How could Jesus be abandoned?

[bahman]

I am not denying that Jesus cannot endure pain.

Including the pain of separation or abandonment. All the pains of humans. At least, this is a possible interpretation of the NT.

Jesus explicitly said that He and Fater are one: John 10:30-38.

Sure, but what does that mean.? Could it mean they are one in purpose? Could it mean that we all one with God (and many parts of HInduism suggest)? He doesn't say 'I am God'. The verb is plural. Is he in a state available to all? Is he a part of God? Is he something that God created, that is had a beginning, so is now added to God. Why is he the Son, if he is the FAther? It's open to many interpretations.

The fact that He felt abandoned when He was on the cross means that Father was present to Him as He was present to Father before His Crucifixion.

Yes, to be forsaken implies a connnection is lost, in the time.

Well, Jesus explicitly mentioned that He is in Father and Father is in Him: John 14:11.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, Jesus explicitly mentioned that He is in Father and Father is in Him: John 14:11.

And this is still open to interpretation.

Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works themselves. 12Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father.

At the end he is going to the Father. The guy is a mystic or speaking in mystical language. And there's nothing here that rules out that this part of the father is cut off for a while from the whole, so that he can experience the full human experience. How can something that is (only) one with the Father then go to the Father. Most language like this can be taken many ways and also tend to cut across binary schemas. Either you are a separate thing or you are merged with theother thing. WEll, what if it is both. What if we are all both God and separated from God, but we can do stuff to merge. In both the theist and non-theist Buddhisms there are paradoxes like this. In Hinduism and Sufism there paradoxes like this. Much of this can be taken in a number of ways and even perhaps we are supposed to take it in more than one way at a time. That what seem like contradictions are not. Like something has to be a particle or a wave, certainly not both. Subpersonalities in people with Dissociative disorders. Yin and Yang being different and separate yet also unified. Is Jesus a special case or someone who realized they are also one with God?

Jesus is the Son...Yet God is the father.
Jesus and the Father are one. The ARE one.
Jesus is the Son of Man. Woh, how do we throw that in the mix.
Jesus is the way. the way to what, to God. Then is he God, elsewhere.
Jesus is the I am. Well, that could be that he is God, it could be that he has realized that he is one with God which others could.
(a lot of these kind of complexities are present in Hinduism including guru/disciple relationships and also Guru God relationships or identity.)
He's the Lamb of God. Hm, Is he God or something sacrificed by God.
The Good Shepherd,
The Bread of life.

Maybe the Church messed up not including the gnostic texts:
3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

So not just Jesus but all of us.

We can't put these statements, with any certainty, into everyday 'objects' and concepts of identity and demonstrate that one interpretation is correct.

[bahman]

Well, Jesus explicitly mentioned that He is in Father and Father is in Him: John 14:11.

And this is still open to interpretation.

Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works themselves. 12Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father.

At the end he is going to the Father. The guy is a mystic or speaking in mystical language. And there's nothing here that rules out that this part of the father is cut off for a while from the whole, so that he can experience the full human experience. How can something that is (only) one with the Father then go to the Father. Most language like this can be taken many ways and also tend to cut across binary schemas. Either you are a separate thing or you are merged with theother thing. WEll, what if it is both. What if we are all both God and separated from God, but we can do stuff to merge. In both the theist and non-theist Buddhisms there are paradoxes like this. In Hinduism and Sufism there paradoxes like this. Much of this can be taken in a number of ways and even perhaps we are supposed to take it in more than one way at a time. That what seem like contradictions are not. Like something has to be a particle or a wave, certainly not both. Subpersonalities in people with Dissociative disorders. Yin and Yang being different and separate yet also unified. Is Jesus a special case or someone who realized they are also one with God?

Jesus is the Son...Yet God is the father.
Jesus and the Father are one. The ARE one.
Jesus is the Son of Man. Woh, how do we throw that in the mix.
Jesus is the way. the way to what, to God. Then is he God, elsewhere.
Jesus is the I am. Well, that could be that he is God, it could be that he has realized that he is one with God which others could.
(a lot of these kind of complexities are present in Hinduism including guru/disciple relationships and also Guru God relationships or identity.)
He's the Lamb of God. Hm, Is he God or something sacrificed by God.
The Good Shepherd,
The Bread of life.

Maybe the Church messed up not including the gnostic texts:
3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

So not just Jesus but all of us.

We can't put these statements, with any certainty, into everyday 'objects' and concepts of identity and demonstrate that one interpretation is correct.

The world of interpretation becomes open when you don't take things literally. I know that. Why in your opinion Father left Jesus alone when He was on the cross and needed Father's presence the most?

[Iwannaplato]

The world of interpretation becomes open when you don't take things literally. I know that. Why in your opinion Father left Jesus alone when He was on the cross and needed Father's presence the most?

Well, I've presented a fairly common Christian interpretation that it was part of the whole project. He needed to suffer that sense of abandonment to fully understand and also heal, open the potential for healing for humans. He took on our sufferings.

But, me personally, I think Jesus bit off more than he could chew.

But I can't demonstrate that.

Could be he brought up that sentence to give (to himself, to others).

But, hey, we don't really know for sure what he said, fir anytihng.

[godelian]

He said: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one!?

Jeshu is not a proper name. It means "heretic".

The Rabbis brought two Jeshu in front of the Roman governor. Jeshu bar Abbah, i.e. the son of an unknown father (=Christ), was released. It is the other Jeshu who was crucified by the Romans.

Oh, so you are saying that Jesus Christ was not crucified. How could you justify that?

Origen's notorious forgery of the Gospels.

Christ was known as the "Son of (an unknown) Man" ("Bar Adam") or the "Son of (an unknown) Father" ("Bar Abbah").

The rabbis designated Christ as "Jeshu", meaning, ¨May his name be blotted out", or simply "heretic".

There were two "Jeshu" brought in front of the Roman governor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas

There exist several versions of this figure's name in gospel manuscripts, most commonly simply Biblical Greek: Bαραββᾶς, romanized: Barabbās without a first name. However the variations (Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαῤῥαββᾶν, romanized: Iēsoûs Bar-rhabbân, Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαραββᾶς, romanized: Iēsoûs Barabbâs, Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαῤῥαββᾶς, romanized: Iēsoûs Bar-rhabbâs) found in different manuscripts of the Matthew 27:16–17 give this figure the first name "Jesus", making his full name "Jesus Barabbas" or "Jesus Bar-rhabban", and giving him the same first, given name as Jesus.(b) The Codex Koridethi seems to emphasise Bar-rhabban as composed of two elements in line with a patronymic Aramaic name.[17][18] These versions, featuring the first name "Jesus" are considered original by a number of modern scholars.[19][20] Origen seems to refer to this passage of Matthew in claiming that it must be a corruption, as no sinful man ever bore the name "Jesus" and argues for its exclusion from the text.

Origen did not like the original text of the Codex Koridethi. That is why he changed "Jeshu Bar Abbah" into "Bar Abbah" by removing "Jeshu" in front of his name. The real reason why Origen did not like the original manuscript, is because it gives away that Christ was never crucified.

"Jeshu Bar Abbah" means "the heretical bastard".

The Rabbinical curse against Christ actually worked really well because we no longer know what his birth name was. So, his name has effectively been blotted out.

[Iwannaplato]

Jeshu is not a proper name. It means "heretic".

The Rabbis brought two Jeshu in front of the Roman governor. Jeshu bar Abbah, i.e. the son of an unknown father (=Christ), was released. It is the other Jeshu who was crucified by the Romans.

Oh, so you are saying that Jesus Christ was not crucified. How could you justify that?

Origen's notorious forgery of the Gospels.

Christ was known as the "Son of (an unknown) Man" ("Bar Adam") or the "Son of (an unknown) Father" ("Bar Abbah").

The rabbis designated Christ as "Jeshu", meaning, ¨May his name be blotted out", or simply "heretic".

There were two "Jeshu" brought in front of the Roman governor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas

There exist several versions of this figure's name in gospel manuscripts, most commonly simply Biblical Greek: Bαραββᾶς, romanized: Barabbās without a first name. However the variations (Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαῤῥαββᾶν, romanized: Iēsoûs Bar-rhabbân, Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαραββᾶς, romanized: Iēsoûs Barabbâs, Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαῤῥαββᾶς, romanized: Iēsoûs Bar-rhabbâs) found in different manuscripts of the Matthew 27:16–17 give this figure the first name "Jesus", making his full name "Jesus Barabbas" or "Jesus Bar-rhabban", and giving him the same first, given name as Jesus.(b) The Codex Koridethi seems to emphasise Bar-rhabban as composed of two elements in line with a patronymic Aramaic name.[17][18] These versions, featuring the first name "Jesus" are considered original by a number of modern scholars.[19][20] Origen seems to refer to this passage of Matthew in claiming that it must be a corruption, as no sinful man ever bore the name "Jesus" and argues for its exclusion from the text.

Origen did not like the original text of the Codex Koridethi. That is why he changed "Jeshu Bar Abbah" into "Bar Abbah" by removing "Jeshu" in front of his name. The real reason why Origen did not like the original manuscript, is because it gives away that Christ was never crucified.

"Jeshu Bar Abbah" means "the heretical bastard".

The Rabbinical curse against Christ actually worked really well because we no longer know what his birth name was. So, his name has effectively been blotted out.

That's all pretty speculative but presented as if it is just clear. The Origen part is very speculative and not accepted by most scholars. You attribute different detalis to a conspiracy with intent....that's speculative. That Barrabas has the same name in his name does not mean that Jesus did not exist as a historically distinct person and wasn't crucified. Your argument’s interpretation of names and curses relies on specific linguistic and cultural readings that are contested and require careful scholarly analysis. The curse "May his name be blotted out" reflects rabbinical disdain but does not provide conclusive evidence about historical events. It seems like an ideological bias is leading you to consider speculative interpretations and minority positions as clear facts.

[godelian]

Oh, so you are saying that Jesus Christ was not crucified. How could you justify that?

Origen's notorious forgery of the Gospels.

Christ was known as the "Son of (an unknown) Man" ("Bar Adam") or the "Son of (an unknown) Father" ("Bar Abbah").

The rabbis designated Christ as "Jeshu", meaning, ¨May his name be blotted out", or simply "heretic".

There were two "Jeshu" brought in front of the Roman governor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas

There exist several versions of this figure's name in gospel manuscripts, most commonly simply Biblical Greek: Bαραββᾶς, romanized: Barabbās without a first name. However the variations (Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαῤῥαββᾶν, romanized: Iēsoûs Bar-rhabbân, Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαραββᾶς, romanized: Iēsoûs Barabbâs, Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαῤῥαββᾶς, romanized: Iēsoûs Bar-rhabbâs) found in different manuscripts of the Matthew 27:16–17 give this figure the first name "Jesus", making his full name "Jesus Barabbas" or "Jesus Bar-rhabban", and giving him the same first, given name as Jesus.(b) The Codex Koridethi seems to emphasise Bar-rhabban as composed of two elements in line with a patronymic Aramaic name.[17][18] These versions, featuring the first name "Jesus" are considered original by a number of modern scholars.[19][20] Origen seems to refer to this passage of Matthew in claiming that it must be a corruption, as no sinful man ever bore the name "Jesus" and argues for its exclusion from the text.

Origen did not like the original text of the Codex Koridethi. That is why he changed "Jeshu Bar Abbah" into "Bar Abbah" by removing "Jeshu" in front of his name. The real reason why Origen did not like the original manuscript, is because it gives away that Christ was never crucified.

"Jeshu Bar Abbah" means "the heretical bastard".

The Rabbinical curse against Christ actually worked really well because we no longer know what his birth name was. So, his name has effectively been blotted out.

That's all pretty speculative but presented as if it is just clear. The Origen part is very speculative and not accepted by most scholars. You attribute different detalis to a conspiracy with intent....that's speculative. That Barrabas has the same name in his name does not mean that Jesus did not exist as a historically distinct person and wasn't crucified. Your argument’s interpretation of names and curses relies on specific linguistic and cultural readings that are contested and require careful scholarly analysis. The curse "May his name be blotted out" reflects rabbinical disdain but does not provide conclusive evidence about historical events. It seems like an ideological bias is leading you to consider speculative interpretations and minority positions as clear facts.

I believe that Christ has really existed. I also believe that the Ebionite congregation in Jerusalem ("congregation of the poor") knew the truth of what really had happened on that Passover night. James the Just, brother and successor to Christ at the helm of the congregation of the poor, had successor after successor over the centuries, until Waraqah Ibn Naufal became the last successor, who in turn asked Muhammad, the later prophet of Islam, to become the leader of the Ebionites. That is how the truth that was preserved by the Ebionites for centuries ended up in the Quran: Christ was never crucified.

[attofishpi]

The world of interpretation becomes open when you don't take things literally. I know that. Why in your opinion Father left Jesus alone when He was on the cross and needed Father's presence the most?

Well, I've presented a fairly common Christian interpretation that it was part of the whole project. He needed to suffer that sense of abandonment to fully understand and also heal, open the potential for healing for humans. He took on our sufferings.

..more to the point comes back to that ol' chestnut of FAITH - V - DOUBT..

as one that has been TESTED on this TEST_A.MEN_T thang. Yes, one must have FAITH when tested upon what CHRIST went through.

Je_sus the Christ may have many reasons for the big DOUBT upon the crucifix..here R some of my thoughts:

1 - pre-programmed God, such that throughout his life never knew that at the point in time he had insisted He leave Himself feeling abandoned.
-----reason:- Humans have only belief\faith not definitive evidence, thus to parallel with humanity in general. (akin to what you have reasoned)

2 - He wanted to portray point 1, thus just said it.

3 - He as human truly as a human having formed from the being of God was still short of sight of something rather profound, about from whence He formed.

[Iwannaplato]

I believe that Christ has really existed. I also believe that the Ebionite congregation in Jerusalem ("congregation of the poor") knew the truth of what really had happened on that Passover night. James the Just, brother and successor to Christ at the helm of the congregation of the poor, had successor after successor over the centuries, until Waraqah Ibn Naufal became the last successor, who in turn asked Muhammad, the later prophet of Islam, to become the leader of the Ebionites. That is how the truth that was preserved by the Ebionites for centuries ended up in the Quran: Christ was never crucified.

If a student came to his math professor with a math 'proof '

I believe that this this group of students in C dorm, the E-Brains, knew the truth of my mathetmatical conclusion that I just handed to you, long ago they knew this. They told person after person that the conclusion i handed you was correct, and this from the last person (successor)in the series told some guy to become the leader of the group. That last guy wrote a book and I read that: so my conclusion must be correct, I'd like a pass on this math independent study.

Math professor: 1) all sorts of groups have passed down all sorts of ideas. 2) I want see the actual steps in your proof, not the conclusion.

Student: you don't understand reason.

Math professor: Uh huh.

[godelian]

I believe that Christ has really existed. I also believe that the Ebionite congregation in Jerusalem ("congregation of the poor") knew the truth of what really had happened on that Passover night. James the Just, brother and successor to Christ at the helm of the congregation of the poor, had successor after successor over the centuries, until Waraqah Ibn Naufal became the last successor, who in turn asked Muhammad, the later prophet of Islam, to become the leader of the Ebionites. That is how the truth that was preserved by the Ebionites for centuries ended up in the Quran: Christ was never crucified.

If a student came to his math professor with a math 'proof '

I believe that this this group of students in C dorm, the E-Brains, knew the truth of my mathetmatical conclusion that I just handed to you, long ago they knew this. They told person after person that the conclusion i handed you was correct, and this from the last person (successor)in the series told some guy to become the leader of the group. That last guy wrote a book and I read that: so my conclusion must be correct, I'd like a pass on this math independent study.

Math professor: 1) all sorts of groups have passed down all sorts of ideas. 2) I want see the actual steps in your proof, not the conclusion.

Student: you don't understand reason.

Math professor: Uh huh.

So, we have both the Codex Koridethi and the Quran independently saying that Christ was not crucified:

Quran An-Nisa 157: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger—They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them.

There was indeed a Jeshu crucified, i.e. a person sentenced by the Rabbis to death for heresy or blasphemy, but it was not Christ. That is why "it appeared so unto them".

[Iwannaplato]

So, we have both the Codex Koridethi and the Quran independently saying that Christ was not crucified:

You are incorrect about the Codex Koridethi saying that Jesus Christ was not crucified.
So, we have the accounts four Gospel likely writing 50 years after the events or by M 500+ years later. M also had specific theological beliefs, including the non-divinity of prophets and Allah's protection of prophets to motivate his guesses.

[godelian]

So, we have both the Codex Koridethi and the Quran independently saying that Christ was not crucified:

You are incorrect about the Codex Koridethi saying that Jesus Christ was not crucified.
So, we have the accounts four Gospel likely writing 50 years after the events or by M 500+ years later. M also had specific theological beliefs, including the non-divinity of prophets and Allah's protection of prophets to motivate his guesses.

We have reports on how Origen justified his forgery.
Get over it. Origen cooked the books!

The congregation of the poor knew the truth. It was also mentioned in the Ebionite Gospel but the Byzantine secret police managed to confiscate the last extant copy while the congregation was in Cyprus. We also have reports on that.

[Iwannaplato]

We have reports on how Origen justified his forgery.
Get over it. Origen cooked the books!

LOL.

The congregation of the poor knew the truth.

Your mindreading the dead isn't not that strong evidence.

It was also mentioned in the Ebionite Gospel but the Byzantine secret police managed to confiscate the last extant copy while the congregation was in Cyprus. We also have reports on that.

The Ebonite Gospel was written much later than the NT Gospels. And they had motivations for removing anything that seemed to conflict with the Pentateuch, but as you have motivations to dismiss anything that would mean the Koran is in any way flawed. Origen's writings support the C of J. YOu have a conspiracy laden justification that included the false claim about the Codex. I'm not Christian, so I see a bunch of stories, some written closer to the time and supported by non-Gospel related writing at the time or not so long after. For you it cannot possibly be the case that he was crucified and this 'must not be the case-ism' leads to precisely the kinds of 'argument' you are making here.

There's little point in discussing this with someone whose who belief system hangs on the issue. It'd be like talking to IC about, well, anything.

[godelian]

We have reports on how Origen justified his forgery.
Get over it. Origen cooked the books!

LOL.

The congregation of the poor knew the truth.

Your mindreading the dead isn't not that strong evidence.

It was also mentioned in the Ebionite Gospel but the Byzantine secret police managed to confiscate the last extant copy while the congregation was in Cyprus. We also have reports on that.

The Ebonite Gospel was written much later than the NT Gospels. And they had motivations for removing anything that seemed to conflict with the Pentateuch, but as you have motivations to dismiss anything that would mean the Koran is in any way flawed. Origen's writings support the C of J. YOu have a conspiracy laden justification that included the false claim about the Codex. I'm not Christian, so I see a bunch of stories, some written closer to the time and supported by non-Gospel related writing at the time or not so long after. For you it cannot possibly be the case that he was crucified and this 'must not be the case-ism' leads to precisely the kinds of 'argument' you are making here.

There's little point in discussing this with someone whose who belief system hangs on the issue. It'd be like talking to IC about, well, anything.

The Holy Catholic Church has a copy of the Ebionite Gospel in the Vatican's secret archives. When they say that they know the truth while all other churches are fake, they are actually right.

Only the Catholic Church has enough information to correct the lies in the Bible. That is why they have the exclusive right to determine the doctrines of Christendom.

[promethean75]

"So, his name has effectively been blotted out."

Just a friendly reminder that such blasphemy is of the absolutely highest order, and if u are wrong, you will suffer the swift blades of a thousand flaming swords encircling u as u die the second and final death in the eternally burning furnace of hell, u evil spawn of iblis! Be gone foul disbeliever!

No just kidding I'm an atheist.