quiggy posted:

Azathoth posted:

No small amount of ink has been spilled on exactly that question. I'll offer my own thoughts, which I think are generally in line with mainstream Protestant interpretations, and I'll touch a bit on the Historical Jesus, as that's one of my personal areas of interest.

First, that cry must be understood as Jesus directly quoting Psalms 22 and so any interpretation of what the cry itself means has to be grounded in what the psalmist is saying. I'd recommend reading the whole thing, which I'll link but not quote: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2022&version=NRSVUE. The psalm is about someone feeling that all is lost but still trusting in God, so keep that in mind as we go forward.

Given the psalm, I take the cry to be that of one suffering in absolute desolation and despair, which is fitting for someone being crucified, as crucifixion is not only designed to be supremely painful but also supremely humiliating. Jesus, at that moment, feels furthest from God the Father, but with his cry he doesn't just express that he also expresses his trust in God's plan. This is an area where Jesus the man as understood in the context of the Historical Jesus butts up against later theological development of the Trinity, which I'll address more in your second question, but for now, let's not inquire too deeply over exactly who's plan we're dealing with.

This idea of Jesus being willing to suffer and die is prefigured by his anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane earlier when he says "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39) and then "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” (Matthew 26:42).

I would also argue that Jesus, as fully human, experienced the full range of human experiences and an unavoidable part of that is feeling despair at not being able to perceive the presence of God in times of hardship, yet with that cry, he also simultaneously expresses that he knows God is there and that he trusts God.

Now, admittedly, this is a complex reading of the text and more plain readings are possible. One of those readings is that Jesus the man was crying out to God because God had actually departed from him before his death. This is a view considered heretical by most modern Christians. Basically it says that Jesus wasn't born divine but that God entered into Jesus at his baptism by John the Baptist and he then departed Jesus on the cross, usually reasoned because God cannot possibly die. It also has the advantage of explaining why Jesus needed to be baptized at all, another theologically tricky question. I don't personally hold to that view, but it was common enough in early Christianity that it needed to be condemned as a heresy later.

Now, this brings up a point that will take me into your second question. The four narratives of the crucifixion presented in the canonical Gospels are irreconcilable. Jesus cries out to God in Mark and Matthew but says other things in Luke and John. So we have to ask ourselves, did Jesus really quote Psalm 22 from the cross?

My answer to that is that it's possible but we don't really have a way to know. Matthew is very concerned with portraying Jesus as the fulfillment of Israelite prophecy about the Messiah, so having Jesus quote a Psalm there fits perfectly with what he's doing. That Mark includes it when he doesn't have the same goal is a point in favor of authenticity, but it's an open question in scholarship exactly how scripture Jesus would have been able to recite as it's generally accepted that he was illiterate. Personally, I think it's likely that, on the cross, he did express a feeling of abandonment and desolation, though I question whether it was in those specific words.

And here we come to the Historical Jesus.

The mainstream (little-o orthodox) understanding would say that Jesus understood at all times that he was God and this view seems to have developed early within Christianity, though it was by no means universal in the early Christian community. It is, however, the view expressed by the eventual winners of the theological struggle.

Something that may help here is understanding the order in which the Gospels were written. It is generally accepted that Mark was written first, followed by Matthew and Luke, then John. Whether Luke used Matthew or vice versa is an unsettled area of scholarship but most scholars agree that they were written pretty close to each other and that they used Mark when writing, with John coming later. Personally, I subscribe to Mark being written first, then Matthew who had a copy of Mark, then Luke who had a copy of both Mark and Matthew.

This is relevant because on the chain of Mark -> Matthew -> Luke -> John, we see a historiographical shift in the presentation of Jesus. In Mark, Jesus is portrayed as the most human while in John he is portrayed as the most divine. Scholars will vary on that, but to me it is plain as day, with the caveat that I think Matthew and Luke both are about on the same level.

It's also important to remember that despite the names attached, none of the authors knew Jesus. None of the writers claim to be disciples, and we know with certainty that they were not. Mark claims to have been written by the companion/translator of Luke, but that is not likely for a variety of reasons. So basically it needs to be accepted that although the writers of the Gospels were passing on hearsay about the life of Jesus. Also note, they are called by convention after the name of their Gospel though not accepted by anyone anymore to actually be said historical figures.

So when Mark includes the direct Aramaic that Jesus spoke, he didn't hear it from Jesus' lips. He also likely didn't hear about it from someone who heard it directly either. Same for Matthew, who likely included what Mark wrote because it fit his goals, not because he necessarily knew it to be historically accurate, though he may have thought it was.

By the time we get to John, we have gone from the very human Jesus sweating bullets about the crucifixion in Mark to a very divine Jesus in John who acts much more in line with the modern view of a Jesus who could look upon the world in knowing bemusement as it all plays out.

Personally, I think that Jesus understood himself to be the prophecied Messiah eventually but not right away at birth. My reading, informed by a historical critical framework, is that Jesus was initially a follower of John the Baptist and at some point around his baptism came to understand himself as the one John was talking about, and thus began his own public ministry. I tend to view this as being caused by the killing of John the Baptist, which caused Jesus to rethink a lot of things.

I get this and the next point from Historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan, who asserts that Jesus' big innovation was understanding that humans were waiting on God to fix the world and God was waiting on humans to start the process. So Jesus preached about the coming Kingdom of God, which he viewed as very much an earthly creation. Note, this is in express contrast to little-o orthodox understanding of the Kingdom of God as something spiritual. He asserts that it is likely that Jesus thought he was building an earthly kingdom and that God would eventually place him on the throne of said kingdom.

I am dubious on that specific point about earthly power, in that I view Jesus through an apocalyptic lens (which Crossan does not). My view is that Jesus also thought the world was going to be radically remade by God in the very near future, so unlike Simon bar Kokhba who a hundred years later would claim to be the messiah and rule over an earthly kingdom, I don't think Jesus thought that it would get that far before God came back, resurrected the dead, and instituted his kingdom on Earth.

As for why Jesus would not know all this, well, if he knew everything, he wouldn't be fully human. Humans cannot be omniscient so it makes sense that Jesus would have a period where he would experience that. I don't think that continues today of course, but there's a bunch of places where Jesus either explicitly or implicitly lacks full knowledge, and that's fundamental to the human experience.

I've rambled enough on this, so I think I'll just cut this here.

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Christian revelation... It’s like watching Rashōmon.

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Given how many Classical documents we know once existed and now have no copies of, I find it perfectly plausible that members of a small and persecuted cult were unable to transmit texts as copied manuscripts, rather than by word of mouth.

Whether Jesus could write is something we just don't have evidence of one way or the other. "Well, if he did, it should have survived" entirely ignores the vast quantities of manuscripts, including manuscripts highly valued by their contemporaries, that vanished for good.

Nessus posted:

On the topic of souls, is it held that souls are created at the birth/quickening/let's not be too particular you know what I mean of the individual? Do they pre-exist? Did God create all necessary souls at once or do they get thrown down as more humans come about?

What happens when he runs out??

Keromaru5 posted:

In the Nicene Creed, he's described in the following terms: Begotten from the Father before all ages - meaning that, like the Father, God the Son existed before the Creation, and is not bound by time; there was no time when the Son did not exist; and Through whom all things were made - As the Word of God, the Son was the means through which the world was made. When God says "Let there be light," that's the Son at work. And in John's Gospel, he declares "Before Abraham was, I am."

(It's also inaccurate to describe a person of the Trinity as "part" of God. Each one is God, and all three of them together are God.)

killer crane posted:

The Roman empire was an existential threat to the nation of Israel at the time. They were an occupying force, and would eventually spell the end of the second temple era. If the Jesus story is a continuation of the Yahweh story then it makes sense for Jesus to arrive at a time of great crisis for the people of Israel.

Nessus posted:

On the topic of souls, is it held that souls are created at the birth/quickening/let's not be too particular you know what I mean of the individual? Do they pre-exist? Did God create all necessary souls at once or do they get thrown down as more humans come about?

What happens when he runs out??

two fish posted:

Something I don't understand about that: are the "Father" and "Son" labels just something used to make it easier for people to understand? Like, God the Son is not the literal son of God the Father? My understanding of the terms is that a father would by necessity predate a son, but it sounds more like they always existed forever, and we just call them by those names to make it easier for the human mind to grasp it.

two fish posted:

Something I don't understand about that: are the "Father" and "Son" labels just something used to make it easier for people to understand? Like, God the Son is not the literal son of God the Father? My understanding of the terms is that a father would by necessity predate a son, but it sounds more like they always existed forever, and we just call them by those names to make it easier for the human mind to grasp it.

quote:

I suppose a related question, going off of the Trinity concept, is why there are only three persons of the Trinity. Could there be the possibility of additional persons being created, or of those that we don't know about? Does the number three have a special significance in the faith or with regards to God, or is it just something incidental?

Nessus posted:

On the topic of souls, is it held that souls are created at the birth/quickening/let's not be too particular you know what I mean of the individual? Do they pre-exist? Did God create all necessary souls at once or do they get thrown down as more humans come about?

quote:

What happens when he runs out??

sinnesloeschen posted:

i am also curious if folx in here have knowledge or understanding of why jesus needed to be baptized. i always saw the john/jesus rivalry as just that, and that jesus (like rome converting to christianity) saw it as politically... not expedient, because the dude knew what he was doing, but like, john's baptizing gives jesus' messianic claims more legitimacy? i could be like 10000% wrong here

Azathoth posted:

, they achieved it when the Hasmoneans ruled effectively independently.

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Well you don’t have to think about souls like that. Rather literally the word is more “current of air, wind” or that which moves us. It doesn’t have to be a separate neo-platonic essence of the self.

two fish posted:

Something I don't understand about that: are the "Father" and "Son" labels just something used to make it easier for people to understand? Like, God the Son is not the literal son of God the Father? My understanding of the terms is that a father would by necessity predate a son, but it sounds more like they always existed forever, and we just call them by those names to make it easier for the human mind to grasp it.

quote:

I suppose a related question, going off of the Trinity concept, is why there are only three persons of the Trinity. Could there be the possibility of additional persons being created, or of those that we don't know about? Does the number three have a special significance in the faith or with regards to God, or is it just something incidental?

two fish posted:

Segueing from the Trinity into another interest of mine, are there antecedents of the Trinity in the Old Testament? If not, is there an explanation of why the Trinity is explicit in the New Testament, but not in the Old?

quote:

Also, on the topic of the Old Testament, are the scriptures used in Christianity the same as those used in Judaism, or are there differences in translation or wording between the two?

Nessus posted:

Considering how people naively reinvent Arianism all the time, I would say that is the one that comes closest to the plain meaning of the Bible's actual text

Azathoth posted:

It's super easy to fall into an Arian or Docetic christology because it's super easy for us to envision God as the powerful ruler of the universe sitting on his heavenly throne but way harder to imagine a being with that much power deciding to live a mortal life with all the attendant daily suffering (to say nothing of the suffering of death by crucifixion).

I once heard someone describe the Docetic view as Jesus basically having a bad weekend at human camp. Like, he came down, some poo poo bad poo poo happened, he went back up and wiped his brow and said well that sure was a trip. It's much harder to wrestle with the fact that he was and is still fully human because in our limited imaginations we have trouble wrapping our heads around willingly putting oneself through that, even though that really is the whole point.

Nessus posted:

You know, when you put it like this, it actually illuminated one of the things I had wondered for a long time, which is 'so why, other than the general vibe in the last few decades of Religion hating Science due to the Devil's Doctrine of EVILUTION, would Christianity be shook so bad by discovering intelligent aliens?'

And I suppose that would be part of it: If God is both fully divine and fully human and there's now a third category of such beings, then what?

Nessus posted:

You know, when you put it like this, it actually illuminated one of the things I had wondered for a long time, which is 'so why, other than the general vibe in the last few decades of Religion hating Science due to the Devil's Doctrine of EVILUTION, would Christianity be shook so bad by discovering intelligent aliens?'

And I suppose that would be part of it: If God is both fully divine and fully human and there's now a third category of such beings, then what?

Azathoth posted:

It's super easy to fall into an Arian or Docetic christology because it's super easy for us to envision God as the powerful ruler of the universe sitting on his heavenly throne but way harder to imagine a being with that much power deciding to live a mortal life with all the attendant daily suffering (to say nothing of the suffering of death by crucifixion).

Deteriorata posted:

Either they will have their own story of God incarnate in their own form which Christians can compare, or Christians can tell them of their own encounter.

I don't see why this would be a problem. Jesus said he had other sheep elsewhere.

Deteriorata posted:

Either they will have their own story of God incarnate in their own form which Christians can compare, or Christians can tell them of their own encounter.

I don't see why this would be a problem. Jesus said he had other sheep elsewhere.

Azathoth posted:

The infamous Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth, has for a couple decades now gone hard into the belief that UFOs are actually demons. There's a theory that one of the reasons the Air Force is absolutely unwilling to investigate UFOs (anymore) is that this is also a sincerely held belief by a portion of the top brass, who are notoriously into that sort of fundamentalism.

Nessus posted:

I don't particularly see the problem either, but this is a case where the presence of strange strains of Christianity, swollen by being in America and having media access as well as political power, loom large over a much more sensible conceptual landscape.

If the UFOs were demons, why wouldn't they land and start 'ministering' to the people rather than buzzing around and freaking out rednecks?

Did Space Force get founded to get away from the fundamentalists?

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Space force is mostly career ICBM detection folks from what I understand.

Nessus posted:

I don't particularly see the problem either, but this is a case where the presence of strange strains of Christianity, swollen by being in America and having media access as well as political power, loom large over a much more sensible conceptual landscape.

If the UFOs were demons, why wouldn't they land and start 'ministering' to the people rather than buzzing around and freaking out rednecks?

Did Space Force get founded to get away from the fundamentalists?

Nessus posted:

Are you saying the UFOs are real/demons, or describing the reasoning process by which these guys are deciding that? I would say their heuristic is 'unexplained phenomena? if it's not some weird little wonder of God's Creation, then it's Satan's action' most likely. Gotta be one or the other!

Nessus posted:

Are you saying the UFOs are real/demons, or describing the reasoning process by which these guys are deciding that? I would say their heuristic is 'unexplained phenomena? if it's not some weird little wonder of God's Creation, then it's Satan's action' most likely. Gotta be one or the other!

Josef bugman posted:

Once again Christianity and Dualism keep getting together even though that isn't supposed to happen.