Speaking of our earlier discussion of acronyms. I came across this relevant quote today:
Eaglesway, your understanding is closer to mine than I had previously thought.
Cool
I see Hebrews 12 as a picture of a great heavenly wind tunnel. Jesus is at the apex, drawing all men to Himself by the Spirit of God pouring through Him.
Myriads of angels attend Him, ascending and descending, executing His will. The spirits of righteousmen made perfect cast their crowns before Him, and intercede with Him, like in Revelations the souls beneath the altar praying and the incense of their prayers bringing lightnings and thunders as they await the completion of time. “The Lord adding daily such as are appointed to be saved” and the general assembly of the firstborn registered in heaven grows with the growth that is from God, and the tabernacle of God in the heavens is "fitly joined together’ according to God’s design - as it prepares to “come down out of the heavens” and manifest in its fulness in the earth, where heaven will be in the next age and beyond, overflowing earth as the glory of the Lord covers the earth as the waters cover the sea.
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Heb 12
7And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, Even the veil which is stretched over all nations. 8He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; Isaiah 25
oops.
I’m totally confused. Between Eaglesway and Paidion, who is Mr. Spock and who is Dr. McCoy 
Figments of the imagination.
This is known as the “false-cause fallacy.” Your assumption is that if Jesus asked God why He forsook Him, then it follows that God in fact forsook Him. Then you give an example, that makes a hasty generalization (another fallacy). You think it belongs in the “Why did you hit me?” category. It doesn’t. When you are asked, “Why did you hit me?” you KNOW that someone has hit you. Jesus didn’t KNOW that God forsook Him; He only thought so because, as fully human, He FELT forsaken simply on the basis that God took no steps to prevent his death.
This kind of thing happens among people all the time. For example, Mary, a good friend of Joan’s has not called her or contacted her for a week. Then Joan calls up Mary, and asks, “Why are you angry with me?” In fact, Mary is not angry with Joan; she had gone on a trip and had forgotten to mention it to Joan. But Joan FEELS that Mary must be angry with her simply on the basis that Mary had not contacted her for a week.
Ad Hominem fallacy. It has nothing to do with supporting your belief.
Yet another Ad Hominem attack.
That’s the kind of thing one must resort to, when one is able to find no support for one’s belief.
Eusebius, if I had been arguing in favour of your idea that God had forsaken Jesus, I would have at least quoted Isaiah 53:10
Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (RSV)
If it was the will of the LORD to bruise Him and put Him to grief, then it would seem that He must have forsaken Him!
However, the Septuagint—the Hebrew Scriptures from which the New Testament writers quoted says just the opposite—not that the LORD’s will was to wound Him, but rather His will was to cleanse Him of His wound (inflicted on Him by others):
The Lord wishes to cleanse Him of His wound, and if you give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed. (Orthodox Study Bible)
Eusebius wrote (I think as it was in a quote from Paidion)
‘big letter emphasis mine’ 
This forum is not only a place to voice your idea’s but a place to ‘sharpen the sword’ so to speak. We all do it, and as DaveB said, “we all take our lumps”
But it is good, and can be very beneficial.
Peace
Chad
Reminds me of an interesting article I shared earlier, from the Protestant site Patheos at Solo scriptura vs. sola scriptura.
Speaking of lumps. Like this, Chad:?: If Bugs Bunny were real (like Harvey, from the Mary Chase’s play - of the same name), he would excel - in the Holy Fools tradition 
or
Ohhh three or four
Totally agreed
Agreed, not a requirement to earn God’s love. However, certainly a requirement to receive the fruits of obedience. One who disobeys will not receive the blessings of obedience in this life. In other words if you want to stay out of trouble, it is a requirement to obey Christ. One who loves his enemies will receive temporal blessing, but one who murders his enemies will receive temporal suffering.
No one need to trust me to escape misery, but one must trust and obey Christ.
Yes there are many in misery today who need to know Christ and we are commissioned to tell them!
Randy, in response to your link Solo scriptura vs. sola scriptura
I copied a portion of it. It said:
I would say that this is one of the area’s the reformers actually condoned and actually took part in (the translation of the bible in the common languages), but at the same time tried to turn or tame (thus the creeds etc…). It is no secret that the ‘knowing ones’ in the Catholic church thought it absurd to allow common folk to read and ‘God forbid’ make up their own mind about the word of God.
I would take the side of the original reformers (in their wanting the word of God available to the common people like me), which in turn brings us full circle to places like this. (forum)
Good Stuff IMHO
Thanks for your answer sir.
Which brings up some interesting questions, to pose to Dave. If we reject the insights of historical church fathers, theologians, philosophers, reformers and creeds:
Should we say that the **correct **understanding, is who puts forth the best argument - from scripture?
And if so, who is to be the **judge **of the contest and what is their criterion?
Or should we go back and visit the elephant and the blind men?
Randy said:
Well, you are correct that that it is an interesting question, and one that I myself is probably the last person you may want to listen to, but because we are on a forum I will go ahead and indulge.
I might suggest, (I am speaking predominantly for myself here) we should not reject the insights of historical fathers. ANY OF THEM. As you know Randy, folks have been hammering these things out since… well since time began
But as I realize what the the new covenant / new creation really means, I totally believe that God is… how shall I say, empowering us (you and me and everyone else who loves the Lord) with the tools to work through and discern issues and changes that are happening with people and cultures. We are in a world that is shrinking. As an agent of Christ, my belief is that we meet this world head on and use the intellect (intelligence) we have to show others the magnificent story of Christ and to try in some way to help them along the way. It is a humble yet grand message.
The Idea of correct understanding is A PERSONAL COVENANT WITH YOU AND GOD. That is what the Idea of Paulian Faith is about. Paul admonished the Galatians for believing a false gospel. If you believe the Baptist or the Pentecostal or the Jehovah witness or the…you name it, My contention is that THOSE THAT SEEK THE LORD SHALL FIND TRUTH. The Holy spirit will be our personal PAUL. 
If you want fame. money, personal gratification… all these things will lead to places that never quite fit the bill to the believer/searcher. So the search will continue. 
I’m not sure I dealt with your question, but that’s what came to me.
Peace
Chad
If Joan knows her friend well enough, that Mary would never simply go away and forget to tell her, she would not feel that Mary is angry with her. I think she would be more inclined to feel that something terrible may have happened to her friend and would be filing a missing persons report.
Strong’s exhaustive…
Interesting. Maybe Jesus was not forsaken, but rather left. Having never experienced separation from the Father and being in agony this would certainly hav an effect of shock and awe upon HIm, while the Father, having not forsaken Him, was nevertheless withdrawn from Him by the effect of Christ’s experience of death, which, altho it could not hold Him, caused Him to experience separation from God at the level of His consciouness.