"Eloi, Eloi,[a] lama sabachthani?"-"My God, my God, why ,,,,

[jane abraham]

Why Jesus said the following words as in Matthew 27:46
Matthew 27:46 (New International Version)

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

[Proshome]

Dear Jane:
If this was intended as a question, the answer that I offer is: He was
calling out to His God for an answer as to why He, His God, has seemingly
drawn away from helping Him at that particular moment. It this was not a
question, forgive me.

[lawrey]

Post by jane abraham
Why Jesus said the following words as in Matthew 27:46
Matthew 27:46 (New International Version)
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[a]
lama sabachthani?"-which means, "My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?"[b]

The truthful answer to your question is: That he suddenly realised at
the last moment that he was on his own and that there was no god as he
had been taught and as we were taught. the god he refered to is the
same metaphysical being, or entity it is today and is simply
brainwashed into the minds of those who choose to believe it as I used
to. But a careful study of our early history gives us a different
understanding and not a very pleasant one. Go to: lawrenceeleyot.co.uk
for answers in The Philosophy of One on the Many.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by lawrey

Post by jane abraham
Why Jesus said the following words as in Matthew 27:46
Matthew 27:46 (New International Version)
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[a]
lama sabachthani?"-which means, "My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?"[b]

There is nothing 'truthful' about calling that "THE truthful answer". For it is
neither the answer nor a truthful one.

[snip]

Post by lawrey
understanding and not a very pleasant one. Go to: lawrenceeleyot.co.uk
for answers in The Philosophy of One on the Many.

More answers like your wrong answer above?

[Proshome]

Lawrey:
Its interesting to hear that you have a monopoly on truth. You must be a
very old and wise man. Who was your teacher?
Can you enlighten me a bit as to the source of your wisdom?
--
simply "Christian"

"lawrey" <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:OZb2h.7880$***@trnddc08...
...

Post by lawrey
The truthful answer to your question is: That he suddenly realised at
the last moment that he was on his own and that there was no god as he
had been taught and as we were taught. the god he refered to is the
same metaphysical being, or entity it is today and is simply
brainwashed into the minds of those who choose to believe it as I used
to. But a careful study of our early history gives us a different
understanding and not a very pleasant one. Go to: lawrenceeleyot.co.uk
for answers in The Philosophy of One on the Many.

[lawrey]

Post by Proshome
Its interesting to hear that you have a monopoly on truth. You must be a
very old and wise man. Who was your teacher?
Can you enlighten me a bit as to the source of your wisdom?
--
simply "Christian"

Simply Christian,
No man has a manopoly on truth. Niether does any man have a monopoly on
ignorance, when the truth is out there for any man to avail himself of.
It does require a lot of tedious study. There are those however who
have made up there minds from what they have been taught in schools and
by the various religious organisations abroard in the world; all with
vested interests. I seek only to bring the truth to bear. I seek to
uncover the lies and deceits that are preached in religions world wide,
by laying bear the actual truth. I have no vested interest unless it be
to promote honesty instead of hypocrisy. I do this by relating the
actual origins of religions by way of the history of philosophy and
theology and by starting at the beginning of recorded history, long
before most others are prepared to consider for various reasons;
perhaps because it destroys some of our most cherished beliefs of a
religious nature and removes god, satan or the devil, by showing where
they actually originated!
And how the supposed mysteries of an all powerful being were utilised
to control the masses. and how power developed and was misused in the
churches of the various groups. How violence and death were the answer
to descention. I make no appology to you for my age and as for wisdom
and knowledge I do not aspire to anything, but am always learning. If
what little knowledge I have you require, it is yours at no cost other
than your ability to listen, read mark, learn and inwardly digest. Yes!
I promote my work, but at no cost to anyone except myself and my time.
What I publish on the internet is free. as you will see if you go to my
website at www.lawrenceeleyot.co.uk You are invited to tear it to
shreds and I'm sure you will try. But the truth will out!
Respectfully.
Lawrey

Post by Proshome
...

Post by lawrey
The truthful answer to your question is: That he suddenly realised at
the last moment that he was on his own and that there was no god as he
had been taught and as we were taught. the god he refered to is the
same metaphysical being, or entity it is today and is simply
brainwashed into the minds of those who choose to believe it as I used
to. But a careful study of our early history gives us a different
understanding and not a very pleasant one. Go to: lawrenceeleyot.co.uk
for answers in The Philosophy of One on the Many.

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by jane abraham
Why Jesus said the following words as in Matthew 27:46
Matthew 27:46 (New International Version)
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[a]
lama sabachthani?"-which means, "My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?"[b]

Jane, can you accurately state what the doctrine of the trinity is?
I've only ever met one muslim who could do this. In order for you to be
taken seriously, can you state what the doctrine is?
I'm not saying you have to believe it, just restate what Christians
believe the doctrine of the trinity to be.
If you can do that, a big part of the problem disappears.

dave

[lawrey]

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by jane abraham
Why Jesus said the following words as in Matthew 27:46
Matthew 27:46 (New International Version)
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[a]
lama sabachthani?"-which means, "My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?"[b]

Jane, can you accurately state what the doctrine of the trinity is?
I've only ever met one muslim who could do this. In order for you to be
taken seriously, can you state what the doctrine is?
I'm not saying you have to believe it, just restate what Christians
believe the doctrine of the trinity to be.
If you can do that, a big part of the problem disappears.
dave

Dave,
No honest man will attempt to descibe the indescribable. The question
of the trinity has plagued scholars of all sects since it's first
inception long before the bible was written and in very old paganistic
times when the triangle of three was often in evidence. In the sense
that you refer to: the father, the son, and the holy ghost, a
three-in-one godhead, it is simply a symbolic representation of an idea
that all three are one and the same. But like most of the scriptural
references they were but conceived by man for the misguidance of men to
deceive and make mysterious what was not really understandable in the
first place. It was all about staging an effect that would impress and
make more mysterious. The Methphysical cannot be questioned because
there is no understanding of it. This is how it came about that FAITH
alone had to be in place. With faith all things are possible. Without
faith the truth creep in and spoils the mystery. It's all very simple
really, I mean in truth!
Respecfully
Lawrey.

[Old George down on the bayou]

Post by jane abraham
Why Jesus said the following words as in Matthew 27:46
Matthew 27:46 (New International Version)
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[a]
lama sabachthani?"-which means, "My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?"[b]

Jesus was praying the 22nd Psalm, to get full meaning of Jesus' prayer
read the remainder of the 22nd Psalm.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by jane abraham
Why Jesus said the following words as in Matthew 27:46
Matthew 27:46 (New International Version)
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[a]
lama sabachthani?"-which means, "My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?"[b]

Jane, can you accurately state what the doctrine of the trinity is?

Most 'Christians' cannot do this.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
I've only ever met one muslim who could do this. In order for you to be
taken seriously, can you state what the doctrine is?
I'm not saying you have to believe it, just restate what Christians
believe the doctrine of the trinity to be.
If you can do that, a big part of the problem disappears.

That might be true, but since most Christians cannot accurately state it either,
you should expect her to be skeptical. You should expect many others to be
skeptical too.

In particular, most _Western_ Christians are completely unaware of how their own
understanding of the Trinity is perverted and corrupted by this one simple false
notion known as "the Filioque". As long as one is encumbered by this false
notion, you cannot get an accurate statement of the doctrine.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
dave

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson
That might be true, but since most Christians cannot accurately state it either,
you should expect her to be skeptical. You should expect many others to be
skeptical too.

Hi Mathew,

Believe me, I'm not asking for a detailed explanation of it, just a
basic idea: one God, the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit
is God, they are all distinct persons.
The reason is that the muslims I have heard will usually say something
along the lines of "it is three gods that are supposed to be one god
and it's all just a confusing mess!"
Which if that is the best thinking they can do, then I guess there's
not too much more to talk about.
But so many verses are wasted on muslim apologetic sites proving that
Jesus can't be God because there is a distinction between the Father
and son. They claim there is so much proof against the trinity in the
bible whereas if they understood this one point: the three persons are
distinct, then perhaps they could see that finding instances of
distinction isn't disproving the trinity at all.

My own personal viewpoint of the issue is that Muhammed himself did not
understand what it was.
The Qur'an states:
5:73. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three
5.116 And when Allah will say: O Isa [Jesus] son of Marium! did you say
to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah

He made false statements about it and therefore hamstrung muslims
forever with this dilemma: if they accurately state what the trinity
is, then they implicitly acknowledge Muhammed didn't know what he was
talking about. To respect Muhammed, they must continue to perpetuate
falsehood about what the trinity is even supposed to be.

dave

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <r%W%g.27481$***@trnddc04>, ***@yahoo.com says...
[snip]

He [Mohammed] made false statements about it and therefore hamstrung muslims
forever with this dilemma: if they accurately state what the trinity
is, then they implicitly acknowledge Muhammed didn't know what he was
talking about. To respect Muhammed, they must continue to perpetuate
falsehood about what the trinity is even supposed to be.

And that is exactly what they do. They are not even conscious of the dilemma.
That is a perfect example of why Manuel Palaeologus, quoting the comedian
Aristophanes, said that even when you convince them, they remain unconvinced, so
that any attempt at discussion with them is completely in vain.

Remember all the hullabaloo when the Roman Pope quoted Palaeologus? But I have
since then looked at the work, and I think the Emperor was right on the money.

His exact words, in the Latin translation, were:

Et iis, qui persuasum aliquid habent, persuadere conari, omnino
supervacaneum est, Theodore fratre charissime: et illos docere, qui
priore in sententia, etiam postquam falsitatis convicta est,
permanent, vanissimum. Unde stolidum quodammodo videre possit, cum
quibuslibet de Turcarum infidelitate vel falso nominata fide
colloqui. Etenim, si quis de ista cum piis agat, cum iis quibus
persuasum est colloquetur: sin vero cum impiis illis, non persuadebis,
etiamsi persuaseris, ut ait Comicus [Arisophenes. Plutus, ac.II, sc.V
vers600: OU PEISEIS, OUD' HN PEISHIS]. Nam errori, cui sese volentes
ipsi dediderunt, adhaerent, ut polypi petris. Id cum ex multis semper
audissem, nuper ipsa rerum experientia videre mihi contigit.

I don't have time to translate them right now.

[Eric Bohn]

<snip>

Post by Matthew Johnson

...they implicitly acknowledge Muhammed didn't know what he was
talking about. To respect Muhammed, they must continue to perpetuate
falsehood about what the trinity is even supposed to be.

And that is exactly what they do. They are not even conscious of the dilemma.
That is a perfect example of why Manuel Palaeologus, quoting the comedian
Aristophanes, said that even when you convince them, they remain unconvinced, so
that any attempt at discussion with them is completely in vain.
Remember all the hullabaloo when the Roman Pope quoted Palaeologus? But I have
since then looked at the work, and I think the Emperor was right on the money.

<snip>

Thus illustrating the importance of *faith* in arriving at mutual
understanding. Without faith, the seed of reason, even if it convicts,
will not yield conviction. This is why the Pope used that citation as
a good example of the need for a mariage of faith and reason. Thus
faith should be employed in determining what battles should be fought
and which should be avoided.

In fact, the same could be said of those who reject the filoque. Many
people reject it because they simply don't have the faith they need to
*actually* believe it. On the other hand, some people know the filoque
to be true and reject it anyway.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Eric Bohn
<snip>

Post by Matthew Johnson

...they implicitly acknowledge Muhammed didn't know what he was
talking about. To respect Muhammed, they must continue to
perpetuate falsehood about what the trinity is even supposed to
be.

And that is exactly what they do. They are not even conscious of
the dilemma. That is a perfect example of why Manuel Palaeologus,
quoting the comedian Aristophanes, said that even when you convince
them, they remain unconvinced, so that any attempt at discussion
with them is completely in vain.

[snip]

Post by Eric Bohn
Thus illustrating the importance of *faith* in arriving at mutual
understanding. Without faith, the seed of reason, even if it
convicts, will not yield conviction. This is why the Pope used that
citation as a good example of the need for a mariage of faith and
reason. Thus faith should be employed in determining what battles
should be fought and which should be avoided.
In fact, the same could be said of those who reject the filoque.

It could be said, but it would be wrong to do so. In fact, bringing
that up, and trying to establish this fictitious connection, is a
_perfect_ example of how NOT to go about "determining what battles
should be fought and which should be avoided."

After all, you picked one you certainly should have avoided (Luk
14:31).

Post by Eric Bohn
Many people reject it because they simply don't have the faith they
need to *actually* believe it.

Oh, really, Eric? I say it is quite the other way around: many people
_entertain_ the Filioque because they don't have to faith they need to
actually believe in the Trinity as it really is, which is _without_
the Filioque.

Post by Eric Bohn
On the other hand, some people know the filoque to be true and reject
it anyway.

How can they "know it to be true", when it is false? Such presumption,
Eric, is completely incompatible with the Christian faith. Yet without
presumption, nobody will believe the Filioque is even necessary, as
Lossky proved so well.

[lawrey]

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

He [Mohammed] made false statements about it and therefore hamstrung muslims
forever with this dilemma: if they accurately state what the trinity
is, then they implicitly acknowledge Muhammed didn't know what he was
talking about. To respect Muhammed, they must continue to perpetuate
falsehood about what the trinity is even supposed to be.

And that is exactly what they do. They are not even conscious of the dilemma.
That is a perfect example of why Manuel Palaeologus, quoting the comedian
Aristophanes, said that even when you convince them, they remain unconvinced, so

...

Post by Matthew Johnson
Et iis, qui persuasum aliquid habent, persuadere conari, omnino
supervacaneum est, Theodore fratre charissime: et illos docere, qui

...

Oh! how foolish you appear to the majority who do not understand the
language you are so proud to be able to write but do not translate to
us lesser mortals. How clever you are! should we perchance bow our
heads in reverence to your stupidity and what purpose other than
boosting your ego do you serve your fellows or for that matter the
cause you espouse.As well as the latin you could more easily have used
English that most understand!
Lawrey

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <004gh.8376$***@trnddc06>, lawrey says...
[snip]

Post by lawrey
Oh! how foolish you appear to the majority who do not understand the
language you are so proud to be able to write but do not translate to
us lesser mortals.

But not as foolish as you appear to the rest of us, who know you are playing
psychologist even when you have no clue what you are doing.

Those of us who have a lot of experirende with this NG know better than to be so
presumptuous.

[snip]

Post by lawrey
As well as the latin you could more easily have used
English that most understand!

Then perhaps YOU will care to post the translation. In case you have not
noticed, this particular work has not been published in English translation yet.