*************
M*W: To whom was Jesus talking when he allegedly cried out from the cross in Greek, no less, and said, "Eli, eli, lama sabachtheni?" (My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?)

Let me explain... "El" is a shortened form of "Elias," the sun god "Helios," to whom Jesus called out from the cross. "El" is the sun. The "Elohim" also represents the many stars. Also known as the "Ali," who were associated with gods. "Ali" is Egyptian in origin and represents the "Atum," "Aten," and the "Amen," who are all part of "Elohim." "Atum" was later known as "Adam."

Jesus, as the sun of god, was crying out to his heavenly father/creator god, the sun, "Eli" and/or "Helios" who had abandoned him on the cross that day. Then the skies grew dark and stormy as the sun set behind the earth and died.

some... SAY THAT IS A MIS-INTERPRETATION...

who knows...

what does it matter?

torture... is well known to get people to say anything... ANYTHING.!!

SOME SAY, he actually said.. "Lord, this is what i came for..."

i.e... to die...


even still... one must realise that it wasnt fun.

he was on the cross... in horrific pain.

-MT

some... SAY THAT IS A MIS-INTERPRETATION...

who knows...

what does it matter?

torture... is well known to get people to say anything... ANYTHING.!!

SOME SAY, he actually said.. "Lord, this is what i came for..."

i.e... to die...


even still... one must realise that it wasnt fun.

he was on the cross... in horrific pain.

-MT

*************
M*W: The "cross" refers to the four points that cross the sun at the vernal equinox. No one was tortured.

WELL... it may be nice to think so... but the habit... and well established history of nailing people to crosses.... was Roman....

the romans.... put 1000's up on the crosses...

which i should point out... has got to be better that being Impaled up the ass.....

your in-ability to accept that these very real tortures did happen... and in many forms... continues today.... is very sad.


im afraid your modern secular humanism leaves you blind to the very real evil men are capable of......

an inherent evil.... which is best modified by the religions you oppose.

-MT

WELL... it may be nice to think so... but the habit... and well established history of nailing people to crosses.... was Roman....

the romans.... put 1000's up on the crosses...

which i should point out... has got to be better that being Impaled up the ass.....

your in-ability to accept that these very real tortures did happen... and in many forms... continues today.... is very sad.

im afraid your modern secular humanism leaves you blind to the very real evil men are capable of......

an inherent evil.... which is best modified by the religions you oppose.

-MT

**************
M*W: I don't doubt the Roman's employed such torture, although I've never seen any factual documentation that would indicate they did. If you can provide such proof that the Romans actually did employ this kind of torture, I'd like to see it.

However, the life and times of Jesus is just an allegory of the movements of the constellations and the sun. The bible, especially the NT, is an astrological time table where Jesus is the sun of man as well as the son of god. It don't get no more real than this.

I would say he was thinking what in gods name are these people thinking!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Roman_Empire

Let me explain... "El" is a shortened form of "Elias," the sun god "Helios," to whom Jesus called out from the cross. "El" is the sun.
conjecture.
have solid, peer reviewed proof....or is this opinion?




The "Elohim" also represents the many stars. Also known as the "Ali," who were associated with gods. "Ali" is Egyptian in origin and represents the "Atum," "Aten," and the "Amen," who are all part of "Elohim." "Atum" was later known as "Adam."
completely incorrect.
the elohim are the five forces of creation employed by the ein sof, in hebrew religion (which jesus was a follower of). nothing you have said has any connection to the connection of "elohim".

im not sure exactly what you are getting at, but i would like to see some peer reviewed literature on the subject, or maybe even a woo woo website that makes these farfetched connections.

conjecture.
have solid, peer reviewed proof....or is this opinion?

*************
M*W: The citations below are taken from:

Acharya S., The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Adventures Unlimited, 1999.

"In a somewhat common development of the human mind, which allows for polytheism, pantheism, monotheism and atheism at once, the Elohim became perceived as one 'EL.' The word El also represented a deity both male and female, but the later Jews generally interpreted it exclusively as male. El was the sun or 'day star,' as well as the planet Saturn, which at one point was considered the 'central and everlasting sun' of th enight sky. El/Saturn's worship is reflected in the fact that the Jews still consider Saturday as the Sabbath or 'God's Day.'" Since El is the sun, the many Elohim of the Bible also represent the stars."

And taken from:

Walker, Barbara, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, Harper, 1983.

"Furthermore, El is Elias, "the sun god Helios to whom Jesus called from the cross...".

[QUOTE]completely incorrect.
the elohim are the five forces of creation employed by the ein sof, in hebrew religion (which jesus was a follower of). nothing you have said has any connection to the connection of "elohim".

*************
M:*W: Regarding the Elohim, I quote the following:

Acharya S., The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Adventures Unlimited, 1999.

"The plural Term Elohim appears over 2500 times in the Old Testament but is falsely translated in most versions. This fact of plurality explains why in Genesis "Gods" said, "Let us make man in our image." As stated, Elohim refers to both "gods" and "goddesses," and its singular form, El, served as a prefix or suffix to names of gods, people and places, whence Emmanu-El, Gabri-El, Beth-El, etc. Even "Satan" was one of the Elohim, as Walker relates:

Walker, Barbara, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, Harper, 1983.

'In the original wording, Satan was one of the bene ha-elohim, sons of 'the gods'; but Bible translators always singularized the plurals to conceal the facts that the biblical Jews worshipped a pantheon of multiple gods.'

Of the Elohim, Taylor says:

Taylor, Rev. Robert, The Diegesis, Health Research, 1977.

'The Jewish Elohim were the decans of the Egyptians; the same as the genii of the m onths and planets among the Persians and Chaldeans; and Jao, or Yahous, considered merely as one of the beings generically called Elohim or Alehim, appears to ahve been only a national or topical deity.'

And again from:

Acharya S., The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Adventures Unlimited, 1999.

"The Elohim were in reality a number of "El" gods, such as El Elyon, the "God Most High"; El Sabaoth, the "God of the Heavenly Hosts"; El Chay, the "Living God"; El Neqamah, the "God of Vengence"; El Ma'al, the "God Above"; and El Shaddai, the "Almighty God." El Shaddai was the name of the god of Abraham, or the "God of the fathers," who was replaced by Yahweh in the 6th chapter of Exodus:

Taken from:

Potter, Charles Francis, The Great Religious Leaders, Simon & Schuster, 1958.

'And God spake unto Moses and said unto him, I am Yahweh: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I was not known unto them.'

Acharya S., The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Adventures Unlimited, 1999.

Back to Acharya S.:

"Charles Potter relates that El Shaddai was later demonized in Psalms 106:37, condemned as one of the "devils: -- the Canaanite Shedim, to whom the Israelites sacrificed their sons and daughters. Psalms 106, in fact, provides a concise chronicle of how the "chosen people" "whored after" other gods, i.e. were polytheistic."

Churchward, Albert: The Origin and Evolution of Religion. (No date given):

"The Elohim were not only Phoenician and Canaanite gods but as "Ali" were originally Egyptian. The Ali were considered the "associated gods" or "members, i.e. the lips, the limbs, the joints, the hands, etc., of Atum, or Amen, the son of Ptah."

Churchward continues:

"Therefore, as in the Indian system, we have a sort of polytheisic monotheism in the Elohim. The "son of Ptah" is also called Iao/Iau/Iahu/Iu, the same as Yahweh. Therefore, the two accounts of Genesis, the Elohist and Jahwist, may be understood as reflecting the older Egyptian religion: "Thus the Elohim are represented in the first creation of man by the maker, Ptah, and in the second by Iu, the son of Ptah; and Iu, the son of Ptah, is Iahu-Elohim [the biblical Lord God], who becomes the creator of the second Adum [Atum] in the second chapter of the Hebrew Genesis."

im not sure exactly what you are getting at, but i would like to see some peer reviewed literature on the subject, or maybe even a woo woo website that makes these farfetched connections.

*************
M*W: In a nutshell, what I was getting at was that El, also known as Eli and Elias, is a version of the name Heli and Helios, or the Sun, and that Elohim (plural) could refer to many gods or perhaps the stars.

father why have you forsaken me wich he actuly said dad what the fuck!

It seems like he would have been talking to God the Father of the old testament, questioning why he had to die for the sins of others.

thanks, medicine woman. i am perusing the books right now (luckily, the local library has all of them, albeit in french :p)

ill get back to you in a few days on what i think.

OMG..........:eek: :eek: :eek:

The last words from Jesus , were a quote from psalm 22:
in hebrew : " eli, eli , lama azaftani "
or in aramaic (which was the main language in Palestine in first century AD):
" eloi, eloi , metoel mah sabachthani "
The bible simply got it mixed up ...............

Psalm 22 starts with an exclamation of despair but ends with the trust in god .......

Jesus was simply quoting psalm 22 to comfort himself .............

It seems like he would have been talking to God the Father of the old testament, questioning why he had to die for the sins of others.
I've been asking myself that same question, especially when God can forgive everyone for their sins himself. It's pretty sad if Jesus himself had to ask dad why Jr. is doing the job Sr. should be doing.
Why would you send your son to do a job you could do yourself better?

OMG..........:eek: :eek: :eek:

The last words from Jesus , were a quote from psalm 22:
in hebrew : " eli, eli , lama azaftani "
or in aramaic (which was the main language in Palestine in first century AD):
" eloi, eloi , metoel mah sabachthani "
The bible simply got it mixed up ...............

Psalm 22 starts with an exclamation of despair but ends with the trust in god .......

Jesus was simply quoting psalm 22 to comfort himself .............

*************
M*W: That may be so, but whatever the origin of the words "eli, eli, lama, sabachtheni," it is referring to speaking to the god in the heavens, or the sun. In fact, "eli" does not mean "my father," it means the "sun" who was called "god." In other words, Jesus could have easily said in English, "My SUN, why are you setting now?

There are four different gospels and four different "last words" so who knows what he actually said?

What about "forgive them, for they know not what they do?"

forgive actually derives from the hebrew foremhei, which is to eat carrots on the third saturday.

Whatever.

I think the thing to which Jesus referred, if he referred, is irrelevant.
Not the image, but the message is what matters.

*************
M*W: That may be so, but whatever the origin of the words "eli, eli, lama, sabachtheni," it is referring to speaking to the god in the heavens, or the sun. In fact, "eli" does not mean "my father," it means the "sun" who was called "god." In other words, Jesus could have easily said in English, "My SUN, why are you setting now?

this whole concept stretches things farther than occams razor permits....you know this, right?

this whole concept stretches things farther than occams razor permits....you know this, right?

*************
M*W: After having studied both sides of christianity for some 35+ years as well as the heart of it, the final conclusion I have come to is that it was all based on ancient astrology. When I endeavor to search in another direction from this point, I reach a dead-end that continues to confirm that ancient astrology leads to the basis of all theology. Now that I've come to this point in my research, I am confident I can never go in another direction and be right about it. I don't think Occam's Razor has anything to do with it.

I don't think Occam's Razor has anything to do with it.
how not?
leaps of faith as to linguistic interpretations of names, from hebrew, to aramaic, to english.....
how is it more plausible than some guy that was executed wondering about his plight?

M*W: After having studied both sides of christianity for some 35+ years as well as the heart of it, the final conclusion I have come to is that it was all based on ancient astrology.

I would say It is based on the words of the bible which were written for people to know of the past, most major events in our world are related to astrology it seemes. Christianity is based on people.

how not? leaps of faith as to linguistic interpretations of names, from hebrew, to aramaic, to english... how is it more plausible than some guy that was executed wondering about his plight?

*************
M*W: It is more plausible, because that guy who was executed only lived in the words of the gospel writers and not in reality.

The theory of Occam's razor can only be applied against the existence of god in that a god is an unnecessary figurehead.

The truth of astrotheology as the progenitor of all man-made religions does not require any human beings to exist. The ancients saw the stars, planets and constellations as familiar gods they created stories about. Those stories turned into myths that turned into other myths and even ancient sciences.

There is/was and never will be a true god other than what the ancients saw as the sun. There is/was and never will be any son of a god except for what the ancients saw as the sun/god and son-of-god.

It is more plausible to believe in the ancient science of astrology-turned-theology than it is to believe in the personification and anthropomorphism of stellar gods and angels that are merely nothing more than extra-terrestrial rocks that reflect the light of the sun and moon.

I would say It is based on the words of the bible which were written for people to know of the past, most major events in our world are related to astrology it seemes. Christianity is based on people.

*************
M*W: Christianity was based quite predominantly on sun worship and the study of the zodiac. The NT was originally written as an astrological book, with Jesus playing the role of the sun.

*************
The theory of Occam's razor can only be applied against the existence of god in that a god is an unnecessary figurehead.

The OC was not a theory but a suggestion about procedure. At no point was he trying to say that simpler theories are more likely to be correct or that it is best to assume certain things don't exist unless proven otherwise. The OR was a suggestion about what theories to attack first, but is used, all the time, as justification, even, oddly, as proof (via authority) that God or ghosts or Jeus or whatever probably does not exist.

The truth of astrotheology as the progenitor of all man-made religions does not require any human beings to exist. The ancients saw the stars, planets and constellations as familiar gods they created stories about. Those stories turned into myths that turned into other myths and even ancient sciences.

You are making a claim that religions are based on interpretations of myths based on interpretations of star patterns, while we know that certain religions built up around living humans, say Islam, and this makes it seem at least possible that other religions have their roots in living people (or demigods).


It is more plausible to believe in the ancient science of astrology-turned-theology than it is to believe in the personification and anthropomorphism of stellar gods and angels that are merely nothing more than extra-terrestrial rocks that reflect the light of the sun and moon.

Science begins with deadness and assumes deadness unless it is proven otherwise. The assumption that this is the way one should begin - with the assumption of deadness is simply that an unproven axiom. We've gotten so used to it (read: have been brainwashed) we don't notice this is an assumption.

Until as recently as 30 years ago if you talked about animals having feelings it could jeopardize your career in the biological sciences. And even now the Descartian errors and counterintuitive BS that assumes a lack of life and sentience goes unchecked. A brief browse through the current neurosciences will show that we humans are barely considered alive or sentient by many scientists.

Assumptions.
Make the assumptions long enough.
Then tell 'believers' that the onus is on them.

Why the name medicine woman, by the way? It seems an odd name to take on given its general usage and your unbeliefs.

*************
M*W: Christianity was based quite predominantly on sun worship and the study of the zodiac. The NT was originally written as an astrological book, with Jesus playing the role of the sun.

this is an opinion, and not a very well founded one, having read 2 of the books recommended by you.

*************
M*W: That may be so, but whatever the origin of the words "eli, eli, lama, sabachtheni," it is referring to speaking to the god in the heavens, or the sun. In fact, "eli" does not mean "my father," it means the "sun" who was called "god." In other words, Jesus could have easily said in English, "My SUN, why are you setting now?

Everything was\is created, "my SUN"...yes that could have been spontaneous utterance. Two steps forward...

*************
M*W: To whom was Jesus talking when he allegedly cried out from the cross in Greek, no less, and said, "Eli, eli, lama sabachtheni?" (My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?)
It's from Jews' King David's Psalms: chapter 22!

*************
M*W: After having studied both sides of christianity for some 35+ years as well as the heart of it, the final conclusion I have come to is that it was all based on ancient astrology. When I endeavor to search in another direction from this point, I reach a dead-end that continues to confirm that ancient astrology leads to the basis of all theology. Now that I've come to this point in my research, I am confident I can never go in another direction and be right about it. I don't think Occam's Razor has anything to do with it.

The New Testament was changed in a way to accomodate all the pagan beliefs and Mythraism into 1 and only Religion.

Ever since the beginning of time, astrology have come hand by hand with religion. Like the 12 tribes of Israel as a reference to the 12 Zodiac signs, just meaning Jesus was from the tribe of Levi, he was a Piscis.

This doesnt change the fact that Jesus was an enlightened being, put here in Earth to help mankind with a message of love and wisdom.

If you dont believe he existed, you cannot deny the existence of ALL Truth Teachers like Jesus:

- Apollonius of Tyana (he was killed too)
- Paracelsus (Philippus Theophrastus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim)
- Enoc (Bible)
- Melquisedec (Bible)
- Gautama Buddha
- Lord Krishna
- Other 28 Buddhas: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_28_Buddhas"
- The Dalai Lamas
- Jesus
- Thot (Egyptian)
- Hermes Trismegistus (Greek)
- Lao Tze (Asian)
- (St.) Thomas Becket
- Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar
- Count of St. Germain
- Djwhal Khul
- Kwan Yin
- Sri Ramakrishna
- Lahiri Mahasaya
- Meher Baba
- Hazrat Babajan
- Sai Baba of Shirdi
- Upasni Maharaj
- Ramana Maharshi
- Paramahansa Yogananda
- Sri Yukteswar
- Lord Metatron
- Confucius
- Ganesha Chaturthi
- Padre Pio
- Prophet Elijah
- Zarathrustra

By denying Jesus, you are doing nothing.

Muslims say that was not Jesus on the cross. So, that was not Jesus talking to God. Muslim say that the prayers of Jesus were always answered, and this one was answered too: Matthew 26:39: “He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.'' Since Jesus, and God are always in agreement, John 10:30 "I and My Father are one'' then what Jesus wills, so does God will too. Esoteric Christians say that Jesus is an allegory for the sun, where the sun passes over the vernal equinox around Easter time, when the warmth of the sun destroys the death of winter, and brings a season of growth so that all of life may continue. Therefore Jesus had to likewise pass over the cross, and another, a look alike was crucified, for otherwise if the real Christ died we would be held in the grip of winter. The solar myth stories therefore align with an un crucified Christ.

If any one thinks Jesus came back to life three days later, think on this. IF the sun went out, no heat, for three days, then when the sun finally reappeared the entire earth would be at around 120 degrees F. below zero. Life on our planet, as we know it, would be dead. It would likely take billions of years of evolution before the planet once again had humans walking on it.

Muslims say that was not Jesus on the cross. So, that was not Jesus talking to God.
I would make a slight correction, Muslims say Jesus did not die on the cross. I think the Koran passage that you are referring to is;

The Women [4.157]

“And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so, and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure”

I think this passage can be interpreted in one of two ways;

1. That Jesus simply did not die on the cross, he survived was healed and there was therefore no resurrection. I think it is still valid that he was put on a cross because of the phrase “it appeared to them so”.

2. Is that all that was crucified and killed was a body; whereas the real Messaih / Christ – the real part of Jesus, could not be killed. The real part being the spiritual part - the soul if you like, being eternal.

Why do people try to make something out of nothing? "Why is jesus yelling "My God My God, Why have you forsaken me?".

Do scientists have any common sense?

If you step on a nail, what happens? You say "Oh shit that hurts!"

If you had a nail in each hand, a nail in each foot, and thorns sticking in your head, I am guessing it would hurt so bad that you would want to say something.

Since Jesus cannot say "GOD DAMN THAT HURTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!'".

So instead he says "My God(Ouch) My God(Ouch) Why have you(ouch)forsaken me?(Owwwwwww it hurts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Jesus was exclaiming in pain. He was not saying any message. Duh.

Why do people try to make something out of nothing? "Why is jesus yelling "My God My God, Why have you forsaken me?".

Do scientists have any common sense?

If you step on a nail, what happens? You say "Oh shit that hurts!"

If you had a nail in each hand, a nail in each foot, and thorns sticking in your head, I am guessing it would hurt so bad that you would want to say something.

Since Jesus cannot say "GOD DAMN THAT HURTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!'".

So instead he says "My God(Ouch) My God(Ouch) Why have you(ouch)forsaken me?(Owwwwwww it hurts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Jesus was exclaiming in pain. He was not saying any message. Duh.

LOL, I think you are right.

I also believe those were not the last words, accoring to Mark, they are, but acccording to John and Luke, they were not the last.

Mark 15: 33-34 -- And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Elo-i, elo-i, lama sabach-thani?" which means, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

John 19:28 -- After this jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the scripture0, "I thirst."

John 19:29-30 -- A bowl was there, full of cheap wine mixed with vinegar, so a sponge was soaked in it, put on hyssop and lifted up to his lips. When Jesus had received the wine, he said, "It is finished."

Luke 23:46 -- Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last.

*************
Let me explain... "El" is a shortened form of "Elias," the sun god "Helios," to whom Jesus called out from the cross. "El" is the sun. The "Elohim" also represents the many stars. Also known as the "Ali," who were associated with gods. "Ali" is Egyptian in origin and represents the "Atum," "Aten," and the "Amen," who are all part of "Elohim." "Atum" was later known as "Adam."

Jesus, as the sun of god, was crying out to his heavenly father/creator god, the sun, "Eli" and/or "Helios" who had abandoned him on the cross that day. Then the skies grew dark and stormy as the sun set behind the earth and died.

El is far more likely to originate from Jewish esoteric traditions that later became known as Kabbalah. There are 10 names of God corresponding to the ten stations on the 'tree of life'. The different names of God are given as;

Ein Sof
Jehovah
Jehovah Elohim
EL
Elohim Gebor
Jehovah Alaoh va
Jehovah Tzabaoth
Shaddai El Chai
Adonai Ha Aretz

(I believe Jehovah is more authentically written as Yahweh in many versions).

Light Travelling: That is found in the Qur'an as you stated. Excuse me for not being exact all the time. I get loose here, and there, hoping the reader will know that if the Muslims say one thing, they must have got it from some where. Many times Muslims make up falsehoods, so they can put down Christians, but concerning the crucifixion they are telling the truth: it never happened to Jesus. Muslims simply say Jesus was not crucified, but a look alike was crucified instead. The look alike that appeared as Jesus was the one talking on the cross. Makes sense to be up there dying, and people think you are Jesus, then in that case you would sure feel like God forsook you.

The NT is a myth story, where Jesus is like the Greek God Hermes, the trickster. One of the original bad boys, but so cute you have to love him.

My website goes into the details on what the Koran states. Please read all of my site before replying, for if one skips through it, like they are a "know it all," they will never read enough to understand: http://home.earthlink.net/~donutnous/index.html

I never fail to be amazed by the lengths to which people will go to deny reality.

Absolutely amazing.

it never happened to Jesus. Muslims simply say Jesus was not crucified

Werent they invited to the party? To bad there was not cable t.v or cameras.

Seriously, i dont think Muslims deny crucifixion but the resurrection...not sure though.

Dan, why dont you put the link to your site in your signature, so you dont have to post it every other day?

*************
M*W: The "cross" refers to the four points that cross the sun at the vernal equinox. No one was tortured.

... so he was just chill'n, catching some rays and bitching about the weather?

*************
M*W: That may be so, but whatever the origin of the words "eli, eli, lama, sabachtheni," it is referring to speaking to the god in the heavens, or the sun. In fact, "eli" does not mean "my father," it means the "sun" who was called "god." In other words, Jesus could have easily said in English, "My SUN, why are you setting now?
Archetypically, the "sun" is also a symbol of life, and of the ego (i.e. the sun sign, representing the ego in astrology)

God's "name" is Yahweh. Period! :p

*************
M*W: To whom was Jesus talking when he allegedly cried out from the cross in Greek, no less, and said, "Eli, eli, lama sabachtheni?" (My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?)

my guess would be Jesus thought there was god up there,
why else would he say something like that?

Yahweh as in "nameless"...

Actually, Jesus was calling out to God, the Father, who, at that very moment had to turn away from His son, because of our sin--the sin and disease of the entire world was laid on Him, which separated Him from His Father...unbearable. God is holy and cannot behold sin, hence the fulfillment of the prophecy that He would become the curse for us. He died for us, in our place. Not accepting Jesus, we will have to pay for our sin ourselves.

Actually, Jesus was calling out to God, the Father, who, at that very moment had to turn away from His son, because of our sin--the sin and disease of the entire world was laid on Him, which separated Him from His Father...unbearable. God is holy and cannot behold sin, hence the fulfillment of the prophecy that He would become the curse for us. He died for us, in our place. Not accepting Jesus, we will have to pay for our sin ourselves.

Besides the fact jesus was probably not real, that allegory is scapegoating and nothing more and nothing less. Humans like to find someone to pay the price, be the lightning rod, scapegoat, blame etc. Actually something quite negative masked and prettified and embellished as something other through contrived rationalization and storytelling.

Yahweh as in "nameless"...

What the Hell are you talking about?

Why would jesus who is supposedly human according to your belief die and be crucified for the sins of everyone else?
Mod note: Please do not discuss personal beliefs in Comparative Religion. We have Religion subforum for that.

*************


The theory of Occam's razor can only be applied against the existence of god in that a god is an unnecessary figurehead.


This is a common misuse of Ockham's proposal. His proposal was that it made sense to test theories moving from the simpler (less entities) to the more complex. It is a methodological proposal and not a metaphysical one. Adn he was clear about this. We all know examples of situations where complex phenomena were discovered adn there are many in the history of science itself where some people thought this or that was more complex and this turned out to be the case. Reducing O's Razor to something like the simpler explanation is more likely to be true is both a misunderstanding of Sir O and not very good thinking. It is also bad science.

Mod note: Please do not discuss personal beliefs in Comparative Religion. We have Religion subforum for that.


Is there a way to answer the title question of this thread without expressing a personal belief? (meaning, perhaps this thread should be moved over to religion. It also does not seem very comparative.)

If we accept for the point of argument
that jesus was god become man

Here he had become man
to the extent that he was doubting Gods existence.

It is a cry of dispair.

Is there a way to answer the title question of this thread without expressing a personal belief? (meaning, perhaps this thread should be moved over to religion. It also does not seem very comparative.)

Of course. There are many gods available to choose from and that's the subject of CR, i.e., which god was Jesus addressing based on the linguistic interpretation. Personal belief has very little to do with this.

Of course. There are many gods available to choose from and that's the subject of CR, i.e., which god was Jesus addressing based on the linguistic interpretation. Personal belief has very little to do with this.

Seeing as Jesus was referring to God as His Father, we must believe He was referring to Jehovah, El Elyon, The Most High God.

We have a discussion here whether the god of Jesus was Jehovah.

sounds like word-ology...like numerology. The attempt to find meaning in radomn convergences of either word fragments or aligned numbers. Both should never be applied to the bible which is an easily translatable text.

Yeah, I agree with you in this in relation to the starting post of this thread, reminds me of numerology where everything can be concluded from anything.

whoa...that was very well said..."everything can be concluded from anything."

whoa...that was very well said..."everything can be concluded from anything."

Yeah, a lot of people are good at doing that. Where does it get anyone? There are absolutes.

Of course. There are many gods available to choose from and that's the subject of CR, i.e., which god was Jesus addressing based on the linguistic interpretation. Personal belief has very little to do with this.


OK. I thought comparative religion would mean that we would compare facets of different religions. I would have thought discussions of one facet of one religion would fit better on Religion.

I don't think the Bible is clear who Jesus is referring to: if he is God then it is to himself, if he is a facet of God then he is talking to another part of himself, and so on. Every answer I think will be a personal opinion even if you consider it an opinion about linguistics, I can't see it as anything other than a theological interpretation based on personal belief.

But I'll bow out here since you clearly have thought about it and more debate will distract.

"Eli, Eli" means, "My God, My God".

*************
M*W: To whom was Jesus talking when he allegedly cried out from the cross in Greek, no less, and said, "Eli, eli, lama sabachtheni?" (My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?)

Let me explain... "El" is a shortened form of "Elias," the sun god "Helios," to whom Jesus called out from the cross. "El" is the sun. The "Elohim" also represents the many stars. Also known as the "Ali," who were associated with gods. "Ali" is Egyptian in origin and represents the "Atum," "Aten," and the "Amen," who are all part of "Elohim." "Atum" was later known as "Adam."

Jesus, as the sun of god, was crying out to his heavenly father/creator god, the sun, "Eli" and/or "Helios" who had abandoned him on the cross that day. Then the skies grew dark and stormy as the sun set behind the earth and died.

Uhh, Jesus did not speak Greek. He spoke an ancient Arabic dialect. That dialect does not have a Greek etymology, so you're looking at it backwards. Don't confuse people simply because there was no equivalent translation.

Linguistically, "to forsake" is not synonymous with "to abandon." To forsake is passive, and denotes an implication that another has not kept a promise; to abandon is active, and means that one has been left without anything.

My answer is simple. Even the Son of Man had to experience death with doubt in his heart (as had and do many people), or else he could not open the gates of heaven as the Messiah.

Peace be with you.

Yeah, a lot of people are good at doing that. Where does it get anyone? There are absolutes.

I concur. There have to be absolutes. Otherwise we're living in a pretty arbitrary world with no real definitions. While this comforts certain ones...It is know to be culturely obscure.

mod note: For all further discussion on Sun worship please post in the following thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1522241

I moved the concerning posts from this thread there, because that's another subject.

Uhh, Jesus did not speak Greek. He spoke an ancient Arabic dialect. That dialect does not have a Greek etymology, so you're looking at it backwards. Don't confuse people simply because there was no equivalent translation.

Linguistically, "to forsake" is not synonymous with "to abandon." To forsake is passive, and denotes an implication that another has not kept a promise; to abandon is active, and means that one has been left without anything.

My answer is simple. Even the Son of Man had to experience death with doubt in his heart (as had and do many people), or else he could not open the gates of heaven as the Messiah.

Peace be with you.


Yep! Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Yep! Jesus spoke Aramaic.

But the Gospels were written in Greek.

I think the point is that those words in Greek never were the actual words spoken by Jesus.

I think the point is that those words in Greek never were the actual words spoken by Jesus.

Exactly. Plus, there is a collection of evidence that St. Matthew wrote his original Gospel in Hebrew, which was later translated.

http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/Matt.html


In addition, St. Mark wrote for the benefit of the Romans so they could appreciate the miracles and come to believe, which is why the Gospel of St. Mark leaves out many of the parables. The Romans of the time were more convinced by miracle, as would be many people today.

Ok....first off hey guys! what's up? the reason i became a member of the forum was to just send you this link.

Medicine Woman? please don't say things that are just atheistic assumptions... The book of Acharya S and other people who wrote books like those, are considered useless due to the lack of evidence and sources...

Anyways...The topic is huge and I can't elaborate on it so i will post this video.

Please please watch it and please be careful guys on what you hear. ;)
This video will explain your questions. It is long but it is worth it.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7572663630528394775

This doesn't really seem to be comparative religion, certainly not anymore.

At a pinch, we could compare one Christian sect with another. There are hundreds to choose from and they share a common belief; every one believes it has the truth and that all the others are wrong.

Yep! Jesus spoke Aramaic.

What a great pity he did'nt write it also. Was he illiterate or did he set out to confuse us. His legacy is a long history of doctrinal and scriptural disputes which contine to this day.

sounds like word-ology...like numerology. The attempt to find meaning in radomn convergences of either word fragments or aligned numbers. Both should never be applied to the bible which is an easily translatable text.

So is The Wizard of Oz. What's your point ?

[QUOTE=Learned Hand;1522569]Uhh, Jesus did not speak Greek. He spoke an ancient Arabic dialect. That dialect does not have a Greek etymology, so you're looking at it backwards. Don't confuse people simply because there was no equivalent translation.

Linguistically, "to forsake" is not synonymous with "to abandon." To forsake is passive, and denotes an implication that another has not kept a promise; to abandon is active, and means that one has been left without anything.

My answer is simple. Even the Son of Man had to experience death with doubt in his heart (as had and do many people), or else he could not open the gates of heaven as the Messiah.
Peace be with you

Your answer is indeed simple but what does it mean ? Why do you refer to Jesus as the Son of Man? I always thought he had a mother. Come to think of it, did he have a father in the sense that we would understand it ? Wasn't Mary impregnated by an angel or the holy spirit.

This is a common misuse of Ockham's proposal. His proposal was that it made sense to test theories moving from the simpler (less entities) to the more complex. It is a methodological proposal and not a metaphysical one. Adn he was clear about this. We all know examples of situations where complex phenomena were discovered adn there are many in the history of science itself where some people thought this or that was more complex and this turned out to be the case. Reducing O's Razor to something like the simpler explanation is more likely to be true is both a misunderstanding of Sir O and not very good thinking. It is also bad science.

Occam said, "do not multiply entities beyond necessity", meaning that the simplest explanation which fits the case makes further elaboration unnecessary.

*************
M*W: To whom was Jesus talking when he allegedly cried out from the cross in Greek, no less, and said, "Eli, eli, lama sabachtheni?" (My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?)

Let me explain... "El" is a shortened form of "Elias," the sun god "Helios," to whom Jesus called out from the cross. "El" is the sun. The "Elohim" also represents the many stars. Also known as the "Ali," who were associated with gods. "Ali" is Egyptian in origin and represents the "Atum," "Aten," and the "Amen," who are all part of "Elohim." "Atum" was later known as "Adam."

Jesus, as the sun of god, was crying out to his heavenly father/creator god, the sun, "Eli" and/or "Helios" who had abandoned him on the cross that day. Then the skies grew dark and stormy as the sun set behind the earth and died.

El is, to my knowledge not a shortened form of Elias, but a shortened form of Elohim, a name for god (or gods). At least yours is the first mention I've ever heard of the Helios theory:

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Etymology and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28god%29#.C4.92l_in_the_Tanakh

The latter specifically states,
In the Tanakh ’elōhîm is the normal word for a god or the great god (or gods). But the form ’ēl also appears, mostly in poetic passages and in the patriarchal narratives attributed to the P source according to the documentary hypothesis.
...
According to church fathers of early Christianity, El was the first Hebrew name of God.

Theories for the etymology of Elohim and El are varied, but do not seem to strongly suggest a connection to the Sun.

Watch this video:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7572663630528394775

So peace is upon me [Jesus] the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life." Trinitarian Christians believe that Jesus was GOD Himself, or part of GOD, came to earth, was crucified on the cross to purify our sins and then raised from death back to life and went up to heaven until he will come back again to this earth. The Noble Quran does not in anyway support this theory!. We Muslims believe that Jesus was born from a Noble Virgin; Mary the Virgin, preached the word of GOD to the people of Israel, raised to Allah Almighty alive (even though he might have been put on the cross, but never actually died), will come back to earth again to fight the army of Satan and then die a natural death and then be raised again back to life from death as we all do in the Day of Judgement. Some Muslim scholars say that Jesus not being crucified in Noble Verse 4:157 means that he was put on the cross but didn't die, and others say that it means that he was not put on the cross itself and never died either. There are some Christian sects such as the Basilidans, the Docetate and the Marcionite do not believe that Jesus was put on the cross.

Either way, it doesn't really matter whether he was put on the cross or not. The more important point is that Jesus never died according to Islam. There is a similar Verse to 19:33 in the Noble Quran that was mentioned to another Messenger of GOD: "So peace on him [Yahya, or John the Baptist] the day he was born, the day that he dies, and the day that he will be raised up to life! (The Noble Quran, 19:15)" This Noble Verse (19:15) is similar to 19:33, where it does not at all state that any Messenger of GOD was crucified or will die twice!. The reason why no Messenger of GOD will ever die twice is because Allah Almighty said clearly in His Noble Book that every soul He creates (this includes all of His Messengers and Prophets even Jesus) shall taste death once; "Nor will they [all humans who end up in heaven] there taste death, except the first death; and He will preserve them from the penalty of the blazing fire. (The Noble Quran, 44:56)".

pls vist http://www.answering-christianity.com/crucified.htm

So peace is upon me [Jesus] the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life." Trinitarian Christians believe that Jesus was GOD Himself, or part of GOD, came to earth, was crucified on the cross to purify our sins and then raised from death back to life and went up to heaven until he will come back again to this earth. The Noble Quran does not in anyway support this theory!. We Muslims believe that Jesus was born from a Noble Virgin; Mary the Virgin, preached the word of GOD to the people of Israel, raised to Allah Almighty alive (even though he might have been put on the cross, but never actually died), will come back to earth again to fight the army of Satan and then die a natural death and then be raised again back to life from death as we all do in the Day of Judgement. Some Muslim scholars say that Jesus not being crucified in Noble Verse 4:157 means that he was put on the cross but didn't die, and others say that it means that he was not put on the cross itself and never died either. There are some Christian sects such as the Basilidans, the Docetate and the Marcionite do not believe that Jesus was put on the cross.

Either way, it doesn't really matter whether he was put on the cross or not. The more important point is that Jesus never died according to Islam. There is a similar Verse to 19:33 in the Noble Quran that was mentioned to another Messenger of GOD: "So peace on him [Yahya, or John the Baptist] the day he was born, the day that he dies, and the day that he will be raised up to life! (The Noble Quran, 19:15)" This Noble Verse (19:15) is similar to 19:33, where it does not at all state that any Messenger of GOD was crucified or will die twice!. The reason why no Messenger of GOD will ever die twice is because Allah Almighty said clearly in His Noble Book that every soul He creates (this includes all of His Messengers and Prophets even Jesus) shall taste death once; "Nor will they [all humans who end up in heaven] there taste death, except the first death; and He will preserve them from the penalty of the blazing fire. (The Noble Quran, 44:56)".

pls vist http://www.answering-christianity.com/crucified.htm

Please visit a good bookstore and start learning something of Western philosophy. You can quote the OT, the NT, the Quran, the Upanishads, the Pali canon or any other religious tracts but don't be surprised if you are asled to to provide solid evidence to back up your claims.

Thank u sir.I spent many years learning it at the university.However, as i have my own identity that i am proud of , i see that acculturation is an incurable heart disease .I believe in equality of all races rather than eurocentrism

Thank u sir.I spent many years learning it at the university.However, as i have my own identity that i am proud of , i see that acculturation is an incurable heart disease .I believe in equality of all races rather than eurocentrism

So you understand the philosophical objections to the Argument from Design. On what grounds do you reject them.

OMG..........:eek: :eek: :eek:

The last words from Jesus , were a quote from psalm 22:
in hebrew : " eli, eli , lama azaftani "
or in aramaic (which was the main language in Palestine in first century AD):
" eloi, eloi , metoel mah sabachthani "
The bible simply got it mixed up ...............

Psalm 22 starts with an exclamation of despair but ends with the trust in god .......

Jesus was simply quoting psalm 22 to comfort himself .............

Psalm 22 was a prophecy of His crucifiction...

He was pointing the way to it...

the rest of the stuff in this thread is nonsense...

woman you are not a Christian and the word of GOD is not in you.Why then do you do the devils work.Do you not see the folly of your words.You should add mislead to your resume.The word of GOD IS HIDDEN FROM YOU AND YOUR ANTICHRIST SPEECHES BETRAY YOU. you have been defeated in spiritual combat by STARION

STARION?
Do you mean
The Mitsubishi Starion. circa 1989
http://www.racetep.com/jeff4.jpg
Looks like a crack dealer's car to me.

*************
M*W: To whom was Jesus talking when he allegedly cried out from the cross in Greek, no less, and said, "Eli, eli, lama sabachtheni?" (My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?)

Let me explain... "El" is a shortened form of "Elias," the sun god "Helios," to whom Jesus called out from the cross. "El" is the sun. The "Elohim" also represents the many stars. Also known as the "Ali," who were associated with gods. "Ali" is Egyptian in origin and represents the "Atum," "Aten," and the "Amen," who are all part of "Elohim." "Atum" was later known as "Adam."

Jesus, as the sun of god, was crying out to his heavenly father/creator god, the sun, "Eli" and/or "Helios" who had abandoned him on the cross that day. Then the skies grew dark and stormy as the sun set behind the earth and died.

Amen means -- ''Let it be,'' or ''Varily.'' It has no direct link to any of the Egyptains gods names. How do you explain for how they say is in Islam ''Dua''?

And the ''eli'' part is obviously Elohim, ''god''. Helios in Greek doesn't look all that important enough to say there is a link with Elohim. And it's certainly not who Jesus was calling for. In a strict sense, Jesus -- who may have been another form of God -- was still but a man. So our God was his God. This is why he called out the name of God.

He was calling to Elijah, no doubt in my mind at all, as the One who will 'restore all things' (Matt 17:11).

He was calling to Elijah, no doubt in my mind at all, as the One who will 'restore all things' (Matt 17:11).

Was Matthew there ?

Was Matthew there ?

Well, it's generally assumed he was one of the 12 Apostles, so he could have witnessed Jesus' cries.

Many have tried to figure it out, and I've given this a lot of thought over the years.

Elijah is the Man...

Well, it's generally assumed he was one of the 12 Apostles, so he could have witnessed Jesus' cries.

Many have tried to figure it out, and I've given this a lot of thought over the years.

Elijah is the Man...

I believe the apostles, with the exception of Peter, fled.

I believe the apostles, with the exception of Peter, fled.

Yes of course, you're right, but the apostles got together again immediately after the resurrection, and presumably Jesus' words on the cross were a hot topic of discussion among them from the start.

Yes of course, you're right, but the apostles got together again immediately after the resurrection, and presumably Jesus' words on the cross were a hot topic of discussion among them from the start.

So they were basing their testimony on reported speech as opposed to first-hand testimony ?

So they were basing their testimony on reported speech as opposed to first-hand testimony ?

Yes...but both Peter and Mary would have heard the words spoken and could confirm each other's testimony. Peter didn't write a gospel himself but is considered a major source for the synoptics.

Yes...but both Peter and Mary would have heard the words spoken and could confirm each other's testimony. Peter didn't write a gospel himself but is considered a major source for the synoptics.

I agree but hearsay written long after the event doesn't impress, knowing how things become distorted with the telling. I think we can only treat what Matthew says as hearsay and, therefore , open to doubt.

I agree but hearsay written long after the event doesn't impress, knowing how things become distorted with the telling. I think we can only treat what Matthew says as hearsay and, therefore , open to doubt.

As is true of all ancient historical documents, I think. But my instinct tells me it's true in this case, because of the confusion that surrounded it.

As is true of all ancient historical documents, I think. But my instinct tells me it's true in this case, because of the confusion that surrounded it.

I think we shall have to agree to differ. I find it odd, however, that you find confusion in some sense conducive to truth. I'm sure you'll agree that instinct is no basis for belief.

No, I disagree. God cannot be found through logic...you are then left with instinct and intuition, imo.

No, I disagree. God cannot be found through logic...you are then left with instinct and intuition, imo.

Wht do you think God is beyond reason/logic ?

OMG..........:eek: :eek: :eek:

The last words from Jesus , were a quote from psalm 22:
in hebrew : " eli, eli , lama azaftani "
or in aramaic (which was the main language in Palestine in first century AD):
" eloi, eloi , metoel mah sabachthani "
The bible simply got it mixed up ...............

Psalm 22 starts with an exclamation of despair but ends with the trust in god .......

Jesus was simply quoting psalm 22 to comfort himself .............

Psalm 22 was a prophecy of His crucifiction...

He was pointing the way to it...

the rest of the stuff in this thread is nonsense...

Dear Dr Mabuse ,

Thank you for quoting my post , but I do disagree ..........NO prophecy of any crucifiction ....

http://www.messiahtruth.com/psa22.html

As you can see the KJV is (as usual) full of translation errors - though sometimes, I think some of the translation errors are intentionally.....
Please notice the discussion about psalm 22:17[16] ........

Medicine Woman, you are 100% WRONG! It appears that you have never been right, about anyone or anything. The hot air you have been preaching was intended only as inflammation, not information.

"Father, why have you forsaken me?" means JUST THAT! For Jesus to complete His work of redemption, He had to be as forsaken as any other completely lost sinner, and face the same torment that Judas or Hitler would face. The answer is simple:
"It is to complete your destiny, Son."
Jesus then descended to hell (Helios, the sun) the "lake of fire that never goes out." Those disobedient misrepresenters of God who suffered there rightly were not out of chances, after all! Jesus died for them, as much as for Medicine Woman as for you and me.
The thing is, the amnesty program called life is to test us, to see if we would rebel from God, as we did before we came here to this earth. We all followed bad advice, and those among us determined worthy to get a second chance come to life (on this and an infinity more planets) to see how much nastier things can be if we listen to bad counsel, and how great life can be if we listen to God -- in that still small voice that we call a conscience.

I agree but hearsay written long after the event doesn't impress, knowing how things become distorted with the telling. I think we can only treat what Matthew says as hearsay and, therefore , open to doubt.

Hearsay? "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness . . .." 1 Tim. 2:2.
The Four Evangelists of the Gospels had full divine inspiration to jog their memories about all that took place. Much has been lost over the last two millennia, but the record is clear enough.
Debate small points of doctrine all you want, but __PREACHING DELETED by mod__