Matthew 27:46

[Esther4:14]

What you have written above is a complete perversion of the text.  The gospel accounts are based on psalm 22 verse 1 that Jesus is quoting.  It is not a positive experience to say the least.  I would throw away that bible version it sounds worthless.

I would agree 100%. When we read Psalm 22 and see what it reveals about the sufferings of the Savior and His agony on the Cross (which were all necessities for our redemption) then we dare not put a different spin on this verse.  Christ said again and again that He must suffer (in His body, soul, and spirit), and if the experience of the Cross had not be horrifying, He certainly would not have cried out to the Father to take away that "cup" of suffering. Stick with the King James Bible.

But, He didn't cry out the same way or seem distressed in the same in the other Gospel accounts.  It is like they are completely different narratives.  

[gdemoss]

What you have written above is a complete perversion of the text.  The gospel accounts are based on psalm 22 verse 1 that Jesus is quoting.  It is not a positive experience to say the least.  I would throw away that bible version it sounds worthless.

Hmm, then how do you address the four Gospels presenting that Jesus said something different each time?  Or, that this statement coming from the man who knew it was His will to go to the cross, sounds almost like He doesn't understand the will of God anymore.  So, the point I am making is looking at the word on a deeper level and in recognizing that the word does serves a positive or negative way.  When Jesus is saying this, He is not saying this.  He is then saying this to identify with David in his suffering if we associate this with Psalm 22.  

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15).  

So, the experience is different because He is saying this in order to complete the will of God for Him, and not because during the time on the cross He is actually separated from God, which is a common narrative that is made up in order for us to understand the conflict between Jesus knowing the will of God at one moment, and not knowing the will of God in the next.  Changing the word, challenges the made up narrative of this account scripture does not confirm anywhere like a defibrillator because no where does it say that Jesus was concerned about going to the cross because He did not want to be separated from the Father.  That is something that we have completely made up to explain Him saying this.   In truth, Jesus might not have wanted to go to the cross because it would be a painful way to die and He was able to feel pain because He was given a nervous system.  

Therefore, when He would say this, it was not because He was not being comforted that He has successfully finished what He set out for Him to do.  

The word simply means to leave or abandon.  I could use it to say I left my lunch  at home when I went to work.  This is true but it never means to honor.  

Deception begins when the question is asked did God really say?

Please don't make it out to be something it is not for Jesus is declaring unto the hearers that this is a fulfillment of psalm 22.  They would know that it says they have pierced my hands and feet.  They would know that this that was happening ends with good as does the psalm but make no mistake but for the joy before him Jesus ENDURED the cross.  There was nothing pleasant or comforting about the cross except knowing what comes AFTER he suffered death, burial and resurrection. 

Be not deceived as was Eve.  Please do not diminish the suffering of the Lord.

Edited October 14, 2015 by gdemoss

[missmuffet]

Matthew 27:46 

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

This is when Jesus yielded up his spirit on the cross.As simple as that.Why make it more complicated?

[Esther4:14]

Matthew 27:46 

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

This is when Jesus yielded up his spirit on the cross.As simple as that.Why make it more complicated?

For one very simple reason.  There is a reason that the church today does manifest the same gifts as the time of Pentecost.  Maybe, it is for the very simple reason that our translations could be taken to the next level.  People like Tyndale and Wycliffe did their best, but it is as though everyone accepts the way things are as though there was nothing they could do about it.  As though there were nothing that were oppressing their understanding.  Breaking the barrier that separates us from the time of Pentecost could be easily resolved by a better understanding of what it was that they knew.  Maybe, the difference between us and the disciples is that they heard and understood what Jesus said and our versions are still watered down to the point where we are not capable of doing the same.  It is a very significant thing to consider when we are surrounded by tribulations not a question of making something more complicated than it should be, and it would be a much more worthwhile endeavor than the massive amount of time that the church wastes following politics.  It would be a much better way to spend our time.  

Edited October 14, 2015 by Esther4:14

[Esther4:14]

Apparently, using the original Aramaic texts is something that is growing popular within the Messianic church.  Here is a video that explains this verse in particular according to the Aramaic texts. 

The thing is that we can get so comfortable with our church scripts, that we neglect using discernment when we hear things.  Instead we say what our customer service team called key words at key times, but then we can just keep saying something that is false that now appears to be true because it is what everyone knows.    

What I am saying again, and then I will stop because I can tell that there are no ears to hear here, is that the corruption in the Bible relates to the revealing of the Son of Perdition.  Scripture should be accurate, but we should also strive for the best and be able to improve upon the work of many people who have blessed us with the opportunity to read the scriptures for ourselves.  We should be able to question something in order to improve upon it.  This is part of being a good Berean (Acts 17:11)

There are many sermons from Messianic teachers on the subject of the original Aramaic texts on YouTube in anyone is interested in the subject.  

Edited May 6, 2017 by OneLight
Removed YouTube Link

[thereselittleflower]

Apparently, using the original Aramaic texts is something that is growing popular within the Messianic church.  Here is a video that explains this verse in particular according to the Aramaic texts.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-C8nsE_lg8

The thing is that we can get so comfortable with our church scripts, that we neglect using discernment when we hear things.  Instead we say what our customer service team called key words at key times, but then we can just keep saying something that is false that now appears to be true because it is what everyone knows.    

What I am saying again, and then I will stop because I can tell that there are no ears to hear here, is that the corruption in the Bible relates to the revealing of the Son of Perdition.  Scripture should be accurate, but we should also strive for the best and be able to improve upon the work of many people who have blessed us with the opportunity to read the scriptures for ourselves.  We should be able to question something in order to improve upon it.  This is part of being a good Berean (Acts 17:11)

There are many sermons from Messianic teachers on the subject of the original Aramaic texts on YouTube in anyone is interested in the subject.  

Esther, why are messianic teachers better than others?

 

[gdemoss]

The question is an excellent one, "why don't we see the same power that was in the days of pentecost?".  Jesus spoke of the answer in Luke 18 when he said "when the son of man comes will he find faith on earth?".

It will be interesting to see what new doctrines come out with this relatively new movement concerning primal aramaic texts.

[firestormx]

 

Matthew 27:46 

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

This is when Jesus yielded up his spirit on the cross.As simple as that.Why make it more complicated?

For one very simple reason.  There is a reason that the church today does manifest the same gifts as the time of Pentecost.    

I don't respond much anymore to posts for personal reasons but felt compelled to respond to this statement you say above. I believe gdemoss hinted at a part of the problem, faith. But let me be more specific. Read the verses below and notice a couple things. When Jesus went back to his own country what was there that day? In that town that day you the presence of God himself in Jesus ( Jesus is God in the flesh ) and the healing of a few sick folk. Now why was this all you had in that town that day and no mighty works? It tells us in verses 5 and 6. Because of there unbelief. Now stop and think for a moment, what do you have at the best of church services anywhere in this country today? At best, you have the presence of God himself and if your really lucky, also you will have the healing of a few sick folk. The very same you had in Jesus own country when he marveled at there unbelief. So, what was there unbelief? Did they believe nothing about Jesus? No, they thought they knew him well, but they were wrong. They did not believe in the truth.

  I personally just find it to be to much of a coincidence that the 2 situations mirror each other so much. People are so convinced they are right they won't even consider the chance they might be wrong on something in the bible or about Jesus. Go ask people if they know everything about God. They will say no. Then turn around and ask them about every subject in the bible you can think of one by one.  They will tell you the answer every time and if you disagree with them, then you have to be in error and false doctrine. So many Christians either know nothing about Jesus or think they know everything. It all leaves me wondering then, how many actually know Jesus himself and don't just know about him.

I agree that part of the problem is a lack of faith. A lack of faith in the truth. People in that town believed in what they reasoned out in there minds was the truth, instead of accepting what Jesus said was the truth. They were blind, and so blind to the truth they didn't even know they were blind. I wonder how many of us are the same. May God bless you all.

 

Mark 6:1-6

And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.

2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Edited October 14, 2015 by firestormx

[Guest shiloh357]

Apparently, using the original Aramaic texts is something that is growing popular within the Messianic church.  Here is a video that explains this verse in particular according to the Aramaic texts.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-C8nsE_lg8

The thing is that we can get so comfortable with our church scripts, that we neglect using discernment when we hear things.  Instead we say what our customer service team called key words at key times, but then we can just keep saying something that is false that now appears to be true because it is what everyone knows.    

What I am saying again, and then I will stop because I can tell that there are no ears to hear here, is that the corruption in the Bible relates to the revealing of the Son of Perdition.  Scripture should be accurate, but we should also strive for the best and be able to improve upon the work of many people who have blessed us with the opportunity to read the scriptures for ourselves.  We should be able to question something in order to improve upon it.  This is part of being a good Berean (Acts 17:11)

There are many sermons from Messianic teachers on the subject of the original Aramaic texts on YouTube in anyone is interested in the subject.  

What do you mean by "Messianic?"    There is a gentile "Messianic" movement which little more than a cult and has a lot of false doctrines associated with it.   "Messianic"   has been hijacked by some to teach some really bad stuff and they exploit the Hebraic nature of Scripture to do that.   Which Messianic groups are you referring to??

[Guest shiloh357]

This is taken from the Hebraic Roots Bible, which was translated by a private ministry and is free online in different formats from http://www.coyhwh.com/en/bible.php  I was fortunate enough to find this about a year ago when I finally got fed up with the KJV only debates and Bibles printed by Zondervan.  I do believe that the KJV corrupted the work of Erasmus and intentionally made it poetic and intentionally evolved the English language to create a barrier to understanding, and Zondervan prints questionable material.  A Bible publisher should have standards that exclude material from being printed.  If you can print some material that is questionable, it is suspicious that the Bible would be printed with integrity.  

I enjoy this version, as I do enjoy using Tyndale's version.  Tyndale's version is very easy to read once you get past the differences in spelling.  

Anyways, Matthew 27:46 in the Hebraic Roots Bible reads: 

"And about the ninth hour, Yahshua cried out with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama shabakthani; that is My El, My El, why did You honor Me to be here?"   

This is a very familiar verse that usually reads 

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (KJV).  

which caused me to investigate the reason for changing forsaken to honor.  

The footnotes of the Hebraic Roots Bible reads "This verse has been greatly misquoted as the original Aramaic can mean to leave in a good way, such as if you  were an owner of a company and had to go away and left someone very trusted to care for your business while you were gone.  From Isaiah 63:1-9, we see that only Messiah qualified to redeem Israel and it is stating here the honor given to Him for His perfect life and sacrifice," (p. 1215).  

According to Strong's Concordance, the word in Greek can stress towards a positive or stress towards a negative.  

Therefore, the word might not technically be translated wrong, per se; however, English has many more words in our vocabulary and is not required for this word to hold a positive or negative meaning.  We have other words to describe positive experiences, while we commonly use this word to describe negative ones.  

However, this has not stopped us in the church from creating a positive narrative to go with this word that describes a negative experience in English.  I have heard many extra-Biblical descriptions like how this verse is describing a separation between Jesus and God for the time that He was hanging on the cross for our sins.  We have created this story to go along with it that describes and dramatizes the experience of the cross with something that is mentioned no where else in scripture.  No where does Jesus say that He does not want to die on the cross because it will separate Him from the Father.  

It is common that we attach His time in Gethsemane to accentuate the way we have reconciled using a word that more often has a negative experience in English from a word that carries both meaning in languages of antiquity.  We explain that this experience of separation would have been why Jesus asked that this cup might pass from Him-because it would be too much for Him to have to be separated from the Father during His time on the cross (Matthew 26:39).  

So, we know whether we know that the word held a double meaning in the original language or not, that using the word forsaken does not hold the same meaning that we commonly believe when we use this word at other times.  We instinctively know that this is not the same meaning, which is why we have created multiple narratives to explain this verse in a positive way.  In other words, we know that He does not leave Jesus because He is dying on the cross whether we use the word forsake or not.  

Now, when compare this verse with the last words of Jesus from the other Gospels how does it compare.  

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34).  

Mark is said to be the first gospel and Matthew is said to have been derived from this original text, so the verses repeat for the same reason.  The actual word translated is used to stress positively and negatively.

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (Luke 23:46)

Luke is also said to have derived from the gospel of Mark; however, he transcribes a experience that translates in a positive experience of finishing on the cross using different words.  

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19:30).  

John's gospel speaks of a positive experience of accomplishment as well.  

Therefore, all four gospels translate towards a positive experience.  So, if we change the word forsake to a word that more clearly translates a positive experience in the English language, we are given a completely different experience from the text.  Instead of reconciling the way it sounds like Jesus is saying He is forsaken because we instinctively know that is not what is happening.  When we use a word like honor, he is no longer separated from the Father on the cross the way He does not appear to be in the other gospel accounts.  He is being comforted.  It is as though the Father is with Him while He is on the cross, comforting Him, telling Him how He will be honored and how all the things He has promised to Him will be fulfilled because He has been obedient to the point of suffering death on the cross.  

It changes what we expect if we were to experience suffering as well if we were to clearly see how the Father never left His side, but was comforting Him and reminding of the reward that was set before Him for finishing the race set before Him (Hebrews 12:1).  

This is a narrative that is much more more consistent with the other Gospel accounts and the rest of scripture considering how frequently we read "he will never leave you nor forsake you" (Deuteronomy 31:6; Hebrews 13:5; Genesis 28:15; 1 Kings 8:57; etc).  In fact, it is probably because of this that we have never been comfortable believing that Jesus was ever saying He was forsaken.  

What do you think? 

 

 

Looks to me like have a lot of self-proclaimed experts in the original Aramaic who likely have no actual advanced degrees or scholarship in the original languages and are hoping they can make their statements appear authoritative when reality they are nothing more than false teachers.   When people start telling us that our Bibles have had it wrong for all these centuries and we are all reading mistranslations, and stuff, it should send up a red flag that something is wrong.