more water if there was a universal standard for transliteration today, which there obviously isn't. If there is, then a lot of people aren't following it. Is it tzadik or tzadiq? Hmmm....

Semantics and irrelevent. One is a literal transliteration (tzadiq) the other is a sounding out transliteration (tzadik). You are arguing a vocal transliteration versus a literal one. words have meaning and when written and transiterating a Hebrew word to another language the letters are looked at and examined carefully. Not only that you are arguing the transliteration from hebrew to english. we arent talking about english we are talking about Greek and hebrew/aramaic.

While you're at it ... I've got a guy on another forum who rejects Hillel as a historical figure because there's no evidence for his life in any 1st century document. Can you help me out with that? Not being an ass here. I'm serious. This guy is a real pill and I'd love to shut him down.

the Mishnah does more than just the trick. this is just like saying that Moses didnt exist becasue we didnt have video camera's or public birth records from that time give me a break. historical recordsback then were kept but often copied and recopied some years later byu scribes and in the case of Hillel the Mishnah.

ZeevBenyamin

11-01-2006, 10:04 PM

Hi Menachem,

You are using tricks in this case to beat around the bush of the argument made,
You, indeed, have the burden to provide proof irrespective if smadewell knows how to answer adequately or not.

And though you may have an upper hand in your familiarity in Greek, that still does not dismiss that you must provide support for YOUR claim that a letter is the actual transliterary mark for a letter of a foreign language.

In this case the Qoppa and Chi for Qof and Het, which in fact Chi is more equivalent to Khaf rather than Het.

Another thing we have to realize is that the Xtians were very sloppy in copying and translating their so-called holy writ; which is why no Greek copy is the same. This supports the view that they did a hack job in translating from the original.

Now going back to your original argument, it could be that the rabbi of nazareth was quoting anything. And if he was quoting psalms, was it only recorded by the hand of Matthew? Many scholars agree that Matthew was learned in the literary-style of D'rash and as such he would definitely embellish many sayings to 'teach' or drive to a certain point, not necessarily any so-called "fulfillments" because every Jew knows that the midrashim don't focus on "prophecy fulfillments" of anything.

What the case does seem to show here, as smadewell was clear to point out, is that you have a problem with xtianity's claims and doctrines about this guy and that you wish to throw away the baby with the bath water.

I have no problem with you making these xtians and messys look like fools here, however, you as a Jew should know better than anyone else the rules of literature in what I personally label the "return method". And quite frankly you are failing miserably, though quite clearly you have much research and material on your side, as the xtians and messys that believe in their unstable views.

smadewell

11-23-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by smadewell
While you're at it ... I've got a guy on another forum who rejects Hillel as a historical figure because there's no evidence for his life in any 1st century document. Can you help me out with that? Not being an ass here. I'm serious. This guy is a real pill and I'd love to shut him down.

the Mishnah does more than just the trick. this is just like saying that Moses didnt exist becasue we didnt have video camera's or public birth records from that time give me a break. historical recordsback then were kept but often copied and recopied some years later byu scribes and in the case of Hillel the Mishnah.

no, that doesn't do the trick, because this guy rejects material of a late date. he's a mythicist. according to his worldview hillel never existed because there are no records of his time that mention him. oh well.... these people are impossible to talk to. they've got an axe to grind against religion in general. :( thanks anyway.....

erhein35

06-02-2010, 01:34 AM

I'm still confused about this but I think J-sus is just fulfilling the prophecy.

Latuwr

06-25-2010, 12:03 AM

Hi Menachem,

Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!

In the LXX, Psalms 21 is actually Psalms 22 of the Masoretic Text. Please examine this source:

http://www.septuagint.org/LXX/Psalms/21

And this English translation of both:

http://ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/psalms/psalm_022.htm

In your original post on this thread, you asked us to go to Psalms 22 in the LXX which is actually Psalms 23 in the Hebrew Bible.

These two additional links show the Greek text and the English translation side by side:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/brenton/lxx/Page_709.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/brenton/lxx/Page_710.html

Notice on page 709, on the bottom of the page, that Psalm 21 in the LXX is actually Psalm 22, and notice on page 710, also at the bottom of the page, that Psalm 22 in the LXX is actually Psalm 23.

Messiah was not quoting Psalm 23 on the Cross, and if you can read the Greek, Messiah was not exactly quoting the Greek of the LXX either.

The Greek of the LXX says: The God, the God of me, attend to me, why have you forsaken me?

http://greeknewtestament.net/gospel/matthew-27.html

Notice that the Greek of the NT and the Greek of the LXX are identical with respect to the last phrase of verse 46 of Matthew 27.

I hope that this has been helpful.

Thanking you in advance should you choose to reply, I am,

Sincerely, Latuwr

pedrie123

09-11-2010, 10:50 PM

It has been suggested that Jesus was repeating Psalm 22 on the cross,as a picture of his own situation,as a song of his trust and confidence.Well but there other sugestions.In that moment the sin of the whole fell on his heart and the being of Jesus,he took it to himself,and the penalty that he bore for us meant inevitable separation from God...

Latuwr

09-12-2010, 06:30 AM

Hi Pedrie123,

Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!

If I understand your words correctly, then physical death must be considered separation from ELOHIM. Is it possible to avoid this separation?

I just made this post on another forum:Hi Brianlpalmer1,

Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!

Allow me to answer your question with a few comments ending in a question for you.

The last words of a dying man are important. A dying Messiah Yahushua asked:

Matthew 27:46
46 And about the ninth hour Yahushua cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My ELOHIM, my ELOHIM, why hast thou forsaken me?

Paul made this observation concerning the death of Messiah:

2 Corinthians 5:14
14 For the love of Messiah constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

And if all are dead through the death of Messiah, why and how does this great massacre occur? (Suicide bombers in their deaths are actually types of Messiah Yahushua)

Romans 6:6
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Clearly, Messiah was able to unite evil, that is, my sinful and rebellious self, with HIS own person so that the evil me could die with HIM.

Now, allow me to ask you: Is this union of good and evil pleasing to ELOHIM (please consider here Ezekiel 18:23 & 32)?

Perhaps, these words should also be considered in formulating any answer:

Genesis 2:17
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Did Messiah Yahushua eat of this tree?

Thanking in advance all those who may be moved to reply, I am,

Sincerely, LatuwrIf physical death is separation from ELOHIM, what then is physical life but union with ELOHIM, that is, LIFE NOW?

Thanking you in advance should you choose to reply, I am,

Sincerely, Latuwr