Featured How was Christ Forsaken?

And the strawman come marching in .

I didn't say Jesus "felt" forsaken. I said He WAS forsaken to suffer (God did not deliver Christ FROM the cross).

And you just proved my point. God did not arrest Christ. God didn't convict Christ. God didn't whip Christ. God didn't crucify Christ. God didn't execute Christ. God didn't esteem Christ as stricken. God didn't consider Christ as a curse.

Man did. And Christ became a curse for us. This was God's will.

Christ was forsaken to suffer the cross. It was God's design. But Scripture teaches He was never separated from God.

Your "defense" is nothing but eisegesis. You've swapped man for God in your explanation to create a myth that supports your ideas.

 

No, we don't believe exactly the same (although at one time we did). Your theory here relies on humanistic philosophy as a lens to view all of Scripture. What you end up with is a myth intertwined with the gospel. Thankfully the gospel shines through the superstition (which is amazing, if you think about it).

For example, where I read that it was God's will to crush Him, your post presents it as if God authored the sin. Where I read in Isaiah that "we" considered Him accused and stricken, your comments substitute God for man in the passage. And the philosophical approach of your theory ultimately creates a shallow, man-centered, and weak view of the Cross.

But we do turn to the same passages. I don't disagree with those words. But I do reject the philosophy your statements here impose on God's Word. I believe Scripture sufficient.

 

You have to consider these psalms as a whole. They are not a list of verses from which we can pick and choose. Read the entire psalm without pulling it apart or reading into it.

 

Again, brother, you are ignoring what I’ve been saying.

Jesus WAS forsaken. But He was not abandoned by God. You keep drifting from what we are talking about. The text is not about God abandoning the Afflicted BUT God NOT abandoning the Afflicted even though He be forsaken. God is faithful.

“There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn’t there.” (Hardy).

Until you find yourself able to see the text itself, without reading into it, without “seeing something that isn’t there” I really don’t see that a discussion can be had. We will only talk in circles because I actually believe that you see your philosophy in the text.

 

Only if you ignore the context. That is the problem throughout our interaction. You have a habit of pulling things apart to suit your needs.

You have to start being more careful, brother. You already challenged one member's faith (because you didn't read the comments), and you've repeatedly misrepresented other people's views (because you didn't read the comments). This is what you've done throughout your eisegesis. You seem to have adopted a method that seeks to prove your philosophical presuppositions concerning Scripture rather than allowing Scripture itself to dictate its own meaning.

Are there ANY passages that state God departed from Christ? No, of course not. Scripture does not contradict itself. Did you realize that Scripture does use the word "depart"? But did Christ say" My God, My God, why did you depart from me?" as you seem to see when viewing the text? NO! Scripture says "why did You forsake me".

Why would anyone read that to be "why did you depart from me?"

I believe the answer is in the presuppositions that are brought into the text. People see what is not there because they read into it the idea that Jesus had to spiritually die because they understand this to be the penalty of sin we will otherwise face. So (they reason) the Cross was an "interruption" to Scripture whereby Jesus is (for three hours) not considered to be God but considered instead to be considered sin because God has laid our sin upon Him. And He can't look upon sin (neither could Christ, if we were to consider Him God"). The downside, of course, is that this ignores reality (God considering Jesus as if He were sin or a sinner is in reality divine self-delusion which does not match truth). So God had to depart from Jesus because He will cause the wicked at Judgment to depart from Him.

You are seeing what is not actually there.

 

Hold on....are you claiming that this verse doesn't apply to Christ's nature as well?

 

That's the problem, brother. There are no passages of Scripture that state Christ was abandon by God in the Bible. What is being argued is that "forsaken" has to mean "departed" rather than to indicate a forsaken state (not at that moment being delivered"). It was God's redemptive plan that Christ bear our sins, suffer and die for us. But nowhere is it stated that God ever, even once, departed or separated from Christ. We can't go to passages that don't exist.