My understanding is that “tetelestai” ( It is accomplished) was the traditional, triumphant cry of a general returning victorious from battle with prisoners in train.

God sent His Son to save mankind, therefore God had a plan, and if we accept the Gospel then we will see that plan as culminating in calvery and the resurrection. To rise from the dead Jesus had to die, and from scripture it would seem that the reurrection was the pinnacle of that plan.

Jayne (in Aroha, Hope, and Love. ) nz

. * . (\ *** /) * . A saint is not one who never falls
*.* ( \(_)/ ) * * It is one who gets up and goes on
. . (_ /||\_) . * every time they fall.
* . /____\ *..* (Anon.

Q: What impresses you about Mark’s account?
A: Looking at Mark’s account in the light of what Mfundisi wrote, Mark shows a Jesus who did not know in advance/was not able to predict what the outcome would be – i.e. a Jesus who is totally human.

I didn’t realise before the negative interpretation of “the veil of the sanctuary was split”. Mfundisi’s comment about the ‘positive gloss’ of Paul’s interpretation of this, helped me see the lack of ‘positive gloss’ in the rest of Mark’s account. In particular, I saw the depiction of the brutality of the soldiers in Mark’s account in a way I’d not noticed before.

Some people link “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me” with the reassuring ending of Psalm 21 (“He has not………turned his face away from me; my cry for help did not go unheeded”).

I started comparing the Mark version and the Luke version, and noted that there is no “Father, forgive them”, and no mention of Paradise in Mark’s version, as there is in Luke’s version.

I don’t see that Mark’s version shows a Jesus who was totally alone and abandoned, because “there were women there, who stood watching from far off; among them were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome.”

Q: The Centurion said “Truly, this man was the Son of God”. How would you express your basic conviction?
A: Mfundisi’s commentary has led me to look at the difference between ‘a’ Son of God and ‘the’ Son of God and the origins of ‘the only Son of God’ as featured in various Creeds. I’ve been looking up the difference between real sons and adopted sons, where all that came from, and trying to see where that links in with beliefs about the Trinity. I find expressions such as ‘the Son of God’ very difficult. When did God start to be seen as male gendered and how did that come about? Now I’m looking up websites about Christian Unitarianism, because I don’t find the concept of Jesus as the Son of God very helpful, and it is reassuring to me to find that Jesus did not describe himself in that way.

“the traditional cry of a Roman conqueror” A bit of a tangent, but I’d be interested to know more about the historical context for this. I didn’t know that it was a traditional cry.

“Is the “revelatory” understanding of the Cross a sufficient understanding? Or do we have to say that, on the Cross, something “objective” was done to achieve our salvation?”

Does it have to be either/or or can it be both?

I have seen quite strong arguments that Jesus was killed by human action, which God did not pre-destine. I don’t accept those arguments, but it shows diversity of interpretation between people in the same denomination.

For me, the opening words of the John’s Gospel are sufficient “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

It just seems to set the scene for everything from Genesis onwards.

Exactly what it says. Jesus, on the cross, is still able to function, despite His suffring, and gives forgiveness to those who seek it.

We don’t know what prompted the thief to seek His forgiveness, maybe he had heard Jesus preaching. Whatever the cause, it was enough that he asked.

Jayne (In Aroha, Peace and Hope) NZ

. * . (\ *** /) *. * Take this message of repentance to all
* . * ( \(_)/ ) * * the nations, beginning in Jerusalem.
* * (_ /||\_) . * There is forgiveness of sins
* *. /____\ * . * for all who turn to me.
Luke 24:47 (NLT)

As one set aside from the disiples, he may well have had access to the happenings on that Thursday and Friday, that the others did not, thus, for example, his referal to Herod.

Jayne (In Aroha, Peace and Hope) NZ

. * . (\ *** /) *. * Take this message of repentance to all
* . * ( \(_)/ ) * * the nations, beginning in Jerusalem.
* * (_ /||\_) . * There is forgiveness of sins
* *. /____\ * . * for all who turn to me.
Luke 24:47 (NLT)

“The death of an Innocent Martyr”? I am not sure of this interpretation – for me, Luke appears to be affirming Jesus as the promised one, sent to suffer because of our sin – he goes to great lengths to spell it out, matching it to scripture and prophecy.

“Today you will be with me in Paradise” ? My thought has always been that the thief who defended Jesus was expressing contrition and regret for his own actions – and recognising that Jesus was “without fault”. The promise that Jesus had made that those who come to him, will be with him in the next world – when all is made new.

“Luke aiming at Gentiles”? My understanding is that the Gospel of Luke was written substantially later (30 years or more) from the death and Resurrection. At this time of the early church, it was already spreading, while those immediate witnesses were getting older or passing. If Luke traveled extensively with Paul, it is likely that he would be considering the wider audience who would hear the story – it must have influenced his output.

Of course, our understanding of the Gospels is as the words inspired by the Holy Spirit – so that influence cannot be discounted when we try to answer such questions.

Putting yourself inside the mind of someone who lived 2000 years ago, must be a difficult and arduous task – you would need to be totally immersed in the whole language and culture of the times and to have thoroughly studied every available source to even hope to get a tiny inkling of the intentions behind the inspiration for writing in the way Luke did.

I await others considerations with interest.

The vigil as such is traditional in Christian Churches and is in the main based on Mark’s Gospel.

I feel that the events from Palm Sunday through to the Ascension are critical in our understanding and acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, as our Saviour and Redeemer who has gone ahead of us to prepare the New Kingdom of God for us.

Marks Gospel is instrumental in this process of discernment, understanding and belief.

Matthew highlights the amazement of Jesus that someone who was not a Jew, could have such faith in him. The words used by the Centurion now survive in our liturgy as “Lord I am now worthy to receive you – only say the word and I will be healed”.

For me – these words express how I feel about my faith and belief in Jesus Christ as the Living Son of God – despite my unworthiness as a sinner, he forgives and heals us willingly and always.