[dreiviergrenadier]

(Original post by Facticity)
God's people live for God's purpose - God's purpose is his people.

I'm not convinced by this. Surely we have to say that God's purpose is for His creation, which is what is ultimately being redeemed. Humans are but a small part of creation, and without this foundational understanding, we will never be able to appreciate [and respond to] modern challenges to issues of stewardship, or the woefully inadequate understanding most people have of non-human animal life.

(Original post by iwantcurlyhairtoo)
If God is all knowing and all powerful isn't the act of praying actually undermining God seeing as though everything is exactly as it should be at all times and by praying we are trying to change God's will?

The second point I'd like to make is.. are 'natural disasters' (Hurricaines, Tornadoes, Flash floods etc) God's work? Or am I gettting the wrong end of the stick? Can God control the weather?

For prayer - I think it is necessary to point out that prayers are far more than just requests or praise. It might be helpful for you to go through a Bible and look for prayers, and just see the kind of things going on - it's quite diverse.

But for your more specific question about prayers which request things - I think you might be seeing the issue a bit too narrowly. God's will and our own wills aren't necessarily polar opposites. If we our wrong about what ought to happen, then we should hope that God's will prevails. But it's perfectly possible for there to be multiple good choices in a given situation - and there's no reason to suppose that we are wrong for having a preference. Equally, in our imperfect world, there are questions of priority - many things need to happen, and it would be good for them to happen. We shouldn't suppose that we cannot or will not influence these kinds of decisions with our prayers.

As for natural disasters - the term is fairly loaded. Many are not inherently 'natural' or 'disasters'! Humans have far greater influence on our environment than we realise - we cause, or increase in severity, many so-called 'natural' events - climate change can cause more hurricanes, droughts etc than would otherwise occur (and with greater severity), deforestation can cause mudslides, floods and so on.

Equally, many things wouldn't be 'disasters' without human wrongfulness. Earthquakes, for example, can make the earth move. There is nothing particularly bad about earth moving. Tsunamis can move water and flood land - again, not inherently bad. What is bad is when human beings cluster around areas that are known to be seismically active/flood-prone (or force the poor to live there), when governments don't impose building measures that can alleviate the effect of earthquakes/tsunamis (Istanbul is due a huge earthquake, and I believe the government has spent the 'earthquake tax' elsewhere), or when humans remove naturally protective barriers (e.g. the destruction of mangrove swamps that contributed to the huge death toll in the 2004 Asian tsunami).

And there are things that even westerners distant from most of these problems can do. The first is radically minimise your carbon footprint, and encourage others to do the same (the easiest way to reduce your own footprint is to cut out animal products from your diet). The second would be to look into particularly damaging activities and campaign against them (fracking, prawn-fishing etc), and to promote companies that trade responsibly for people and the planet.

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
So you do not believe the execution of Jesus by them to be sinful on their part? Likewise Judas committed no sin in acting as the betrayer. The bible would disagree with you:
Luke 23:34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

If this is not an assertion that they are sinning then I have trouble understanding the verse.

None the less, the point is that God's will has been furthered by sin; thus your definition is untenable by virtue of the fact that it is self-contradictory once we accept the execution of Jesus both as God's will and a sin.

It's fairly clear that Judas did sin, but I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion from it. Some acts inherently go against God's purposes - God does not want any of us to torture/murder etc. The consequences of such actions don't really come into that. If God is able to make it such that good consequences can come from even sinful actions - all credit to Him. But God's ultimate will is that no such actions should happen - so the definition of sin remains valid.

[P.Kaur]

Please explain the concept of free will in Christianity, with reference to scriptural quotes if possible. It seems the vast majority of Christians believe in free will. God controls everything except our free will.

Is this because an omnipotent God is unable to have a say in free will, or that he chooses not to? Is The Fall the best example of God granting us free will? Is there any evidence for determinism in the Bible?

[Facticity]

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
I'm not convinced by this. Surely we have to say that God's purpose is for His creation, which is what is ultimately being redeemed. Humans are but a small part of creation, and without this foundational understanding, we will never be able to appreciate [and respond to] modern challenges to issues of stewardship, or the woefully inadequate understanding most people have of non-human animal life.

Yes, I'd agree it was his creation, I was simply addressing the issue of people at the time. But I'm not so sure my meaning would change altogether that much as your point would imply. I do agree on a lot of misconception about stewardship but at the same time, I think its plainly obvious that human's are jealously guarded by God, whereas non-human animal life isn't. Perhaps I fall into your category for inadequate understanding, but I haven't really gotten from the Bible that we should care for animals, as we keep humans; which is (correct me if I'm wrong) where your stance on the issue is.

[greeneyedgirl]

(Original post by P.Kaur)
Please explain the concept of free will in Christianity, with reference to scriptural quotes if possible. It seems the vast majority of Christians believe in free will. God controls everything except our free will.

Is this because an omnipotent God is unable to have a say in free will, or that he chooses not to? Is The Fall the best example of God granting us free will? Is there any evidence for determinism in the Bible?

I'm probably going to be very controversial and say we don't have free will in the sense it's most commonly used. There are definitely passages about pre-determination in the Bible which kinda rejects the whole free will idea. How I see it is that God's plan will always happen and while we may have the appearance of free will (after all it's not like I go to eat a marmite sandwich and then suddenly am being pulled back and told to eat a cheese one or something) it's kinda not just us in control. It's a tricky concept to explain/understand and I'm not sure I really do it justice.

[dreiviergrenadier]

(Original post by Facticity)
Yes, I'd agree it was his creation, I was simply addressing the issue of people at the time. But I'm not so sure my meaning would change altogether that much as your point would imply. I do agree on a lot of misconception about stewardship but at the same time, I think its plainly obvious that human's are jealously guarded by God, whereas non-human animal life isn't. Perhaps I fall into your category for inadequate understanding, but I haven't really gotten from the Bible that we should care for animals, as we keep humans; which is (correct me if I'm wrong) where your stance on the issue is.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'as we keep humans', so it may or may not be my view, I'm not sure. At any rate, I certainly think we have a very strong obligation to care for animals (which would stop us treating them as mere means to humans ends).

I'm not quite sure though where you get the idea that humans are jealously guarded to the exclusion of animals. After all, Israel was jealously guarded by God, but this certainly didn't imply that non-Israelites didn't have rights. The Bible is fairly clear that Creation is going to be redeemed (not just humanity), and God's concern for animals is left in no doubt - He cares deeply about the very animals the Jews thought least valuable [sparrows]. Equally, Jesus makes a point about rescuing animals on the Sabbath (something that's permissible even though it would constitute work). Its quite telling about the nature and value of animal life - imagine a modern western Christian talking to Jesus about animals:

MWC - animals are worthless, I can do whatever I like to them for whatever purposes I choose.

Jesus - err...animals are valuable to God, alleviating their suffering is more important even than resting on the Sabbath. Please justify how you've treated our beautiful, valuable, created creatures.

MWC - oh damn.

[dreiviergrenadier]

(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
I'm probably going to be very controversial and say we don't have free will in the sense it's most commonly used. There are definitely passages about pre-determination in the Bible which kinda rejects the whole free will idea. How I see it is that God's plan will always happen and while we may have the appearance of free will (after all it's not like I go to eat a marmite sandwich and then suddenly am being pulled back and told to eat a cheese one or something) it's kinda not just us in control. It's a tricky concept to explain/understand and I'm not sure I really do it justice.

But God's plan clearly doesn't always come to fruition - Creation is fallen.

[greeneyedgirl]

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
But God's plan clearly doesn't always come to fruition - Creation is fallen.

I don't really know enough apologetics to be able to argue my point convincingly, but what I'm trying to get at is that while some things God leaves us to decide on our own, other stuff God clearly has a say in. Let's put it this way: have you ever thought "God led me to me in this place" or "wow fate/the universe/whatever is really on my side today"...it's clear God does have a part in our everyday lives.

[dreiviergrenadier]

(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
I don't really know enough apologetics to be able to argue my point convincingly, but what I'm trying to get at is that while some things God leaves us to decide on our own, other stuff God clearly has a say in. Let's put it this way: have you ever thought "God led me to me in this place" or "wow fate/the universe/whatever is really on my side today"...it's clear God does have a part in our everyday lives.

Sure, I'm not denying that God is working. But I don't think that coercion is part of that - so free will is genuine.

[Squirty]

(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
Of course it doesn't mean that God does exist, but you can't discount it as a way to come to God. Romans 1:20 tells us, "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." God shows His power through creation.

1) Like I said, either chance or God made a world perfect for us. You failed to address the question of what made the particles for the BB or started it...science hasn't explained that away yet.

2) Don't worry the double negatives are readable. I do disagree; you call it hard evidence for no divine input, whereas actually it could be hard evidence for God's awesome power.

3/4) I'm not a wishy-washy theologian, in fact quite the contrary; I'm a conservative evangelical Christian who believes in the bible as the ultimate authority. So far nothing in science has made any part of Christianity irrelevant or incorrect. Yes science is awesome but it's God-made, not man-made or even fully man-understood.

1) Not chance, as I've said, it's the anthropic principle at play: the only reason that we're able to question our origins is that we HAD origins, and therefore for any conscious life, the conditions for origins are by default correct for the form of life that's developed. Can life develop and question its origins if the conditions on that planet cannot support life?

As for your cosmology, no, science cannot answer it. In fact scientists have said that we will never understand the big bang. However, in the 1800s scientists said we would never discover the composition of stars, and at the same time optical techniques were already being used to discover this scientific fact. Why should this not happen for the big bang as well?

We have incontrovertible evidence for the big bang theory, so what if there's a small gap at the beginning? We can hypothesize and think and not base our understanding of life on an ancient fabricated text. In any case, do you really want your god to be a god of the gaps? And as we get more and more scientific knowledge the blank areas it can hide grow smaller and smaller? That seems kind of pathetic to me. Either god is great like you say and doesn't need to hide in the gaps like you're making it by statements like "science hasn't explained that away yet, or it doesn't exist." In fact, that statement is just downright silly, as science doesn't have to "explain away" religious belief, if anything, religious belief needs to flounder around more to explain how it's compatible with scientific knowledge to hang onto its last tiny vestiges of seeming possibility.

2) The argument is that god was invented by man to explain away our lack of scientific knowledge. Now that we understand more we can write it out of the equation, at least partially.

3/4) Science proved genesis incorrect.
Ethics made biblical morality irrelevant.
Historical study casts doubt on Jesus' life and any biblical accuracy.
Science (and, funnily, theology) proves miracles false.

What evidence do you have that science was made by god, or that the bible is the ultimate authority, or any of your claims?

[dreiviergrenadier]

(Original post by Squirty)
1) Not chance, as I've said, it's the anthropic principle at play: the only reason that we're able to question our origins is that we HAD origins, and therefore for any conscious life, the conditions for origins are by default correct for the form of life that's developed. Can life develop and question its origins if the conditions on that planet cannot support life?

This is just lazy. Of course people have to be alive to question their origins, but this doesn't obviate any inquiry into why we are alive. Your appeal to the anthropic principle is just an attempt to stop any questions. But we can clearly think of scenarios in which such questions are relevant, and even necessary.

(Original post by Squirty)
We can hypothesize and think and not base our understanding of life on an ancient fabricated text.

Citation needed.

(Original post by Squirty)
2) The argument is that god was invented by man to explain away our lack of scientific knowledge.

Do you have any evidence that this is true?

(Original post by Squirty)
3/4) Science proved genesis incorrect.

Lol.

(Original post by Squirty)
Ethics made biblical morality irrelevant.

?

(Original post by Squirty)
Historical study casts doubt on Jesus' life and any biblical accuracy.

This is just ludicrous. I would like to see you adduce even the tiniest bit of support for that contention.

(Original post by Squirty)
Science (and, funnily, theology) proves miracles false.

You're just making stuff up now. Science cannot possibly prove miracles false. (and I would really love to see you share your theology here...)

[Okashira]

Science (and, funnily, theology) proves miracles false.

Science have proven miracles are true. Look at the miracle of flying. One time man didn't believe we would ever fly. Yet through science, through studying the laws of gravity, we created a way to work above those laws, a miracle. God's power can exceed these laws we have on earth, and thus He is able to make us walk on water and whatever thing we couldn't do. So ultimately, miracles are about working above certain laws.



On a side note, this world is nothing like the world God created. It has since been corrupted, ever since the fall.

[SMed]

(Original post by Okashira)
Science have proven miracles are true. Look at the miracle of flying. One time man didn't believe we would ever fly. Yet through science, through studying the laws of gravity, we created a way to work above those laws, a miracle. God's power can exceed these laws we have on earth, and thus He is able to make us walk on water and whatever thing we couldn't do. So ultimately, miracles are about working above certain laws.

We're not working "above those laws" to fly, we're working "[with] those laws".

I'm interested in your definition of 'miracle'.

[Okashira]

(Original post by SMed)
We're not working "above those laws" to fly, we're working "[with] those laws".

I'm interested in your definition of 'miracle'.

I imagine there is one law, or one set of laws that keeps our feet on the ground. Yet with the airplane, we use sets of laws to lift off. Now, as I said before this world is nothing like God originally created it, but God is able to use many sets of laws (laws we are yet to discover) and also work above laws to produce what we call miracles.

[Facticity]

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'as we keep humans', so it may or may not be my view, I'm not sure. At any rate, I certainly think we have a very strong obligation to care for animals (which would stop us treating them as mere means to humans ends).

I'm not quite sure though where you get the idea that humans are jealously guarded to the exclusion of animals. After all, Israel was jealously guarded by God, but this certainly didn't imply that non-Israelites didn't have rights. The Bible is fairly clear that Creation is going to be redeemed (not just humanity), and God's concern for animals is left in no doubt - He cares deeply about the very animals the Jews thought least valuable [sparrows]. Equally, Jesus makes a point about rescuing animals on the Sabbath (something that's permissible even though it would constitute work). Its quite telling about the nature and value of animal life - imagine a modern western Christian talking to Jesus about animals:

MWC - animals are worthless, I can do whatever I like to them for whatever purposes I choose.

Jesus - err...animals are valuable to God, alleviating their suffering is more important even than resting on the Sabbath. Please justify how you've treated our beautiful, valuable, created creatures.

MWC - oh damn.

By "as we keep humans" I mean just how we as a species keep ourselves and the variable nuances and rights we have given and respectively give to ourselves as a race. As I said, I do agree they are not just means to a humans ends but at the same time, I don't think they are there not to be used as means in themselves. The latter being observant of a purposeful part, we are there to care for animals as kindred organisms but at the same time, this isn't to say we don't live in a world where humans can't indulge in their own biologically programmed wants. One of these is meat. If the Bible told me to be a vegetarian or vegan, I probably would, but as I have seen it, whilst God doesn't favour mass meat production, he is not above allowing, if not recommending, we eat some meat. It is commanded at times even.

Not so much to the exclusion of animals, as I said above, rather just not to the same extend, which again I'd say is very obvious from even a shallow reading of the Bible.

Don't know - that conversation largely depends on a few choice terms and very specific theology. Not to say I agree with the way meat consumerism is, but at the same time, I don't think heavenly exclusion would have a criterion of whether you ate meat or not.

[Squirty]

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
This is just lazy. Of course people have to be alive to question their origins, but this doesn't obviate any inquiry into why we are alive. Your appeal to the anthropic principle is just an attempt to stop any questions. But we can clearly think of scenarios in which such questions are relevant, and even necessary.

Ridiculous. You claimed that either god or chance gave us a world that is perfect. I explained that it was neither, and that life is a natural process which we have plenty of of evidence for, from evolution, cell biology and (less conclusively) investigations into the first origins of life. You claim you can think of questions like "why are we alive" can be relevant or necessary, but offer none. How about you do that and then we can take your argument seriously?

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
Citation needed.

Firstly, the multiple modifications and removals made to it BY man when they edited the scripture.

Secondly, the multiple translations between greek, hebrew, english, that undoubtedly caused errors.

Thirdly, the loss of all originals.

Lastly, inconcistencies.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/canon.html

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
Do you have any evidence that this is true?

That the Bible contains multiple attempts to try and explain the natural world which are incorrect or childishly simple? That the more science we learn the less people are religious?

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
Lol.

Good argument. What did you expect to gain from that? You find it funny that the first chapter of your holy scripture which you base your life on and think is ultimate truth, is actually proven either false or metaphorical?

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
?

We don't need an absolute moral code from scripture when we can actually think for ourselves. It's been done in psychological studies. People who believe differ by a tiny, tiny percentage from atheists in terms of moral judgements. This just provides more evidence that the Bible was written by man as a means to control. Also, any attempts to create an absolute moral code fall down to simple questioning about situations, hence the Bible's absolute stance on moral issues is philosophically incorrect. We aren't simple peasants that need controlling any more, and we DON'T need religion.

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
This is just ludicrous. I would like to see you adduce even the tiniest bit of support for that contention.

Richard Dawkins wrote that while Jesus probably existed, it is "possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all."

But you probably assume that anything Dawkins says is incorrect..ok.

Albert Schweitzer, wrote:
"The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never existed..... He will be a Jesus, who was Messiah, and lived as such, either on the ground of a literary fiction of the earliest Evangelist, or on the ground of a purely eschatological Messianic conception. In either case, He will not be a Jesus Christ to whom the religion of the present can ascribe, according to its long-cherished custom, its own thoughts and ideas, as it did with the Jesus of its own making..... It is not given to history to disengage that which is abiding and eternal in the being of Jesus from the historical forms in which it worked itself out, and to introduce it into our world as a living influence."

Charles Guignebert (1867–1939), Professor of the History of Christianity at the Sorbonne, maintained that the "conclusions which are justified by the documentary evidence may be summed up as follows: Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself."

I don't see Jesus' siblings being accepted by organised religion..doesn't the Pope deny he had these siblings?

Simply google searches my friend.

So there is at least some historical evidence against the existence of Jesus. This is an extreme view, however there is a lot more common agreement that the gospel's account of his life is largely fabricated.

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
You're just making stuff up now. Science cannot possibly prove miracles false. (and I would really love to see you share your theology here...)

That's where you're wrong! At least, partially. Studies have been done into the effects of prayer on recovery from illness and concluded that groups who were prayed for and didn't know it were no better off than groups who were not prayed for and didn't know it. (i.e. a blinded control study)

Unfortunately for this argument, groups who were prayed for and did know it had different recovery rates......

But not unfortunately for me; unfortunately for YOU!

Groups who were prayed for and knew they were being prayed for had a lower chance of recovery than those who were not prayed for.

This, to me, proves that prayer is useless because the lower chance of recovery can be put down to the nocebo effect, i.e. they believe they are being prayed for and something to do with having this knowledge causes them higher stress (suggested to be the stress of wanting to get better not to let down their prayers). Of course, the other possibility is that god actively harmed those involved in the trial, but that would make him seem like an evil, jealous god. Well, at least that would be a little evidence for the old testament....

And, obviously more tentatively, we find no archaeological evidence for miracles of any kind.

In terms of theology, we can't disprove all miracles, but a common definition of a modern miracle at least is one started by a saint (see catholic church).

Ecclesiastes 95

For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward,
and even their name is forgotten.
6 Their love, their hate
and their jealousy have long since vanished;
never again will they have a part
in anything that happens under the sun.

Hence modern miracles are proved to not be miracles by scripture. QED.

[Squirty]

(Original post by Okashira)
Science have proven miracles are true. Look at the miracle of flying. One time man didn't believe we would ever fly. Yet through science, through studying the laws of gravity, we created a way to work above those laws, a miracle. God's power can exceed these laws we have on earth, and thus He is able to make us walk on water and whatever thing we couldn't do. So ultimately, miracles are about working above certain laws.



On a side note, this world is nothing like the world God created. It has since been corrupted, ever since the fall.

Yes. A phenomenon (that you clearly don't understand) which doesn't break any laws of the universe, that must be a miracle. Hey, when I throw you off a building, you fall! That follows the laws of the universe! It must be a miracle!

[S-man10]

Need I remind everyone that debate in this thread is not allowed. If you wish to refute/debate someone's answers then please do so in a new thread.

Anymore debate from here on will get a warning.

[stargirl63]

Hey everyone!

Every week at my university, we have Bible Study. Last week, keeping in the theme of Easter, we watched The Passion of Christ, Mel Gibson version. And I just have a few questions which hopefully you guys can help straighten out for me.

Jesus' last few words asking "My God my God why have you forsaken me" ...why did he ask this? I mean, I thought God was supposed to be with Jesus at this time, I mean, it was God's will in the first place right? I don't understand if God was supposed to have left Jesus at this time, Jesus felt alone or its a metaphor for something else.

Also, in the movie, one of the other criminals got their eyes plucked out by a crow, did this actually happen or is this supposed to be all part of the "hollywood experience"?

In the film, when Jesus' side was pierced, out came blood and water, is that supposed to be of religious significance? Or is that just trying to describe biologically what happened? Also, when blood and water came out, the guards fell to the floor in redemption, I think this was the point he realised Jesus was telling the truth this whole time, I'm assuming this is because blood and water came out, but how can this be? I mean, what's supposed to come out? What did that piercing tell him?

I hope you guys can shed light on this, I don't know if I'm asking silly questions or if my questions make any sense, but yeah, any response is appreciated.

[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

(Original post by stargirl63)
Hey everyone!

Every week at my university, we have Bible Study. Last week, keeping in the theme of Easter, we watched The Passion of Christ, Mel Gibson version. And I just have a few questions which hopefully you guys can help straighten out for me.

Jesus' last few words asking "My God my God why have you forsaken me" ...why did he ask this? I mean, I thought God was supposed to be with Jesus at this time, I mean, it was God's will in the first place right? I don't understand if God was supposed to have left Jesus at this time, Jesus felt alone or its a metaphor for something else.

Also, in the movie, one of the other criminals got their eyes plucked out by a crow, did this actually happen or is this supposed to be all part of the "hollywood experience"?

In the film, when Jesus' side was pierced, out came blood and water, is that supposed to be of religious significance? Or is that just trying to describe biologically what happened? Also, when blood and water came out, the guards fell to the floor in redemption, I think this was the point he realised Jesus was telling the truth this whole time, I'm assuming this is because blood and water came out, but how can this be? I mean, what's supposed to come out? What did that piercing tell him?

I hope you guys can shed light on this, I don't know if I'm asking silly questions or if my questions make any sense, but yeah, any response is appreciated.

Hiya,

I haven't seen the film and can't promise to answer the last question, but I will do my best with the rest

Jesus' cry from the Cross: this is one of the few instances in which we fully get to see the fully human side of Jesus. There are lots of things that demonstrate the fully God part: His wisdom, the miracles, etc. But we don't get much of a glimpse of the human side. In my mind, there are only 2 memorable moments where we see the human side: the agony in Gethsemane, where He asks for the cup of suffering to be taken from Him, and when He asks why He has been forsaken. God was with Him at the time, no doubt of that, but He just didn't feel it. Understandable really. If I had been tortured for hours and was in the midst of a slow, agonising death, I'd wonder where the hell God was too

I don't recall any criminal getting their eye plucked out by a crow. Think that's just Gibson's imagination

I'm no medic or anatomist or whatever, so I'm not sure what normally comes out of us if we were to be pierced in the side. I've always just presumed it to be blood and water.

I don't think there's anything about anyone falling to the ground in redemption at the point where the blood and water comes out. This is most likely a trope from medieval mystery plays (this happens in the N Town Passion Plays, for example. A man's blindness is cured by him reaching out and touching Jesus' blood, or something like that). It seems Gibson is conflating this trope with the centurion mentioned in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Hope that answers at least some of your questions

[gltw]

(Original post by stargirl63)
I hope you guys can shed light on this, I don't know if I'm asking silly questions or if my questions make any sense, but yeah, any response is appreciated.

The answer above is very good but I've got a couple of things to add.

The cry from the cross was a quote from Psalm 22:1. It's not a silly question to ask because this is one of the most mysterious verses in the Bible. Jesus need to be completely cut off from the presence God the Father that he always had because he was bearing all the sins of his people thus was enduring the full wrath of God. He became sin that his people might be made 100% acceptable to God the Father if they have faith. In that same Psalm towards the end it contains a cry of victory, Jesus understood the reason he came to earth and that his suffering was not for himself but to offer all of mankind the opportunity for salvation in him if only they have faith.

The blood and water show us that Jesus was a human being, it also fulfilled the prophecies that were foretold.

For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”
(John 19:36-37 ESV)


The guards did not fall on the floor in redemption but a man of God told them these things above (possibly John himself)

God bless