contradictory trinitarian interpretations?...damn that's a mouthful

let me begin by saying that my christian doctrine class is changing my life. i have never been in an environment that allowed me to think so critically about my faith, letting myself analyze and dig deep into the roots of christianity. i'm almost to the point of saying that i'm ambiguously christian because i've realized how little i know about the basis for my beliefs, or at least the beliefs i've claimed for my entire life.

all that said, today we started with a word on the board. passion. from it we determined the root "passio" which is also found in the words compassion and passive. so we began a discussion, based on a passage by jürgen moltmann, over the impassibility of god as expressed by 19 centuries of christian thinkers.

here is where i found myself taking issue. for the first time in my life i was thinking critically about passages in the gospel that depict god "forsaking" christ. if the way i've been considering the trinity lately as being one entity, hollistic, and singular is an accurate interpretation, then how is it possible that god could have forsaken christ if christ is at the same time wholly god and spirit. so, is jesus saying on the cross, "why i have i forsaken myself"? and if i look at it that way, does it not make the crucifixion that much more powerful? that even though christ had all the power to save himself being wholly god in that moment and crying in the agony of human betrayal, even asking why he was forsaking himself, he still let it continue into completion?

or maybe i'm reading too much into this whole concept of the trinity and immanence/transcendence.