PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: Reason to Believe: Ps. 22



Pages : [1] 2

Turbo
August 31st, 2003, 08:48 PM
The following is the first half or so of Pslam 22, written approximately 1000 years before Christ was born. Also, it should be noted that the first historical record (http://www.bible.ca/d-history-archeology-crucifixion-cross.htm) of crucifixion is from the 6th century B.C., so it is likely that this psalm was written hundreds of years before anyone was ever crucified.

Studying this Psalm was one of the final steps that convinced me that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is who He says He is. I can think of no other rational conclusion, given the content of this psalm. To anyone who is unsure whether the Bible truly is the Word of God or simply a collection of books written by men, please take a few minutes to read this study of Psalm 22.

In Christ,
Turbo



(Passages from the Gospels are inserted in a smaller font, echoing the portion of the psalm that is above them, particularly the bold phrases. All scriptures quoted are from NKJV)

Psalm 22:
1 My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
Why are You so far from helping Me,
And from the words of My groaning?

Matthew 27:46
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?

Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

2 O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear;
And in the night season, and am not silent.

3 But You are holy,
Enthroned in the praises of Israel.
4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.

6 But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised by the people.
7 All those who see Me ridicule Me;
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 "He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him;
Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!"

Matthew 27:39-43
And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross."
Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, "He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, "I am the Son of God."'

Luke 23:35
And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God."

9 But You are He who took Me out of the womb;
You made Me trust while on My mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon You from birth.
From My mother's womb
You have been My God.
11 Be not far from Me,
For trouble is near;
For there is none to help.

12 Many bulls have surrounded Me;
Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me.
13 They gape at Me with their mouths,
Like a raging and roaring lion.

14 I am poured out like water,
And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It has melted within Me.

John 19:34
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And My tongue clings to My jaws;
You have brought Me to the dust of death.

John 19:28
After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!"

16 For dogs* have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;

Matthew 27
2 And when they had bound Him, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

11 Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?"
Jesus said to him, "It is as you say." 12And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing.
13 Then Pilate said to Him, "Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?" 14But He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly.

26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.
27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole garrison around Him. 28And they stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him. 29 When they had twisted a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand. And they bowed the knee before Him and mocked Him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" 30 Then they spat on Him, and took the reed and struck Him on the head. 31 And when they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified.

17 I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.

John 19:33
But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.

Luke 23:35
And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God."

18 They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.

Matthew 27:35
Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet:
"They divided My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots."

Mark 15:24
And when they crucified Him, they divided His garments, casting lots for them to determine what every man should take.

Luke 23:34
Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."
And they divided His garments and cast lots.

John 19:24
They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says:
"They divided My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots."
Therefore the soldiers did these things.

19 But You, O LORD, do not be far from Me;
O My Strength, hasten to help Me!
20 Deliver Me from the sword,

John 19:34
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

My precious life from the power of the dog*. (Roman Empire)

Luke 3:1
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene,

Luke 23:24
So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested.

21 Save Me from the lion's mouth
And from the horns of the wild oxen!


(* “dog” is a pejorative term for Gentile. See Mat 15:22-28; also Rev. 21:12, 22:15; Ps. 59:5-7,13-15, 1 Sam. 17:43, and 2 Ki. 8:13)

7thwatch
August 31st, 2003, 08:54 PM
great stuff there. I really enjoyed the read and I will use it in future bible studies I give.

This one is going in my files for sure!

peace
7thwatch

Turbo
August 31st, 2003, 08:59 PM
Thank you, 7thwatch!

Zimfan
August 31st, 2003, 09:03 PM
I concur :thumb:

Nineveh
August 31st, 2003, 09:24 PM
What Zim said :)

Turbo
August 31st, 2003, 09:33 PM
:neck: Thank you sir, ma'am.

Zimfan
August 31st, 2003, 09:39 PM
You just got picked for post of the day, Turbo. :)

tenkeeper
September 1st, 2003, 07:19 AM
turbo,

you have a loving heart

LightSon
September 1st, 2003, 09:24 AM
Great analysis Turbo! Thanks.

These prophecies were uniquely fulfilled by the Lord Jesus. I don’t understand how anyone (including an atheist) could consider this love of Christ for us and not be moved to surrender. Why are they so entrenched in darkness? Perhaps the Evil One has blinded them.

SteveT
September 2nd, 2003, 11:03 AM
Turbo:

I agree with your post entirely. However, having tried the argument myself several times, I can tell you that most atheists will say the gospel accounts, written decades after the events described (if they accept that the events ever happened at all), were composed to put the words of the psalmist on Jesus' lips and the words and actions of the people were "made up" to conform to the prophecy. It's all good stuff, but unfortunately none of this will persuade an atheist.

Anyway, here's another great prophecy, dating to +/- 250 years before Christ:

[12] "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
[13] He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord.
[14] He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
[15] the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
[16] We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
[17] Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
[18] for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
[19] Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
[20] Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected."
[21] Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray,
for their wickedness blinded them,
[22] and they did not know the secret purposes of God,
nor hope for the wages of holiness,
nor discern the prize for blameless souls;
[23] for God created man for incorruption,
and made him in the image of his own eternity,
[24] but through the devil's envy death entered the world,
and those who belong to his party experience it." Wisdom 2

shilohproject
September 2nd, 2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by SteveT
Turbo:

I agree with your post entirely. However, having tried the argument myself several times, I can tell you that most atheists will say the gospel accounts, written decades after the events described (if they accept that the events ever happened at all), were composed to put the words of the psalmist on Jesus' lips and the words and actions of the people were "made up" to conform to the prophecy. It's all good stuff, but unfortunately none of this will persuade an atheist.
This concern is probably quite true. However, no amount of religious skepticism can refute the fact that the Psalm fairly records the horrors of crucifiction long before it was in vougue for executing folks. This is a point I've had the most staunch athiests concede.:cool:

Knight
September 2nd, 2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by SteveT
It's all good stuff, but unfortunately none of this will persuade an atheist.
Isn't that demonstrably false?

IF...
So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17And.... if Turbo wasn't lying when he wrote...
Studying this Psalm was one of the final steps that convinced me that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is who He says He is.Then.... I would say that's just more evidence that supports the following...
Isaiah 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it. My guess is Psalm 22 has been a very effective verse for our Lord.

Crow
September 3rd, 2003, 01:22 AM
Psalms 22 is a good one, Isaiah 53 is also one that I find particularly illustrative in predicting Christ. From NKJV

Isaiah 53


The Sin-Bearing Messiah
1 Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.


4Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.


7He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9And theymade His grave with the wicked--
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.


10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

Turbo
September 3rd, 2003, 05:29 AM
Ah, Crow... That was going to be the subject of my next thread. ;)

I've got a couple others waiting in the bullpen. Maybe I'll do one of those first.

kidd94
September 3rd, 2003, 09:38 AM
Good topic

OMEGA
September 7th, 2003, 12:46 AM
You forgot this one.

(Joel 2:28 KJV) "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:"

(Acts 2:17 KJV) "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:"

(Acts 2:18 KJV) "And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:"
-----------------------------------------------------------

PEOPLE GET READY FOR THAT DAY IS COMING !

:thumb:

Ferelixe
September 8th, 2003, 05:24 AM
Hi LightSon,


These prophecies were uniquely fulfilled by the Lord Jesus. I don’t understand how anyone (including an atheist) could consider this love of Christ for us and not be moved to surrender. Why are they so entrenched in darkness? Perhaps the Evil One has blinded them.

Well being the Bible Illiterate that I am I can't really comment of Bible prophecies. Before I can accept any scriptures I need to find the human soul. Maybe that's a strange thing on my part, I think it comes from the reading I've done on the human brain. :)

Until I can find some indestructible part to us all the scriptures in the world are meaningless to me. Think about it, if there is no continuation after our physical bodies die then what meaning can any scripture possibly have other than to give us certain insights in this life? And if that's all scripture can do then who cares? I can go to my local bookstore and find books by the hundreds that will give me insights into this life...

Mateo
September 8th, 2003, 07:46 AM
Re: Psalm 22,

To paraphrase Spurgeon, "When reading Psalm 22 one should remove one's shoes, for if there is holy ground anywhere in the Bible, it is here".

I refrain from reading this Psalm in public to save myself the embarassment of public crying.

I can only shake my head in disbelief everytime I hear some learned theologian utter the canard that Jesus said what He did on the cross because God, who could not look upon sin, had turned His back on His Son. What utter compost.

LightSon
September 8th, 2003, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Ferelixe
Until I can find some indestructible part to us all the scriptures in the world are meaningless to me. Think about it, if there is no continuation after our physical bodies die then what meaning can any scripture possibly have other than to give us certain insights in this life? And if that's all scripture can do then who cares? I can go to my local bookstore and find books by the hundreds that will give me insights into this life...
Greetings Ferelixe,
You are correct in observing that "if there is no continuation after our physical bodies die," then scripture has little or no value. We do have a non-corporeal aspect to us, but you will not find it in a test tube.

In the oldest book of the Bible, Job said

Job 19:25,26
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Here Job was expressing faith in God and God’s power over death. The resurrection of Christ is such a demonstration. The death of our bodies is not the final word.

All throughout the Bible, God holds out to us the promise of life and of spending eternity with Him. Because God has demonstrated His power over sin and of death, I know, like Job, that God has the power to raise me up too despite the fact that “worms [will] destroy this body”.

Consider the New Testament record. In Christ’s darkest hour, Peter denied Him and went out into the darkness. What was it that Peter later saw that convinced him to “buck up”, change course and take on perilous challenges. Peter and 9 of the other disciples became stalwarts for Christ and eventually gave their lives for His cause. A man might give His life in hopes that he believes the truth. But what man would give his life for that which he knows to be a lie? Peter saw Christ executed and laid in a tomb. Why would Peter die to perpetuate a lie, if he knew Christ was dead? This is a question skeptics stumble over to answer. A man might lie to perpetuate a lie for gain. But when faced with the sword, such a lie looses value quickly.

Peter said,

2nd Peter 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty
Peter saw the risen Christ, and it changed his life forever.

Study the scriptures. In them you will see that you were created for more than just this short and often unsatisfying physical life. God reveals His mind in the Bible. If you study His Word diligently, He will reveal His truth to you.

LightSon
September 8th, 2003, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Mateo
Re: Psalm 22,

To paraphrase Spurgeon, "When reading Psalm 22 one should remove one's shoes, for if there is holy ground anywhere in the Bible, it is here".

I refrain from reading this Psalm in public to save myself the embarassment of public crying.

I can only shake my head in disbelief everytime I hear some learned theologian utter the canard that Jesus said what He did on the cross because God, who could not look upon sin, had turned His back on His Son. What utter compost.
I don't really understand your objections Mateo.

Jesus cried, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Since you reject the standard explanation, I have two questions for you.

Did God forsake Jesus while He was on the cross? and if so, why would God do that?

Mateo
September 8th, 2003, 11:44 AM
LightSon,

I do not believe God turned His back on His Son at the cross. This notion gained some currency in several of the patented answer factories (seminaries, cemetaries, whatever) by those who either could not or would not make the connection between what Jesus uttered on the cross and the first line of Psalm 22. Jesus was pointing any and all to the Psalm which spoke of the cross so long before He was ever nailed to it. He was not lamenting the absense of His omnipresent Father or His gaze.

Concerning the notion that God cannot look upon sin and turned His back on His Son because of it, I leave you with the following verses:

Psa 90:8 Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance.

Prov 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

John 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

LightSon
September 8th, 2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Mateo
I do not believe God turned His back on His Son at the cross. ..... Jesus was pointing any and all to the Psalm which spoke of the cross so long before He was ever nailed to it. He was not lamenting the absense of His omnipresent Father or His gaze.

Thanks for your response Mateo.
But you all too carefully skirted my question.

Jesus said, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Did God forsake Jesus in any way?
If you say "no", then you must be also saying that Jesus was wrong or had a false perception. Certainly Jesus was trying to communicate more than just a "link" to Psalm 22.



Originally posted by Mateo
Concerning the notion that God cannot look upon sin and turned His back on His Son because of it, I leave you with the following verses:

Psa 90:8 Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance.

Prov 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

John 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
Fair enough. You've quoted some scripture to support your contention. How about this verse?

Habakkuk 1:13
"Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity..."

There are very good theological reasons, why Jesus needed to experience "separation" from the Father and the Spirit (hence "my God, my God"). Jesus was experiencing spiritual death, on our behalf, and due to our sin being placed upon Him.
Praise His Holy name.

Isaiah 53:4 "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted."

Isaiah 53:10 "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, "

If you are quibbling about the notion of God "turning His back" on Christ, then fine. Will you agree that God "smote" Christ because Jesus bore our sins in His own body on the tree?

Mateo
September 8th, 2003, 05:49 PM
Beloved LightSon,

I would not presume to disagree that God's Son was indeed bruised for our transgressions. This was not my assertion. The issue was, and I quote:

"Did God forsake Jesus while He was on the cross?".

I answered this as straightforward as I could, to whit:

"I do not believe God turned His back on His Son at the cross."

To which you replied:

"Thanks for your response Mateo.
But you all too carefully skirted my question."

I'm sorry my friend but I can't make it any plainer than that.

You offered a partial scripture as an justifcation for what would appear to be your allegance to the notion that God turned His back on His Son on the cross due to an inability to behold sin. In quoting the word of God you used an elipsis to avoid quoting the entire verse to which you referred. It has been my experience that when this is done in justification of a doctrine that those who use this practice generally wish to call attention away from the rest of what is said in the verse so quoted. Let's have a look, shall we?:

Hab 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?

Ooooops! The guy that is not supposed to be looking at this sort of thing is being asked why he does. Context is everything, don't you agree?

In the love of the Lord,

Mateo

FireBall
September 17th, 2003, 04:52 AM
Mateo

Do you belive that God will turn his back on sinners on Judgement day??

If you do and you belive that Jesus bore your judgement on the cross then it seems quite logical that GOd turned his back on Jesus instead of you.

Also why else would Jesus say it unless it was true.

"I have been crucified with Christ" Galatians 2:20

Mateo
September 17th, 2003, 06:55 AM
Fireball asked:

"Do you belive that God will turn his back on sinners on Judgement day??"

Mateo wonders:

Which judgement are you referring to?

FireBall
September 17th, 2003, 07:14 AM
The great throne judgement not the judgement for rewards.

Mateo
September 17th, 2003, 07:42 AM
Not sure I've heard about a "rewards" judgement. Sounds like you are referring to the "white throne" judgement of Revelation 20. Those that are judged then are judged on their deeds (the books) and their affiliation with Jesus (the Lambs book of life) if I understand what I have read correctly.

As to your original question, being a sinner myself, if I am to participate in this judgement it is my sincere hope that God will not turn His back on me at this time nor do I think His word indicates that He will.

FireBall
September 17th, 2003, 07:47 AM
I agree entirely. No God wont turn his back on you at the white throne judgement as he will everyone who hasn't belived in Jesus because he has already turn his back on you, and this is why Jesus said "Why have you forsaken me?" because he was bearing your judgement.

Mateo
September 17th, 2003, 08:02 AM
I'm sorry I'm not following your logic well enough to be able to embrace it. I think you are confusing atonement for our sins with judgement, two different things in my mind. This thread is starting to get interesting. A pity I must leave to attend to my days labor. More later perhaps?

FireBall
September 17th, 2003, 08:06 AM
Well atonement for our sins is so that we are not judged.

If there was no atonement there would be no redemption.

We are saved by grace through faith.

We are not all automatically saved. We are all sinners and will be judged accordingly but we can escape judgmeny by grace (the finished work of Christ) through faith.

Mateo
September 17th, 2003, 11:49 AM
Okay, lunchtime. Sandwich in one hand and keyboard in the other...

Saved by grace through faith... yep that's the deal at this present time; our faith being accounted to us as righteousness, but I suggest that this does not exempt us from judgment. Many claim the name of Christ who shall be judged and found wanting. No? If this be the case then it would appear that we who seek this gift of life eternal are responsible to manifest our faith through this gift of God that is our mortal life. Remember the unprofitable servant Jesus spoke of?

FireBall
September 18th, 2003, 02:03 AM
Absolutely I agree no change of nature no salvation.

But it is not our works that saves us they are just the produce of our salvation. If we are born again we have already been judged at the cross so we will not be condemned. "There is therefore no condemnation...". We will still be judged according to we have done rewards ect but not as to our eternal destiny.

Mateo
September 18th, 2003, 05:38 AM
"Absolutely I agree no change of nature no salvation.

But it is not our works that saves us they are just the produce of our salvation. If we are born again we have already been judged at the cross so we will not be condemned. "There is therefore no condemnation...". We will still be judged according to we have done rewards ect but not as to our eternal destiny."

Judged at the cross... interesting notion, That would make the "white throne judgment" more like the "white throne sentencing".

"If we are born again..." I would suggest to you it should be WHEN we are born again. So the question is when are we born again? The answer...when we are born again or ressurected as it were; some at Christ's return some a 1000 years later if I am understanding aright what I am reading. (1Cor 5:1-5, Rom 8:22-25, 2Tim 4: 6-8 and Heb 3:6 are a good start towards understanding the timing of our salvation I think) remember flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom.

Rewards... this is the second time you have mentioned this. Please explain about "rewards". Some scripture would be nice as well.

Ecumenicist
September 22nd, 2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Mateo
LightSon,

I do not believe God turned His back on His Son at the cross. This notion gained some currency in several of the patented answer factories (seminaries, cemetaries, whatever) by those who either could not or would not make the connection between what Jesus uttered on the cross and the first line of Psalm 22. Jesus was pointing any and all to the Psalm which spoke of the cross so long before He was ever nailed to it. He was not lamenting the absense of His omnipresent Father or His gaze.

Concerning the notion that God cannot look upon sin and turned His back on His Son because of it, I leave you with the following verses:

Psa 90:8 Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance.

Prov 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

John 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

My $.02

Jesus / God / was expressing His absolute solidarity with
humanity, and the suffering that humanity endures.

Hence the crede, "wholly human and wholly divine."

God does not turn His back on us, but nonetheless sometimes
we feel very alone. Jesus endures our pain, even our
aloneness, with us, and in His demonstrating that, we are
assured that we are not alone.

Dave Miller

LightSon
September 22nd, 2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller
My $.02

Jesus / God / was expressing His absolute solidarity with
humanity, and the suffering that humanity endures.

Hence the crede, "wholly human and wholly divine."

God does not turn His back on us, but nonetheless sometimes
we feel very alone. Jesus endures our pain, even our
aloneness, with us, and in His demonstrating that, we are
assured that we are not alone.

Dave Miller

Dave,
Considering Jesus rhetorical question, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Did God the Father forsake Jesus?

Or was Jesus just feeling forsaken?

This issue seems to be shouded in semantics. The notion of God "turning His back," seems to be in contention. I take this particular phrase as a metaphor for "forsaking sin" and since Jesus bore our sins, God needed to forsake the sin bearer as a part of the process.

Ecumenicist
September 22nd, 2003, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by LightSon
Dave,
Considering Jesus rhetorical question, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Did God the Father forsake Jesus?

Or was Jesus just feeling forsaken?

This issue seems to be shouded in semantics. The notion of God "turning His back," seems to be in contention. I take this particular phrase as a metaphor for "forsaking sin" and since Jesus bore our sins, God needed to forsake the sin bearer as a part of the process.

Hi Lightson.

I understand that take on it. Taking our two viewpoints, the
question is, was God/Jesus forsaking sin, or was Jesus/God
taking the part of those who are forsaken?

Its an extension of the classic debate, was Jesus fully human
or fully divine?

From your viewpoint, it was necessary for God to forsake sin, as God and sin are incompatible. From my viewpoint, it was
necessary for Jesus to take on the role of sin, both as a
sacrifice on behalf of humanity, but also as an expression of
love for and solidarity with humanity.

Its really quite amazing to ponder. On a deep, deep human
level, saying "I know what you're going through," doesn't
give much comfort, but saying "I too have suffered as you do,"
or " I am suffering with
means all the difference in the world. The bond of suffering is
unique in the human experience. Being a trach patient, when
I encounter another trach patient, or someone who has
had a tracheostomy, there is a deep deep bond there
that no one else can share. The bond of suffering.

Saying that Jesus took on sin has some meaning at some level,
but saying that Jesus became wholly, wholly human, suffering
and all, adds a whole other dimension to God in the Flesh.

Take care,

Dave

Mateo
September 22nd, 2003, 05:45 PM
Not to be unnecessarily contentious, but, I can't recall seeing the term Jesus/God any where in my Bible. Which one do you use?

LightSon
September 22nd, 2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Mateo
Not to be unnecessarily contentious, but, I can't recall seeing the term Jesus/God any where in my Bible. Which one do you use?

Mateo,
Is Jesus God?

I thought you were trinitarian. Am I mistaken about that?

Mateo
September 22nd, 2003, 06:06 PM
"Mateo,
Is Jesus God?"


No, He is the Son of God.


"I thought you were trinitarian. Am I mistaken about that?"


Yes. I reject any and every "ian", "ism" and "ist" created by and known to man.

BTW. My statement of faith is the Bible.




:)

Ecumenicist
September 22nd, 2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Mateo
Not to be unnecessarily contentious, but, I can't recall seeing the term Jesus/God any where in my Bible. Which one do you use?

Emmanuel, God with us.

God in the flesh. Immanent God.

Go ahead and be contentious, you refine my thoughts,
I refine yours, challenge helps us grow in understanding.

Dave

Mateo
September 22nd, 2003, 07:06 PM
Otay Mr. Dave.

As I stated earlier, being a practicing nonismatist, I am disinclined to embrace any of the "isms" which have grown up around the word of God. I am one of those most unique of creatures; someone who has come to a belief in the veracity of the word of God strictly by reading it and believing it, outside of the context of denominationalism. Said another way. I just picked the book up, read it, and believed it; and I had no other direction but the "spirit of truth" as John called it.

One of the interesting aspects of my spiritual upbringing is that I can almost always identify someone who has come to their belief the same way I did. We invariably agree about what it says. Contention arises mostly when I engage those who have come to believe in the word of God in the denominational context.

After my "three years in the desert", as it were, I began to
review some of the thoughts of others concerning the faith
I had come to embrace. One interesting book I came across was "The Two Babylons" by a Mr. Hyslop. He was able to document, to my satisfaction, the evolution of the notion of a God and his female consort giving birth to said god again after his death, from Nimrod, his wife and son, to Osiris, Isis, and Simiramus, to the grecian Gods and later to Jesus, Mary and Joseph by the hand of Gnotics who later brought it to be codified into the Catholic cannon.

To shoehorn the story of Jesus' incarnation on this planet into this litany of foolishness Mary had to become "the mother of God" in order for "God" to die and be reborn. There are many instances in scripture where Jesus makes it very clear that He and His father are different and that he is the subordinate.

A Messianic Jew friend of mine who posts to this forum once said, "the Protestants didn't protest enough". I haven't come up with a better way to say it but what I used to say was, "although Mr. Luther did a great service in what he did at the end of the day he was still a Catholic and brought forward into his theology several Catholic innovations one of which was the notion that Jesus was God".

If you get the chance, look at a panoramic view of the vatican. You will see what the Bible refers to as a "grove" in the courtyard before it. It is what we now call an obelesk covered with Egyptian verbage honoring "Ra". When you assertain the reason for this you will be well on your way to understanding the origins of the Jesus is God notion.

Happy Hunting,

Mateo

Ecumenicist
September 22nd, 2003, 07:55 PM
Responded to in the Immanent God thread, which was previously
requested by others as well.

take care,

Dave

Mateo
September 22nd, 2003, 08:05 PM
"Responded to in the Immanent God thread, which was previously
requested by others as well.

take care,

Dave"



Well, gee..... that was edifying.

Quasar1011
September 22nd, 2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Mateo
Judged at the cross... interesting notion, That would make the "white throne judgment" more like the "white throne sentencing".

You are correct. All that show up at the White Throne Judgment are wicked.

There is no place in the Bible that speaks of a final judgment, where souls are lined up, some gaining access to Heaven, while others condemned to Hell.

The righteous are judged at the Bema Seat of Christ. Bema means mercy.

Regards :)

Mateo
September 23rd, 2003, 03:55 AM
Psssst...Hey Quasar... your fly is open.

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be A (thats singular good buddy)resurrection of the dead, BOTH (that's plural good buddy) of the just and unjust.

Ecumenicist
September 23rd, 2003, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by Mateo
"Responded to in the Immanent God thread, which was previously
requested by others as well.

take care,

Dave"



Well, gee..... that was edifying.

Hi Mateo,

You're right, I should have responded to you directly, my apologies.

Regarding my thinking of Jesus Christ as Immanent God, those
thoughts are in the other thread. But regarding your statements,
I believe that 7th Day Adventists talk about the
usurping of Christianity by Pagan culture, others do as well,
so you're not alone in your assessment.

However, regarding Christ as God. Not something that's
easily justified through Scripture, except perhaps through
the Gospel of John, and again there as Immanent God, still
distinct in some ways from the Father.

That's another argument I choose not to engage in because
I have no proof, only a witness. Christ as Immanent God was
a revelation and a leap of faith for me, not an intellectual
conclusion. It was after I made that leap that other things
started making sense.

Take Care,

Dave

Mateo
September 23rd, 2003, 11:08 AM
Gotcha Mr. Dave,

Later

Quasar1011
September 23rd, 2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Mateo
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be A (thats singular good buddy)resurrection of the dead, BOTH (that's plural good buddy) of the just and unjust.

This verse still does not say that the dead will be resurrected at the same time, which is what my point was. Otherwise, I agree with you.

Mateo
September 23rd, 2003, 06:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mateo
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be A (thats singular good buddy)resurrection of the dead, BOTH (that's plural good buddy) of the just and unjust.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This verse still does not say that the dead will be resurrected at the same time, which is what my point was. Otherwise, I agree with you.


Okey dokey,

The word says after one or two admonitions let 'em go.

Number 2:

2Cor 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For we must ALL appear before THE judgment seat of Christ; that EVERY ONE may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be GOOD OR BAD.

Oh yea, by the way, If you'll read Rev 20 reeeeeeeal close you'll see that if you didn't die (as in be murdered) for the word of God or go through the great trib you will not be a part of the first resurrection and you will appear before the judgment seat of Christ ,whether ya done good or bad. Dig?

Done my best. Hope ya got ears.

Love

Mateo

Quasar1011
September 23rd, 2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Mateo
2Cor 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For we must ALL appear before THE judgment seat of Christ; that EVERY ONE may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be GOOD OR BAD.

Mateo

But see, you are proving my point. "We" may be accepted of Him, does that include the wicked? If not, this is the Bema Seat judgment. Do the wicked want to be present with the Lord? You need to look at the context. Paul wasn't speaking of all humanity, just the believers.

Best regards.

Mateo
September 23rd, 2003, 07:38 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mateo
2Cor 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For we must ALL appear before THE judgment seat of Christ; that EVERY ONE may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be GOOD OR BAD.

Mateo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But see, you are proving my point. "We" may be accepted of Him, does that include the wicked? If not, this is the Bema Seat judgment. Do the wicked want to be present with the Lord? You need to look at the context. Paul wasn't speaking of all humanity, just the believers.

Best regards.


Okay God,

You said in the mouth of two or three witnesses is a thing established so if it's okay with you I'll try one more time, If It's okay with you just don't say anything.

God:............


Mateo: Cool.


Otay Mr. Quasar:

Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


Again, one judgement of both the good and the bad. What makes you reject this notion my friend?

Love,

Mateo

Quasar1011
September 24th, 2003, 04:24 PM
Mateo, where do you say the final judgment takes place: on Earth, or in the heavenly realm?

Mateo
September 24th, 2003, 07:58 PM
Quasar asked:

Mateo, where do you say the final judgment takes place: on Earth, or in the heavenly realm?


Mateo says:

I was about to reply to this reflexively but something made me grab the Bible and double check. Glad I did...

Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.


If I understand what I am reading here correctly, the answer to your question is... neither.


I love it when I learn. That's why I'm here. Thanks Quasar.

Mateo

Ecumenicist
September 25th, 2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Mateo
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mateo
2Cor 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For we must ALL appear before THE judgment seat of Christ; that EVERY ONE may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be GOOD OR BAD.

Mateo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But see, you are proving my point. "We" may be accepted of Him, does that include the wicked? If not, this is the Bema Seat judgment. Do the wicked want to be present with the Lord? You need to look at the context. Paul wasn't speaking of all humanity, just the believers.

Best regards.


Okay God,

You said in the mouth of two or three witnesses is a thing established so if it's okay with you I'll try one more time, If It's okay with you just don't say anything.

God:............


Mateo: Cool.


Otay Mr. Quasar:

Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


Again, one judgement of both the good and the bad. What makes you reject this notion my friend?

Love,

Mateo

Given the importance of two or three witnesses, I'll back you
on this Mateo. This Scripture is truth.

Dave

Mateo
September 25th, 2003, 06:23 PM
"Given the importance of two or three witnesses, I'll back you
on this Mateo. This Scripture is truth.

Dave"


Dave,

My little portion of the spirit of truth salutes your little portion

Love,

Mateo

OMEGA
September 28th, 2003, 09:27 AM
(Gal 3:24 KJV) "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

(Gal 3:25 KJV) "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

We learned the Foundation of the knowledge of God and

His Requirements of Man from the Old Testament and

build our Faith on Christ from that knowledge.

Without the knowledge and references of the Old Testament,

we would find it hard to Believe who JESUS really was .



:thumb:

Mateo
September 28th, 2003, 11:36 AM
Yeah Buddy!

aikido7
October 16th, 2003, 01:56 PM
The following is the first half or so of Pslam 22, written approximately 1000 years before Christ was born. Also, it should be noted that the first historical record (http://www.bible.ca/d-history-archeology-crucifixion-cross.htm) of crucifixion is from the 6th century B.C., so it is likely that this psalm was written hundreds of years before anyone was ever crucified.

Studying this Psalm was one of the final steps that convinced me that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is who He says He is. I can think of no other rational conclusion, given the content of this psalm. To anyone who is unsure whether the Bible truly is the Word of God or simply a collection of books written by men, please take a few minutes to read this study of Psalm 22.




(Psalm 22:
1 My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
Why are You so far from helping Me,
And from the words of My groaning?

Matthew 27:46
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?

Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

_________________________________

Mark was the first gospel written. Lining up Mark side-by-side with Matthew and Luke, one can clearly see how Matthew and Luke copied Mark's account and changed it to suit their own purposes when they needed to.

Mark knew Jesus was crucified and used the Old Testament verse to show the agony Jesus must have gone through. After all, during the time Mark was written, the temple had been destroyed and Jews were being killed by the Romans in the war. Mark's community no doubt felt that God had indeed "forsaken" them. It would make perfect sense to write about a Jesus who was suffering along with Mark's community.

Rather than prophecy turning into history, this was history turned into prophecy by the gospel writers.

Mark's Jesus dies forsaken. John's Jesus dies in total control. An entire Roman legion falls down at his feet. Instead of wanting to avoid the bitter cup, John's Jesus asks for it. At the moment of death he declares "It is finished." Clearly, John's Jesus is in total control and things are being fulfilled right on schedule.

Notice that there is nothing in the gospels that hints at Jesus crying in the daytime and no one hearing and being less than silent in the nightime. Jesus, nor anyone else, compares himself to "a worm" in the New Testament. And clearly, "ALL" those who saw him DID NOT ridicule him. There are no "bulls of Bashan," counted bones out of joint, wax hearts, lions' mouths or oxens' horns.

All those motifs are relevant to the author of the Psalm. The gospel writers often "poured over scripture" to find commonalities they could apply to or transfer into to present events to give them cultural and theological weight.

This was a common practice and has nothing to do with factuality and history and has everything to do with mythology and theological truth. The gambling for the garmets and the other small details were added into the story of the crucifixion. The idea was not to tell lies but to point to spiritual truths.

We don't believe in the power of Christ because of prophecies, do we? We believe because Jesus, for us, shows us a glimpse of God Himself.

Ecumenicist
October 16th, 2003, 06:18 PM
I for one believe that Jesus literally said those words on the
Cross. I don't think this illustrates the prophesy of the Psalm so
much as how in touch with the Psalms Jesus was, which He oft
quoted. Like many people, Jesus let Scripture do His talking
for Him when appropriate.

This quote from Jesus is a stumbling block for many in understanding
Christ as God in the flesh, after all, why would Jesus call out His
utter sense of forsakenness if He was in fact God?

I think I said it before, I see this as an expression of His solidarity
with the suffering of humanity. Its also a demonstration of how
we as people can find the strength to deal with the lowest times of
our lives, by openly and honestly sharing our feelings with God, and
by remembering the great things God hath done both in Scripture
and in our lives. This helps us to hold onto the faith we need to
make it through the worst, lonliest, most painful experiences of our
lives.

Dave

Mateo
October 16th, 2003, 07:38 PM
Sounds like one or two folk have embraced theologies that preclude the plain implications contained in the 22nd Psalm. May I suggest that instead of twisting the meaning of Psa 22 to conform to your theology, you instead adjust your theology to conform to what Psa 22 says.

Love,

Mateo

aikido7
October 17th, 2003, 08:22 AM
David (or whoever is traditionally associated with Psalmic authorship) is asking God, in the present tense, to help him defeat his enemies. Read Psalm 12-18. He is asking for help for defending himself against a military threat, not making a prophecy. When he is defeated by the Gentile armies, they divided up his possessions and David prays in desperation to be saved from starvation, dehydration and battle wounds.

If Jesus selectively used these verses to apply to himself--then good for him! But they have nothing to do with prophecy.

We can all talk about implications. They are not evidence but belong to the realm of speculation.

LightSon
October 17th, 2003, 11:04 AM
Sounds like one or two folk have embraced theologies that preclude the plain implications contained in the 22nd Psalm. May I suggest that instead of twisting the meaning of Psa 22 to conform to your theology, you instead adjust your theology to conform to what Psa 22 says.
Mateo,
Perhaps you could share your view. Do you regard Psalm 22 as messianic?

Mateo
October 17th, 2003, 03:46 PM
LightSon,

Not to duck your question, but haven't we had this discussion already?

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9301&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

LightSon
October 17th, 2003, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Mateo
LightSon,

Not to duck your question, but haven't we had this discussion already?

You have a good memory.
Yes I do recall discussion Psalm 22 with you. As I recall, your main point was
I do not believe God turned His back on His Son at the cross. This notion gained some currency in several of the patented answer factories (seminaries, cemetaries, whatever) by those who either could not or would not make the connection between what Jesus uttered on the cross and the first line of Psalm 22. Jesus was pointing any and all to the Psalm which spoke of the cross so long before He was ever nailed to it. He was not lamenting the absense of His omnipresent Father or His gaze.

Concerning the notion that God cannot look upon sin and turned His back on His Son because of it, I leave you with the following verses:

So I understand you reject the notion of God "turning His back on sin and hence His Son", although I must confess I was really never satisfied with your interpretation of what exactly Jesus meant by exclaiming, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Your view as to whether the Psalm is messianic in a larger context is still obscure to me, but that's okay. I find many of the Psalms to be messianic, reflecting the very heart of Christ.

Mateo
October 17th, 2003, 08:52 PM
LightSon,

By way of clarification; to me it is somewhat ludicrous to conclude that lines which are so crucifixion/Christ specific should be attributed to David. The following are but a few examples:



Psa 22:7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

Luke 23:35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,
37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.



Psa 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
(I am unaware of anything in the history of David that would account for this line but Christ's crucifiction is a worthy match).



Psa 22:18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Mat 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. ( exactly which prophet do you contend is referred to here if not David?)



Ps 22:22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.



There is nothing in the record of David's life which would allow for these passages to be attributed to his experience which in my mind begs the question, "If not David , who?". For me and others the answer is obvious. For you it is apparently not... a pity.


Love,

Mateo

aikido7
October 17th, 2003, 10:01 PM
"There is nothing in the record of David's life which would allow for these passages to be attributed to his experience..."

What rules of evidence are you using here? More importantly, why are such passages written in the Psalms?

Mateo
October 18th, 2003, 12:25 AM
"What rules of evidence are you using here?"


The Bible...


"why are such passages written in the Psalms?"


For our admonition.

aikido7
October 18th, 2003, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Mateo
"What rules of evidence are you using here?"
The Bible...

"why are such passages written in the Psalms?"
For our admonition.

We use rules of evidence to evaluate Scripture, even if we are not aware of them. It pays to discover what these rules are (often described under the umbrella term hermenuetics).
An unexamined approach to the Bible is not worth much when discussing theology.

To put the question in a more focused way, what biblically-based legitimate standards are you using for what is presented in the Psalms to determine which parts apply to David's experience (the traditional view) and which parts apply to Jesus' life?

And given these standards, how are they applied in a consistent methodology?

I feel it is important for today's believers to engage in this behavior I call "thinking." It keeps us from rolling over and accepting conventional wisdom that may have nothing to do with actual textual data and evidence.

Mateo
October 18th, 2003, 08:02 PM
aikido7 stated:

"We use rules of evidence to evaluate Scripture, even if we are not aware of them. It pays to discover what these rules are (often described under the umbrella term hermenuetics).
An unexamined approach to the Bible is not worth much when discussing theology."


Well freind, I have a passing familiarity with English and I have read the passage above several times but I can't seem to make heads or tales of it.


"To put the question in a more focused way, what biblically-based legitimate standards are you using for what is presented in the Psalms to determine which parts apply to David's experience (the traditional view) and which parts apply to Jesus' life?

And given these standards, how are they applied in a consistent methodology?"


If I understand the question above correctly (and that's a big if) I offer the following sciptures by way of reply;

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

john 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Prov 2:6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

1Cor 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.


"I feel it is important for today's believers to engage in this behavior I call "thinking." It keeps us from rolling over and accepting conventional wisdom that may have nothing to do with actual textual data and evidence."

This is all well and good. Just have a care that you don't become too enamored of your own intellect. The best of us know nothing now as we should.

Love,

Mateo

aikido7
October 19th, 2003, 02:24 AM
You cannot argue from rules or standards by invoking those same standards as a basis for your arguments.

One cannot, for instance, say that a stop sign means "stop" simply because it is a stop sign.

Similarly, one cannot (with integrity) make a statement such as "There is nothing in the record of David's life which would allow for these passages to be attributed to his experience..." without providing specific evidence and/or a methodology out in the open for all to review that demonstrates first, that there is nothing in the life of David which makes possible such passages and second, that the Psalms are traditionally said to have been written by David himself.

And because I maybe paid attention in high school English class, do a lot of reading or worked on expanding my vocabulary does not mean I am "too enamored of (my) own intellect." You are again making a judgement without firm evidence.

We all see the Bible through a different lens. It is only honest to recognize the lens you are using, admit to it and use information to back up your choices.

Mateo
October 19th, 2003, 03:19 AM
"One cannot, for instance, say that a stop sign means "stop" simply because it is a stop sign."



:darwinsm:



Remind me to introduce you to Hilston...

aikido7
October 19th, 2003, 03:26 AM
Great answer! You didn't duck the question, you actually thought about what was written and you did it with honor and grace!

Mateo
October 19th, 2003, 08:23 AM
Friend, you just said a stop sign does not necessarily mean stop. This logic carried forward to the subject at hand would eventually arrive at the door step of God isn't necessarily God, Jesus isn't necessarily Jesus, etc. If, like Hilston, you redifine words as you go it is impossible to have any meaningful dialog. It's like talking to someone on LSD... reality is malliable. Though I have attempted to talk to the likes of Squeaky, Polycarp et. al. in the hopes of communication, even I am not willing to go this far.

Love,

Mateo

aikido7
October 19th, 2003, 12:40 PM
"One cannot, for instance, say that a stop sign means "stop" simply because it is a stop sign."

"...you just said a stop sign does not necessarily mean stop."

(... and so much for the validity of passing on written and oral tradition)

So it is truly an amazing miracle that our two ears are even with our eyes so that eyeglasses will fit, or that God put holes in the skin of cats exactly where their eyes are located!

aikido7
October 19th, 2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Mateo
Friend, you just said a stop sign does not necessarily mean stop. This logic carried forward to the subject at hand would eventually arrive at the door step of God isn't necessarily God, Jesus isn't necessarily Jesus, etc. attempted to talk to the likes of Squeaky, Polycarp et. al. in the hopes of communication, even I am not willing to go this far.
Love,

Mateo

Our idea of God is way below what God is; likewise our idea of Jesus comes (to most believers) through the canonical gospels which are second- and third-hand information.


If, like Hilston, you redifine words as you go it is impossible to have any meaningful dialog. It's like talking to someone on LSD... reality is malliable.

You claim I redefined words in this thread and stopped meaningful dialogue. I am not aware that I did, but maybe you are right. Why don't you show me specific instances and we can go over them together?

(For the record, I think truth and reality are absolute, but our perspectives on them are malleable. I have only to read the New Testament or these message boards for any evidence of that fact)

LightSon
October 19th, 2003, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by aikido7
... I think truth and reality are absolute, but our perspectives on them are malleable. I have only to read the New Testament or these message boards for any evidence of that fact)

aikido7, Mateo, et al,

There is an interesting discussion heating up on this topic over here, (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=360223#post360223) if you are interested.

Mateo
October 20th, 2003, 04:03 AM
LightSon,

Re: "over here". Freelight is a Gnostic. Gnosticism is intellectually intertaining but, at the end of the day, yet one more reiteration of the lie told by Satan in the garden. "Ye shall be as gods" was Satans claim and Gnosticism makes this same claim for itself by being able to bring forth God in man through mental self perfection (Gnosis). Been there and done that before I saw the truth of the word of God. Thanks but no thanks.

Love,

Mateo

Turbo
October 25th, 2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by aikido7
Mark was the first gospel written. Lining up Mark side-by-side with Matthew and Luke, one can clearly see how Matthew and Luke copied Mark's account and changed it to suit their own purposes when they needed to.Did you figure this out all on your own, or did you get the idea from "Biblical scholars?"


There are no "bulls of Bashan," counted bones out of joint, wax hearts, lions' mouths or oxens' horns. Counted bones: Though the legs of the other two being crucified were broken to hasten their deaths, Christ was already dead. Therefore his bones remained whole.(John 19:33) Did you know that Moses commanded that the Passover Lamb's bones must not be broken? And that Jesus, whom John the Baptist called "the Lamb of God," was crucified at the time of the Passover feast when the Jews were slaughtering their lambs?

Bones out of joint: Do you suppose that being crucified might cause one's bones to be "out of joint?"

Wax heart: "It has melted within Me." In response to this verse, I cited John 19:34, which says that shortly after Jesus died he was stabbed with a spear, and blood and water came out. ("I am poured out like water.") This is an indication that Christ died of congestive heart failure.

For more information, click here (http://home.earthlink.net/~jimpool2/stories/doctor.html) and read the text under the heading, The Spearing in the Side.

Lion’s mouth and oxens' horns.

12 Many bulls have surrounded Me;
Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me.
13 They gape at Me with their mouths,
Like a raging and roaring lion.

21 Save Me from the lion's mouth
And from the horns of the wild oxen!

As with the dogs, the oxen/bulls and lion apparently refer to those surrounding Christ on the cross, but I’m not sure about the specifics. (If anyone has any insights, please let me know.)


All those motifs are relevant to the author of the Psalm. How so? Please elaborate.


The gospel writers often "poured over scripture" to find commonalities they could apply to or transfer into to present events to give them cultural and theological weight.

This was a common practice and has nothing to do with factuality and history and has everything to do with mythology and theological truth. The gambling for the garmets and the other small details were added into the story of the crucifixion. How do you know? Where are the written eye-witness accounts that support this assertion?


We don't believe in the power of Christ because of prophecies, do we? We believe because Jesus, for us, shows us a glimpse of God Himself. Jesus said,

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17


For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. John 5:46

Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Matthew 23:33-35

But you probably think Matthew and John was fibbing about that, too. :rolleyes:

aikido7
October 25th, 2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Turbo
Did you figure this out all on your own, or did you get the idea from "Biblical scholars?"

To understand the differenct perspectives, it really helps to do your own, reasearch. Those who have a fear of "worldly knowledge," "biblical scholarship," or the general fear of moderity that most all fundamentalists of every faith harbor and nurture, the period at the end of this sentence is probably the best place to exit any journey in a search for truth.

My father directed me to get a red, blue and green marker. As I remember, I used a green-covered, extra Gideon Bible we had lying around the house. Read the gospels side-by-side (this is so you can carefully compare them and actually get a real "heads up" on what is actually THERE in Scripture. Use the color red, say, to mark agreements (and this is literal agreements by the way), between Matthew and Mark. Use blue to show agreements between Mark and Luke; green for agreements between Matthew and Luke. Use any combination of two colors for agreements among all three. For a deeper, "scholarly" view, you can use dotted lines to show agreements in word, word root or substantial agreement (other than literal).

If you can do this quietly and without interruptions, it can be a great experience. Can you argue with anything that can bring you closer to God's word, Turbo? To me deep study like this becomes prayer; it is so much more useful to have a relationship with scripture unmediated by men's (earnest though they may be) unmeaningful gloss on the New Testament.

Counted bones: Though the legs of the other two being crucified were broken to hasten their deaths, Christ was already dead. Therefore his bones remained whole.(John 19:33) Did you know that Moses commanded that the Passover Lamb's bones must not be broken? And that Jesus, whom John the Baptist called "the Lamb of God," was crucified at the time of the Passover feast when the Jews were slaughtering their lambs?

MY REPLY:We need to be aware of the uniqueness of the Fourth Gospel, when it was written and why and some of the insights of his special vision. Because John is more heavily theological than the other three, it should not be taken as literally. If you carefully read John opposite the synoptical gospels, you can clearly see that the tone, the chronology, Jesus' style of teaching and his message are often flatly contradicted by the other three accounts.

Since part of John's agenda was to show Jesus as the "unblemished lamb" of the Passover sacrifice (and why John's dating of the crucifixion nearly 24 hours before the other three gospels report should not engender feelings of alarm or threat. We need to celebrate the diversity in the New Testament as examples of how God's inspiration works in the world--differently to different times and people. A bit of common sense swimming is a great antidote to the belief that we must always stand on the world's shore, never bathing in the waters of our Creator.

Bones out of joint: Do you suppose that being crucified might cause one's bones to be "out of joint?"

see above

Wax heart: "It has melted within Me." In response to this verse, I cited John 19:34, which says that shortly after Jesus died he was stabbed with a spear, and blood and water came out. ("I am poured out like water.") This is an indication that Christ died of congestive heart failure.

MY REPLY:In my opinion, you are literalizing the spiritual--actually, what anthropologists call "concretizing" the idea so it can be more accessible to you. There's nothing good or bad about such literalizing; in some cases it is useful to KNOW you are literalizing the spiritual meaning of the Bible.

For more information, click here (http://home.earthlink.net/~jimpool2/stories/doctor.html) and read the text under the heading, The Spearing in the Side.

Lion’s mouth and oxens' horns.

12 Many bulls have surrounded Me;
Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me.
13 They gape at Me with their mouths,
Like a raging and roaring lion.

21 Save Me from the lion's mouth
And from the horns of the wild oxen!

As with the dogs, the oxen/bulls and lion apparently refer to those surrounding Christ on the cross, but I’m not sure about the specifics. (If anyone has any insights, please let me know.)

How so? Please elaborate.

How do you know? Where are the written eye-witness accounts that support this assertion?

Jesus said,

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17


For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. John 5:46

Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Matthew 23:33-35

But you probably think Matthew and John was fibbing about that, too. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]

MY REPLY:It is a very popular error to think that because written tradition is changed or adapted through time, then it must be "lies." this is a secular way of looking at it. All I can say is my opinion here, of course, but I am not the only one who knows this about ancient narrative style and probably any of those evil, worldly biblical scholars you fear to tread with would agree--plus lots of anthropolgists and generalists who know this as well. I remeber going to a tribal story-telling session (I live in the Northwest, so there are many, many Indian--or Native American or whatever--tribes) and the narrator said something like "The story I am going to tell you is true--and some of it really happened!"

In other words, metaphorical narratives can be profoundly true, even though not literally factual. We really need to do some "non-secular" study of what metaphor, myth, and parable ACTUALLY mean. Does that make sense to you? Only then can we get closer to reading the Bible on ITS terms rather than through lenses we have been conditioned to wear. These were first-century writers. This is not worldly biography. The gospels were faith documents and--as such--contained a complex blend of remembered history and embellished theology

Poly
October 25th, 2003, 02:48 PM
aikido7's motto: "If you don't like it, spiritualize it."

aikido7
October 25th, 2003, 03:01 PM
...then let's just say that when John says Jesus is "the Lamb of God" then Mary must have "had a little lamb?"

Poly, Poly, Poly!

One Eyed Jack
October 25th, 2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by aikido7
In other words, metaphorical narratives can be profoundly true, even though not literally factual. We really need to do some "non-secular" study of what metaphor, myth, and parable ACTUALLY mean. Does that make sense to you? Only then can we get closer to reading the Bible on ITS terms rather than through lenses we have been conditioned to wear. These were first-century writers. This is not worldly biography. The gospels were faith documents and--as such--contained a complex blend of remembered history and embellished theology

In other words, all that stuff about God was made up. This is what aikido7 is trying to get people to believe, without coming straight out and saying it.

aikido7
October 25th, 2003, 07:41 PM
What specific "stuff" about God was made up? How do you presume privy to what I am doing? "Trying to get people to believe?" To BELIEVE??? Where specifically did I say THAT?

Unfortunately, you missed the point. Fortunately, for you, you are obviously unaware of missing it.

One Eyed Jack
October 25th, 2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by aikido7
What specific "stuff" about God was made up?

You tell me -- that's what you're trying to say.


How do you presume privy to what I am doing?

I presume nothing. It's obvious what you're doing.


"Trying to get people to believe?" To BELIEVE??? Where specifically did I say THAT?

You didn't have to.


Unfortunately, you missed the point. Fortunately, for you, you are obviously unaware of missing it.

I don't think so.

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
You tell me -- that's what you're trying to say.

That's not what I am trying to say. Tell me, specifically, what leads you to presume I am "making stuff up" about God?


I presume nothing. It's obvious what you're doing.

How do you presume that what I am doing is obvious? No grand generalities here--be explicit and unambiguous....(if you are able!)


You didn't have to.

If I "didn't have to," then you need to take me more literally. And it would be nice if you would answer specifically and literally as well. Again:

"Where and what, specficially, did I say in my post that led you to presume I did not have to say anything about 'getting people to believe.' ?"


I don't think so.

Well then I must be mistaken. You obviously ARE aware of missing it. Confessing ignorance is not easy. Good for you!

One Eyed Jack
October 26th, 2003, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by aikido7
That's not what I am trying to say. Tell me, specifically, what leads you to presume I am "making stuff up" about God?

I never said you were making stuff up about God. You're the one claiming that the theology (stuff about God) contained in the Gospels is embellished (made up).


How do you presume that what I am doing is obvious?

I presume nothing. All I have to do is read your posts to see what you're doing.

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I never said you were making stuff up about God. You're the one claiming that the theology (stuff about God) contained in the Gospels is embellished (made up).

I presume nothing. All I have to do is read your posts to see what you're doing.

I never said that. You presume to embellish and make up what I said. And presuming "to know what I'm doing" by selectively or superficially reading what I posted on a message board is laughable.

One Eyed Jack
October 26th, 2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by aikido7
I never said that.

Yes, you did.


Originally posted by aikido7
The gospels were faith documents and--as such--contained a complex blend of remembered history and embellished theology

Those are your own words.


You presume to embellish and make up what I said. And presuming "to know what I'm doing" by selectively or superficially reading what I posted on a message board is laughable.

Once again -- I presume nothing. Your feeble attempts at deception are transparent.

Turbo
October 26th, 2003, 01:01 AM
To clarify:
aikido7, you stated,

The gambling for the garmets and the other small details were added into the story of the crucifixion. You said that this event did not happen, but that the Gospel writers recorded that it did anyway so that they could (falsely) claim a prophesy was fulfilled. Isn't that what you believe?

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear how everything that is described in Psalm 22 applies to its author.

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 01:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by aikido7
"I never said that."

Yes, you did.

quote:
Originally posted by aikido7
"The gospels were faith documents and--as such--contained a complex blend of remembered history and embellished theology"

Yes--but I did NOT say that "theology" or "stuff about God" is "made up." That's what you presumed I said. That would be a rather unbelievable claim--either on my part or in the Bible itself. That's not my idea of how sacred textual language and inspiration work.

Those are your own words.

And I stand by them. But I will not accept that biblical theologies are "made up" and I do not accept theology as "stuff about God." I see embellished (focused, embroidered, changed and/or improved upon) as quite a different thing than "making stuff up." The latter would fall into the category of the usual secular notions about "myth." And I think the word "stuff" is crude and demeans theology and ultimately, God.

quote:
"You presume to embellish and make up what I said. And presuming "to know what I'm doing" by selectively or superficially reading what I posted on a message board is laughable."

Once again -- I presume nothing. Your feeble attempts at deception are transparent

If you think it is deception, you are wrong. I am not here to deceive. I will be glad to answer your questions and try to explain it to you. If you don't agree that the Bible is not all literal, then just say so--let your yes be a yes or your no be a no. If you do not grasp the richness in the text, the form of ancient religious writing and the details of the New Testament , then I have evidently made a feeble attempt to explain how inspriation works, what mythic language is and why Jesus spoke in parables.

Myth is the world view. Mythic language is the culture (this includes institutions, art, language, dress, habits of relationship, social hierarchies, etc. etc.) which demonstrate that world view day after day. In people's lives. It is like the water that surrounds the fish and sustains it.

Parable undercuts and ultimately subverts myth.

Turbo
October 26th, 2003, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by aikido7
[b]Yes--but I did NOT say that "theology" or "stuff about God" is "made up." That's what you presumed I said. That would be a rather unbelievable claim--either on my part or in the Bible itself. That's not my idea of how sacred textual language and inspiration work.[b/]You did say that no one cast lots and divided Christ's garments, but that the Gospel writers added that to the account to claim a fulfilled prophesy. (You thereby accuse the Gospel writers of bearing false witness, by the way.)

One Eyed Jack
October 26th, 2003, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by aikido7
Yes--but I did NOT say that "theology" or "stuff about God" is "made up."

You said the Gospels contained embellished theology.


That's what you presumed I said.

I presumed nothing. I simply took what you said and made the meaning clear.


That would be a rather unbelievable claim

I find most of your claims to be quite unbelievable.


And I stand by them.

Then why do you try to deny them?


I do not accept that biblical theologies are "made up"

Then why do you imply they've had fictitious details added?


and I do not accept theology as "stuff about God."

What do you accept as theology then?


If you think it is deception, you are wrong.

I don't think so.


If you do not grasp it, then I have evidently made a feeble attempt to explain how inspriation works, what mythic language is and why Jesus spoke in parables.

Oh, I grasp what you're saying all right. All too well apparently, judging by how upset you get when I point it out to others.

Turbo
October 26th, 2003, 01:35 AM
Aikido, did was Christ actually raised from the dead? Or was that a parable? Or did the Gospel writers add in that detail?

One Eyed Jack
October 26th, 2003, 01:36 AM
Aikido doesn't believe in the bodily Resurrection of Christ.

Turbo
October 26th, 2003, 01:39 AM
Surprise, surprise!

Is that right, aikido?

One Eyed Jack
October 26th, 2003, 01:40 AM
He's busy quoting my post, obviously trying to think up some clever argument.

Turbo
October 26th, 2003, 01:43 AM
I wish he'd take a little more care formatting the quotes.

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by Turbo
To clarify:
aikido7, you stated,
You said that this event did not happen, but that the Gospel writers recorded that it did anyway so that they could (falsely) claim a prophesy was fulfilled. Isn't that what you believe?

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear how everything that is described in Psalm 22 applies to its author.

You misunderstand the intent of the gospel writers. First of all, they were gospels. Literally, that means "good news." The word "good" implies an evaluation--a judgement. In this case, the judgement comes from different gospel writers. Those who saw Jesus' teachings as harmless would not use the same evaluation. The Romans, generally speaking, certainly didn't.
So it was "good" only from a particular point of view. Not all people then--good and bad, just and unjust--saw it that way. It's the same today. "News" implies what is in the word itself. New. Fresh. Not yesterday's papers. This is news! Each gospel writer updated that original news (Jesus' teachings) to a new time and a new community. Each of the four gospels were written from about 50 to 80 years after Jesus died. Each gospel writer updated Jesus' timeless message to be available to their own community.

Did you read the gospels in parallel--side-by-side? Did you note where they deviated from each other and how? Do you think those were just "transcription errors" that caused the differences? I don't believe so.

Now--I see a difference between making something up and updating a message for a new audience. Creativity is not deception. Inspiration is not channeling. It is spiritual art.

The Psalms were part of every Jew's mythology and it does not surprise me they were freely used to drive home the point that the Romans treated Jesus like some abomination. Matthew--whose agenda was to make Jesus the "new Moses" anyway and more palatable to mainstream Jews-- used parts of the Hebrew Bible which would resonate with power and turn prophecy into history.

Otherwise, you have a lot of messy details in the so-called "prophecies" which just do not fit.

Everything in Psalm 22 applies to what was going on in real time whenever it was written. It tells a story that was partially and selectively pasted into the Passion narratives. It's not that the ancient writers were so dumb and they told these mythological stories--it's that the ancients told creative, myth-filled stories and we got dumb and took them literally.

One Eyed Jack
October 26th, 2003, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Turbo
I wish he'd take a little more care formatting the quotes.

I think he formats his stuff weirdly to throw his opponents off in debates. He usually does that after several posts. And my mistake -- he was quoting you, not me.

One Eyed Jack
October 26th, 2003, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by Turbo
Surprise, surprise!

Is that right, aikido?

You can read his own words here (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=304529#post304529).


Originally posted by aikido7
Like Paul, I believe the resurrection had nothing to do with Jesus' earthly body. God does not literally "raise bodies up from the dead" or empty the cemeteries. There is a divine constancy and consistency to the natural order.

No one knows for sure what happens after we die. Human hopes and fears are articulated in our theologies and myths.

Personally, I think it will either be one of the greatest experiences of all or it will be absolutely nothing.

Jesus wasn't concerned with heaven. Heaven was in good shape.

Turbo
October 26th, 2003, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by aikido7
Everything in Psalm 22 applies to what was going on in real time whenever it was written.Yes, you asserted this earlier. Twice I have asked you for details to back up your claim, but so far you have been unresponsive.

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 02:09 AM
If we look at the gospels themselves--without embellishing them to say what we WANT or WISH them to say--and we were to try to synthesize the gospel stories into a consistent chronology of what actually happened (and I invite you to write a chronolgical account of the resurrection all the way to the ascencion--without leaving out one biblical detail!) we come down to one possible answer: The gospel stories about Easter are not historical accounts but religious myths.

Now I invite you back, but I don't think you have the time or acumen to stick with such a project. After all, I have heard no feedback whatsoever on a careful parallel reading of the gospels. Any studied look can see that both Matthew and Luke follow Mark's general order of things and both change key details in his version to serve their own agenda.

We're talking about "news" here--remember? Not yesterday's (Mark's) story but something that will be meaningful and relevant to Matthew and Luke's community of followers. Something that's new--not something stuck in the hill country of Mark.

And there's more than the Bible, too. Did you ever get curious to look around in your local Christian bookstore? Talk about meaningful and relevant that embellishes on the Bible! Wow!

These are not clever arguments unless you are literal-minded and suspicious of people who read differently than you do.

You think you farm people are better than hill people? You and your fancy-pants high-falutin' ways? We know a lot more than you'll EVER know. You just like to look down on us and make fun of us behind our backs. We'll get you sucker!!! You ain't as smart as you think you are with all that them-there book-learnin'. Books! Shee-it! I don't need no books. I don't need to go into town or work on a farm. I just need to stay in the hills like my daddy's family did and his family before him!

Turbo
October 26th, 2003, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by aikido7
Like Paul, I believe the resurrection had nothing to do with Jesus' earthly body. God does not literally "raise bodies up from the dead" or empty the cemeteries. There is a divine constancy and consistency to the natural order.


Originally written by Paul
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
...Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, 12-14Paul wrote some strange stuff for a guy who didn't believe Christ was raised from the dead.:rolleyes:

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Turbo
Yes, you asserted this earlier. Twice I have asked you for details to back up your claim, but so far you have been unresponsive.

From the NIV Study Bible (1985, Zondervan):

"The Psalter is a collection of collections and represents the final stage in a process that spans centuries. It was put into its final form by postexilic temple personnel, who completed it probably in the third century B.C...In fact, the formation of psalters probably goes back to the early days of the first (Solomon's) temple (or even to the time of David...."

--page 781

"The Jewish nature of Matthew's Gospel may suggest that it was written in Palestine, though many think it may have originated in Syrian Antioch. Some have argued on the basis of its Jewish characteristics (italics mine) that it was written...possibly the early part of A.D.50..Accordingly, some feel that Mastthew would have been written in the late 50s or in the 60s....Others (conclude Matthew was written) in the 70s or even later."

--page1439

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by aikido7
Everything in Psalm 22 applies to what was going on in real time whenever it was written.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 02:30 AM
You both presume to know what Paul meant and what the term resurrection meant for first-century Jews during the time of Jesus. You both presume that Paul was speaking of a corporeal resurrection when there is no biblical evidence that he thought that at all.

Have you boys studied the gospels in parallel yet or written down a record to harmonize the resurrection and ascention accounts?

Turbo
October 26th, 2003, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by aikido7
If we look at the gospels themselves--without embellishing them to say what we WANT or WISH them to say--and we were to try to synthesize the gospel stories into a consistent chronology of what actually happened (and I invite you to write a chronolgical account of the resurrection all the way to the ascencion--without leaving out one biblical detail!) we come down to one possible answer: The gospel stories about Easter are not historical accounts but religious myths. [/i]

This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. John 21:24-25Note that John claims that his testimony is true, but he readily acknowledges that his account is by no means exhaustive.

As with all historical accounts, many details had to be omitted. But you are claiming that he and the other writers added details that did not actually happen at all.

Turbo
October 26th, 2003, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by aikido7
From the NIV Study Bible (1985, Zondervan):

"The Psalter is a collection of collections and represents the final stage in a process that spans centuries. It was put into its final form by postexilic temple personnel, who completed it probably in the third century B.C...In fact, the formation of psalters probably goes back to the early days of the first (Solomon's) temple (or even to the time of David...."

--page 781

"The Jewish nature of Matthew's Gospel may suggest that it was written in Palestine, though many think it may have originated in Syrian Antioch. Some have argued on the basis of its Jewish characteristics (italics mine) that it was written...possibly the early part of A.D.50..Accordingly, some feel that Mastthew would have been written in the late 50s or in the 60s....Others (conclude Matthew was written) in the 70s or even later."

--page1439

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by aikido7
Everything in Psalm 22 applies to what was going on in real time whenever it was written.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This does not address my question in any way, nor does it support your claim that "Psalm 22 applies to what was going on in real time whenever it was written."

I pointed out in quite a bit of detail how Psalm 22 applies to Christ's crucifixion, but you say no, it applies to the author and the events surrounding him.

I'm asking you to support this assertion in detail.

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 02:41 AM
As with all historical/theological accounts, many details had to be added or the originals embellished. That's the way inspiration has always worked.

Because a story is true does not mean it actually happened. To me truth is paradoxical and logical by turns. Everything that is hidden will be revealed....

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by Turbo
This does not address my question in any way, nor does it support your claim that "Psalm 22 applies to what was going on in real time whenever it was written."

I pointed out in quite a bit of detail how Psalm 22 applies to Christ's crucifixion, but you say no, it applies to the author and the events surrounding him.

I'm asking you to support this assertion in detail.

That would require a study of the Old Testament and Matthew's gospel in detail.

The simple facts are that the Psalms were written much earlier than Matthew. If you want to use selective parts of the Psalms as a crystal ball to "prove" Jesus was foretold, then go ahead. Matthew was much more intelligent and a better writer than that. His intention was to confirm what was already there in a creative way. You are not required to sit in the pew and be spoon-fed by me or anyone else. Obedience in this case is weakness. Get out, enjoy the sunshine and find out what you can on your own! Trust me, you're not ready for this.

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by Turbo
Aikido, did was Christ actually raised from the dead? Or was that a parable? Or did the Gospel writers add in that detail?

If Jesus could describe the Kingdom of God in parable, I have no trouble believing that the gospel writers often described Jesus in the same way.

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I presumed nothing. I simply took what you said and made the meaning clear.
You certainly didn't make it clear to me.
I find most of your claims to be quite unbelievable.


Then why do you try to deny them?
uh, well duh!


Then why do you imply they've had fictitious details added?
Why do you presume I do?


What do you accept as theology then?
Not "stuff about God." Crude word, "stuff."


I don't think so.
You don't think period


Oh, I grasp what you're saying all right. All too well apparently, judging by how upset you get when I point it out to others.
Your words show otherwise. You're only grasping at straws now. And your peppy clarivoyance is just out of control, isn't it? Prove I am upset. Remember, words are only less than 10% of the meaning in communication. You are one little whiz of a mind-reader if you can divine my emotional state from just my words. I hope you don't make any mind-reading guesses as to what the Bible is actually saying! And no upset "smilies" posted for you, either!

Mateo
October 26th, 2003, 08:15 AM
akido7 said:

"To me truth is paradoxical and logical by turns."


Mateo reminds one and all:

I tried to warn you guys...



;)

Turbo
October 26th, 2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Turbo
This does not address my question in any way, nor does it support your claim that "Psalm 22 applies to what was going on in real time whenever it was written."
...
I'm asking you to support this assertion in detail.

Originally posted by aikido7
That would require a study of the Old Testament and Matthew's gospel in detail.Matthew's gospel should play no part in supporting your assertion.

I want to know how everything in Psalm 22 applies to its author, not how it applies to Matthew or Christ.

For instance, how did the talk about the ridiculing onlookers; pierced hands and feet; the cleaving tongue; counting bones; the heart melting like wax; being poured out like water; the dogs, bulls, and the lion; and dividing and casting lots for the garments all apply to the "what was going on in real time whenever [Psalm 22] was written?"

I challenge you to describe:
What was going on whenever Psalm 22 was written? How do each of the details of from Psalm 22 apply to what was going on?

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 01:16 PM
For instance, how did the talk about the ridiculing onlookers; pierced hands and feet; the cleaving tongue; counting bones; the heart melting like wax; being poured out like water; the dogs, bulls, and the lion; and dividing and casting lots for the garments all apply to the "what was going on in real time whenever [Psalm 22] was written?"

I challenge you to describe:

What was going on whenever Psalm 22 was written?
How do each of the details of from Psalm 22 apply to what was going on?



You mean, if like a video recorder was working when the actual text was first written? That's a pretty ridiculous question to ask me on the face of it. I would go online and check some Jewish rabbinical commentary sites. I don't know much about the Old Testament unless you're talking about hard evidence like archeology and paleography that are part of the public record. Your question presumes I am an Old Testament specialist. I am not.

If I was and was an ancient gospel writer, I might take snippets out of a text and weave a story around those snippets and make darn well sure the story--whatever it turned out to be--related to the people around me and what I wanted to communicate in the story. THAT'S what was done. None of these isolated facts has anything to do with Jesus except the fact that they culturally resonated.

It is no accident that Luke puts the Isaiah OT quote about setting the captives free, etc. in Jesus' mouth to announce the begining of his ministry. The two events (Jesus and the Isaiah reference) ]have NOTHING to do with each other but Jesus' whole life revolved around a similar mandate from God. So Luke saw fit to tie them together and the text is richer for it and my personal faith is deeper because of it.

After doing some extra reading--albeit cursory and superficial-- based on your recommendations, I am strongly leaning away from my previous view that the Psalms were written by David. Based on his soap-opera shennanigans that are already familiar to us, I doubt the poor guy had the time! Just common sense backed up with mainstream biblical studies.

I guess that is just one of those details I need to let go of--like Luke was a doctor or that the gospel writers named were actually their "real" names. I have left those two behind years ago for similar reasons. Besides, they aren't really important to assent to as a Christian believer anyway--are they?

One Eyed Jack
October 26th, 2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by aikido7
You certainly didn't make it clear to me.

I didn't have to -- it was already clear to you. What you don't like is that I made it clear to everybody else.


Why do you presume I do?

I presume nothing. You said the Gospels contain embellished theology. Are you now saying they don't have fictitious details added to them?


Not "stuff about God."

What then?


Your words show otherwise.

How do my words do that?


You're only grasping at straws now.

I'm not grasping at anything. It's obvious. Maybe if you poured a little less indignation into your posts, it wouldn't be.


Prove I am upset.

I'll let you do that with your next response.


Remember, words are only less than 10% of the meaning in communication.

Oh really? Well let's just sit around and hum at each other, and see what kind of messages we can communicate that way.


You are one little whiz of a mind-reader if you can divine my emotional state from just my words.

It doesn't take a mind-reader to do that. A basic understanding of psychology is all it takes.

Turbo
October 26th, 2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by aikido7
You mean, if like a video recorder was working when the actual text was first written? That's a pretty ridiculous question to ask me on the face of it. I would go online and check some Jewish rabbinical commentary sites. I don't know much about the Old Testament unless you're talking about hard evidence like archeology and paleography that are part of the public record. Your question presumes I am an Old Testament specialist. I am not. Ah, so when you stated earlier...
All those motifs are relevant to the author of the Psalm.
------------------------------------------------------------
Everything in Psalm 22 applies to what was going on in real time whenever it was written....you were just making an assumption. Thank you for finally conceding that you cannot even begin to back up these statements. You aren't even able to identify the author, let alone the events this Psalm is supposedly describing.

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 05:06 PM
Ah, so when you stated earlier...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All those motifs are relevant to the author of the Psalm.
------------------------------------------------------------
Everything in Psalm 22 applies to what was going on in real time whenever it was written.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...you were just making an assumption. Thank you for finally conceding that you cannot even begin to back up these statements. You aren't even able to identify the author, let alone the events this Psalm is supposedly describing.

No one is able to identify the author--or authors. And I stand by my statements. They seem wise and judicious to me, given the present state of the evidence. Sorry, but unless someone finds a new manuscript somewhere, the present state of affiars will have to do.

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 05:27 PM
I didn't have to -- it was already clear to you. What you don't like is that I made it clear to everybody else.

How was it already clear to me? How do you presume to know what I like?


I presume nothing. You said the Gospels contain embellished theology. Are you now saying they don't have fictitious details added to them?

They do, as you well know. You haven't been paying attention. "Fictitious details" is a term from the secular Enlightenment. It has no bearing on sacred Scripture. You are presumably wrestling with concepts you know nothing about and by using a modern mind as well. No wonder you don't get it.


What then?

Just about ANYTHING is more elevated than referring to theology as "stuff." Don't you know the etymology of that word? I presume you could guess, but it would be too lewd to point it out to you myself....


How do my words do that?

By asking questions that I have already answered.


I'm not grasping at anything. It's obvious. Maybe if you poured a little less indignation into your posts, it wouldn't be.

"Grasping at straws" is a figure of speech. Don't take it literally. And there you go again, presuming to know what I feel. Interesting, anyway...


Oh really? Well let's just sit around and hum at each other, and see what kind of messages we can communicate that way.

Don't be silly. Just take care with your language and take responsibility for what you say. So far you haven't. Read your posts again carefully. You are one little whiz of a mind-reader if you can divine my emotional state from just my words.


It doesn't take a mind-reader to do that. A basic understanding of psychology is all it takes.

What approach to psychology are you taking? I think you know nothing about formal psychological standards, let alone a focused and historical study of the Bible.

One Eyed Jack
October 26th, 2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by aikido7
How was it already clear to me?

So now you're saying you didn't know what you meant?


How do you presume to know what I like?

I presume nothing. I simply judge by your reaction.


They do, as you well know.

No, I don't know that, nor do I believe it.


You haven't been paying attention.

Oh, I've been paying attention all right. Perhaps you'd be happier if I weren't?


Just about ANYTHING is more elevated than referring to theology as "stuff." Don't you know the etymology of that word? I presume you could guess, but it would be too lewd to point it out to you myself....

I know the etymology of the word theology. How about just giving a straight answer to the question?


By asking questions that I have already answered.

Is that what you're upset about?


"Grasping at straws" is a figure of speech. Don't take it literally.

I didn't.


And there you go again, presuming to know what I feel.

I presume nothing.


Don't be silly.

I'm not being silly.


Just take care with your language and take responsibility for what you say.

You do the same.


So far you haven't.

Speak for yourself. I'm not the one denying that I've said things I've been quoted as saying.


Read your posts again carefully.

I read all my posts carefully.


You are one little whiz of a mind-reader if you can divine my emotional state from just my words.

I don't need to be a mind-reader to judge your emotional state from just your words. The indignation you pour into your posts, coupled with your ad hominems against me make it pretty obvious.

aikido7
October 26th, 2003, 06:56 PM
You excite me, not upset me. I enjoy your posts: you stimulate my mind such that there is almost an unbrokered connection between my thoughts and my fingers on the keyboard. My mind, heart and fingers dance.

Responding to your level of reaction is the best thing for me to pay attention to where I am in my spritual journey.

Sorry, if you think I am attacking you. If I am, please provide some evidence for that and I will be glad to discuss those instances with you. I only ask that in defense of clarity, you bring up one problem at a time so that we can both focus on that one until we move on.

Agreed?

I am not the kind of Christian who looks at my faith as a set of requirements but a living relationship. Because this is how I think and feel, I am oviously going to study the Bible in my own way.

I do think a poetic approach to sacred writing is mandatory for anyone who is interested in getting beyond a surface, literal reading of the Bible. But many are quite happy with their own approach. I fault the secular education system for this disparity. Many of us are ignorant of our own tradition.

A classical education would help, I think, as prepatory to an approach to Scripture. So would an acquaintance with myth, metaphor, similie, parable and poetic literature. America's spiriual underpinings, our political and social philiosophy, our Western literary heritage, our architecutre and art cannot be connected to a spiritual struggle if we are not conversant in the classics.

When most Christians hear of such an approach to the Bible, they are understandably put off. There are those, generally speaking, that see Christianity as a set of requirements and then there are those that see Christianity as a relationship.

I am of the latter and all relationships--if you have ever felt love or believe that beauty and knowledge triumph over power--know that a relationship is dynamic, waxing and waning and enriching itself with each turn of the spiral.

Like Jesus said: people point to the Kingdom and say there it is or here it is, but the Kingdom is spread out upon the world and men do not see it.

Don't be too quick to judge, One-Eyed Jack! Lighten up! Let's continue to "play in the fields of the Lord."

One Eyed Jack
October 26th, 2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by aikido7
Sorry, if you think I am attacking you. If I am, please provide some evidence for that and I will be glad to discuss those instances with you. I only ask that in defense of clarity, you bring up one problem at a time so that we can both focus on that one until we move on.

Agreed?

No.


I am not the kind of Christian

You're not any kind of Christian.

OMEGA
November 22nd, 2003, 12:56 AM
ONE EYED JACK SAID :
----------------------------------------
You're not any kind of Christian.
----------------------------------------

ONE EYED JACK - I TEND TO DISAGREE .

I think that aikido7 is SEARCHING for Truth .

Does God Really Exist ?

Does God Really Love Me ?

Can I Trust and Rely on God ?

These are questions that young people ask of their Parents.

And every young person needs to know if they can Rely and

Trust their Parents to always be their to Nurture and Protect them.

--------------

Regarding Psalm 22 , Jesus obviously new his Scriptures

by Memory and must have Read Ps 22 many times and

thought about it when the Pharasees mocked him and

thought about it when he knew that soon he would be

crucified and his body would be pierced and he would be spit on

by the Roman Soldiers and the Sanhedron .

----------------------------

(Psa 22:1 KJV) To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

(Psa 22:2 KJV) O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

(Psa 22:3 KJV) But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

(Psa 22:4 KJV) Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.

(Psa 22:5 KJV) They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.

(Psa 22:6 KJV) But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

(Psa 22:7 KJV) All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,

(Psa 22:8 KJV) He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

elohiym
November 22nd, 2003, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by LightSon
Study the scriptures. In them you will see that you were created for more than just this short and often unsatisfying physical life. God reveals His mind in the Bible. If you study His Word diligently, He will reveal His truth to you. LightSon,

That was an awesome post. I just quoted the end of it, but I thought the whole thing was right on.

Elo

jeremiah
November 22nd, 2003, 10:08 AM
I have read that many of the rabbis and teachers before the Birth of Yeshua taught that Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 were Messianic scriptures. They taught that the Messiah would be a suffering servant, Messiah ben Joseph?, and that He would quote Psalm 22, My God, My God why has thou forsaken Me.
After the fulfillment of those scriptures by Yeshua, the Jews who believed His report, accepted the prior teaching and believed Yeshua was who he claimed to be. Those who rejected Yeshua expunged these prior teachings or admitted to their existence while denouncing them as false.
Either way it is quite a challenge for an orthodox Jew to set aside and reinterpret the teachings of revered rabbis, and claim that Isaiah 53 always referred to the nation of Israel?

knoledgesponge
November 24th, 2003, 05:32 PM
Those verses were far too general, and because of there being no evidence of the fashion Jesus was crucified you can not use that in an arguement.

jeremiah
November 24th, 2003, 08:23 PM
To knol:

I don't know if you were referring to my post specifically but the point of my post was that the acknowledged experts on the scriptures at the time just preceding Jesus had been telling their students that the suffering servant , or the Messiah Ben Joseph would be the person described in Isaiah 53. They likewise taught that he would specifically utter the words of Psalm 22. "My God, My God , why hast thou forsaken me?"
After Jesus, the rabbis who did not believe in Him, then began to teach that Isaiah 53 is NOT a messianic prophecy, and that psalm 22 was also not a messianic passage. Interesting to say the least, if, especially as you say, there is no evidence of the fashion in which Jesus was crucified. Then why did they change their teaching.
Also please explain the meaning of your assertion of no evidence etc. Do you not consider the New Testament accounts as evidence?

knoledgesponge
November 24th, 2003, 09:25 PM
Well if you look at it totally seperated from faith in that the New Testament is the inspired word of God, it is using circular reasoning to use scripture to back up scripture. I guess that is why Jesus is famous for saying "Blessed are they are believe without seeing".

Although most bibical scholars accept these as prophecy, how does anybody really know what Jesus said in his last hours? Crucifiction is death by pain and suffocation so he couldn't of had enough breath to yell something. We are forced to take New Testament writers at their word, and given that the New Testament was written around 50-60 AD this was probably oral tradition...not to mention I think it would have gone into history if people were really coming back from the dead at the same time as the temple veil was rent...

Crow
November 24th, 2003, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by knoledgesponge
Well if you look at it totally seperated from faith in that the New Testament is the inspired word of God, it is using circular reasoning to use scripture to back up scripture. I guess that is why Jesus is famous for saying "Blessed are they are believe without seeing".

Although most bibical scholars accept these as prophecy, how does anybody really know what Jesus said in his last hours? Crucifiction is death by pain and suffocation so he couldn't of had enough breath to yell something. We are forced to take New Testament writers at their word, and given that the New Testament was written around 50-60 AD this was probably oral tradition...not to mention I think it would have gone into history if people were really coming back from the dead at the same time as the temple veil was rent...

Christ died around 33AD. James, Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, and 1 Peter are believed to have been written by AD 65--there is of course debate about the exact dates, James is placed in my reference as AD 45-50, 1 Peter at around AD 64.

So what makes you think this was probably oral tradition? If James, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Peter were the same age as Christ, it is very likely some of them would have surely have survived to age 65--this is within the age range of a human lifetime. James was probably written within 12-17 years after Christ died. If some of the disciples were in their late teens or twenties, then all of the NT books could have been written within the lifetimes of those who actually witnessed Christ's ministry and the crucifixion.

I can't give you solid proof that the above people wrote the books attributed to them. It has been lost, just as much 2000 year old proof has been lost.

So, how do we know that men wrapped their feet in rags because they didn't have shoes at Valley Forge? We don't have photos, no one is still alive that can testify to that fact, and that's only around 230 years ago. Sure, people wrote about it, but how can we prove that the people who said they wrote about it are the actual people who wrote about it?

We can't know unless we count on written descriptions and accounts left by others. People who did not have the ability to take photos, and who we cannot call back to testify that "Yes, I did write this and it is true." There are books written about the event, but many of these were probably written years later.

Add nearly 1800 years, and the problem of verifying the facts increases. Ye old family legends that "great-great-great-great-grandpaw" served with Washington would be likely be lost. Little by little, more original documents are lost to human carelessness, accident, fire, whatever.

I have researched parts of my family back into the 1100's. How do I know the records are true? They might have lied. I can't ask the guy who recorded it, so it might have just been oral tradition.

Church registers in Pewsey England from the 1300's that show how my family's surname came about could be made up for some ulterior purpose. I can't interview the people who wrote the stuff. The births and marriages might have been recorded years later by people who never knew or met the actual people they wrote about.

If we are to know anything of the past, then we have to take those who recorded it at their words, particularly the further we are from the time of the even.

jeremiah
November 24th, 2003, 11:31 PM
To knol:

Using circular reasoning, you said that Jesus said, "Blessed are they who believe without seeing." But perhaps He said blessed are they who do not believe anyone or anything. Or perhaps it was really Batholomew who said it, and it was wrongly attributed to Jesus???
You find it hard to believe that a suffocating man could summon up enough energy to yell out 4 or 5 words. Yet you also find it hard to believe that if He did say it, that it could not be accurately recorded if written down by someone who heard it 25 years prior?
Lastly you are not willing to accept the many miraculous events written down and recorded in the new testament, and then ponder why if people rose from their graves when the temple veil was rent in two, why it wasn't recorded in written and oral history so that we could believe it?:confused:

Karaite
December 11th, 2003, 10:13 PM
Nice, but let's take a look at what the Hebrew Bible says, instead of a translation.

Now, your translation has the words 'they pierced'. This is no-where in the Hebrew Bible, the word here is "Ka'ari", which means "Like a Lion".

Most Christian translators that translate this passage say that the reading of "Karu", which they translate as 'piereced'. The problem here is that "Karu" does not mean "they piereced" - it means "they dug".

The word that translates as "pierced", would be Daleth-KOf-Resh-Vav, as in Zechariah 12:10.

Though it is long, I believe the article at the Messiah Truth Project, http://www.messiahtruth.com/psa22.html, lays down a good case for this being about David.

Turbo
December 11th, 2003, 10:31 PM
It was translated "pierced" in the Septuagint centuries before Christ was even born.

Karaite
December 11th, 2003, 11:04 PM
Which Septuagint are you reffering to? (I need to know this to see if it was around before 0 a.d.)

The original Septuagint was translated by some of the Rabbis, but it was only a translation of the Torah.

In the Septuagint you are refferencing, what is the greek word used? This would be helpful so I can see what other words were translated as this greek word, in the Tanakh.


Originally posted by Turbo
It was translated "pierced" in the Septuagint centuries before Christ was even born.

Turbo
December 11th, 2003, 11:20 PM
yoshiah_ap, I posted what I said from memory.

I just did a quick google search for [psalm 22 septuagint pierced]. There is an abundance of information out there showing that early (BC) translations of Psalm 22, including the Septuagint, translate Psalm 22:16 saying "pierced" rather than "like a lion."

Mateo
December 12th, 2003, 11:16 AM
As an aside, replacing "pierced' with the term "like a lion' makes gibbereish of the sentence. Regardless, even if one was to make such a replacement the beginning and middle of the psalm clearly reflect the experience of Jesus on the cross.

respectfully,

Mateo

Karaite
December 12th, 2003, 02:43 PM
Gibberish? Could you explain how it's translation sounds like gibberish? Translated, it means:

"a pack of evildoers, they have encompassed me,
like a lion, [they have encompassed] my hands and my feet."

Mateo
December 15th, 2003, 05:54 AM
If you can make sense of the "verse" you just posted you're a better man than I.

;)

Uriyah
December 17th, 2003, 03:31 PM
Stone Edition Tanach: Psalm 22:17 For dogs have surrounded me; a pack of eildoers has neclosed me, like [the prey of] a lion are my hands and my feet.

Guy Incognito
December 24th, 2003, 08:57 AM
This may have been posted, sorry for not reading through all 10 pages of the thread, but verse 14 of Psalm 22 says

"I am poured out like water,
And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax"

or, in the NIV;

"My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me." Ps 22:14b NIV

Now when the soilder pierced Jesus' side "blood and water" came out as it says in John. Blood and water is a clear sign of death by a ruptured heart;

"My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me." Ps 22:14b NIV

God_Is_Truth
January 12th, 2004, 12:27 AM
i find this link to be quite fascinating in light of this psalm. what is your take on it guys?

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/like-a-lion.html

Guy Incognito
January 16th, 2004, 06:08 PM
My Bible here regarding the word pierced has the footnote

"Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Syriac; most Hebrew manuscripts/ like the lion,"

If that means anyting to anyone!!

Karaite
January 19th, 2004, 08:58 PM
The Septuagint doesn't read 'pierced' - it reads 'dug'. Same with the Hebrew manuscripts that your footnote is reffering to. A word that means 'pierce' is found in Zechariah 12:10. The confusion of dug/pierced came from some of the sloppier manuscripts, which bad handwriting could confuse a person to whether they are looking at a vav or a yod. The Masoretic Text, which comes from the Temple Manuscripts, preserves the correction reading of 'like a lion'.

Dimo
February 5th, 2004, 02:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LightSon
Study the scriptures. In them you will see that you were created for more than just this short and often unsatisfying physical life. God reveals His mind in the Bible. If you study His Word diligently, He will reveal His truth to you.

Dimo:

First I'd like to say; I'm sorry your life is short and unsatisfying. Perhaps you should get out more, take some chances, and find some new and/or more satisfying experiences.

What did you mean by posting?

"In them you will see that you were created for more than just this short and often unsatisfying physical life."

Exactly what is the "more"?

Are you referring to a "spiritual life" after this physical life?

LightSon
February 7th, 2004, 09:54 PM
LightSon wrote:
Study the scriptures. In them you will see that you were created for more than just this short and often unsatisfying physical life. God reveals His mind in the Bible. If you study His Word diligently, He will reveal His truth to you.


Dimo wrote:

First I'd like to say; I'm sorry your life is short and unsatisfying. Perhaps you should get out more, take some chances, and find some new and/or more satisfying experiences.

LightSon responds:

Hopefully my life won't be shorter than most people's lives are short. My point was to underscore the fact that even those who have a relatively long life, say 80 or 90 years, still have what amounts to a vapour of a life, which appears for a short time and then vanishes away.

Notice I said "often unsatisfying physical life." My life has a large measure of satifisfaction, thanks for your concern. My overarching point is that life has a large capacity for emptiness and vanity in it. If you cannot relate to that, then you are free to ignore the sentiment.

LightSon wrote:
"In them you will see that you were created for more than just this short and often unsatisfying physical life."
Dimo wrote:
Exactly what is the "more"?

Are you referring to a "spiritual life" after this physical life?
LightSon responds:
Exactly. Jesus refers to this richer life in a number of different ways. My point is that if in this (physical) life only we can expect happiness and satisfaction in any substantial measure, then we will be sadly disappointed. We were created for more than the 70 or 80 years of "big fun" that is attainable in our mortality. And that is in a "good" example of human existence. You may be affluent and reasonably happy. What about the billions who live substandard physical existences? What do they have to look forward to in this life?

There is more available, for anyone who thirsts for it.
John 4:13, 14 "Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."

Luke 12:15 Jesus said, "...Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth."

John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent"

Romans 8:6 "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. "

Dimo
February 11th, 2004, 05:46 PM
Lightson posted:

Hopefully my life won't be shorter than most people's lives are short. My point was to underscore the fact that even those who have a relatively long life, say 80 or 90 years, still have what amounts to a vapour of a life, which appears for a short time and then vanishes away.

Dimo:

80 or 90 years is not enough for you? Perhaps you should consider giving the next generation(s) a chance at life also.

"You can't have everything, where would you put it?"

Steven Wright



Lightson posted:

Notice I said "often unsatisfying physical life." My life has a large measure of satifisfaction, thanks for your concern. My overarching point is that life has a large capacity for emptiness and vanity in it.

Dimo:

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that basing one's satisfaction in life on vanity and material gain is the cause for this overaching emptiness.



Lightson:

If you cannot relate to that, then you are free to ignore the
sentiment.

Dimo:

I can relate to this. I am human and fall prey to the same human weaknesses as most people.



Lightson posted:

Exactly. Jesus refers to this richer life in a number of different ways. My point is that if in this (physical) life only we can expect happiness and satisfaction in any substantial measure, then we will be sadly disappointed.

Dimo:

How do you measure happiness and satisfaction?

I think Jesus was speaking directly to the matrerialistic attitude that you use to measure happiness and satisfaction.



Lightson posted:

We were created for more than the 70 or 80 years of "big fun" that is attainable in our mortality.

Dimo:

Sounds like a line from Dim in a "A Clockwork Orange". Except I don't think he would have used attaniable or mortality. At least you have a good vocabulary.



Lightson posted:

And that is in a "good" example of human existence.

Dimo:

I believe that we should follow the example that Jesus gave us. That is the "best" example of human existence.



Lightson posted:

You may be affluent and reasonably happy.

Dimo:

I have learned that true happiness has very little if anything to do with affluence.



Lightson:

What about the billions who live substandard physical existences?

Dimo:

It's not good to compare oneself to others, in this regard. It is better to progress in our own lives. That is true happiness.



Lightson:

What do they have to look forward to in this life?

Dimo:

The same things that you or I have to look forward to, if they so choose.

LightSon
February 13th, 2004, 02:03 PM
LightSon wrote:
Study the scriptures. In them you will see that you were created for more than just this short and often unsatisfying physical life. God reveals His mind in the Bible. If you study His Word diligently, He will reveal His truth to you.

Dimo wrote: First I'd like to say; I'm sorry your life is short and unsatisfying.
...
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that basing one's satisfaction in life on vanity and material gain is the cause for this overaching emptiness.

LightSon responds:
I notice you continually attach this sentiment to me. Perhaps I am not communicating clearly. When I refer to "this short and often unsatisfying physical life," I am not whining about my life being either short or unsatisfying. I am suggesting that, by conventional perspective, many see their lives as such. Also, it is my point that one should not base their "satisfaction in life on vanity and material gain." It appears that you also believe this.
Dimo wrote:
I think Jesus was speaking directly to the matrerialistic attitude that you use to measure happiness and satisfaction.

LightSon concludes:
That is not my measure. (I thought it was yours).
I am trying to draw your attention to the richness of life in Christ both now and in eternity, and that any God-given joy and peace of mind is not dependent on material affluence. If you agree with that concept, then we can cease our contention.

Dimo
February 13th, 2004, 07:07 PM
Lightson posted:

LightSon concludes:
That is not my measure. (I thought it was yours).
I am trying to draw your attention to the richness of life in Christ both now and in eternity, and that any God-given joy and peace of mind is not dependent on material affluence. If you agree with that concept, then we can cease our contention.

Dimo:

Your original point, that being unsatisfied with life as a response to the lack of affluence and a short life can be cured, is correct. If one detaches their happiness from the accumulation of material objects, happiness can be found without attributing this mental exercise to a Christian doctrine and an eternal life. That is my point. Budhist monks do this same thing without a desire for eternal salvation. In that sense their reasons are more pure then those Christians who have chosen this philosophy for an alterior motive. That alterior motive being a seperate and eternal life. Budhist monks do what is right because it is right, and not because they want some reward for doing right. I distrust anyone who has fallen prey to the alterior motive bait. Those people can be convinced of anything, right or wrong, because of their quest for eternal life. Hence I do take issue with your proposed problem presented from living only 80 or 90 years and your contention that happiness can only be found from Christian doctrine.

I have chosen Christ because of his actions and ideas. Not because of birth right, religious prophecy, or the desire for eternal life.

LightSon
February 14th, 2004, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Dimo

Your original point, that being unsatisfied with life as a response to the lack of affluence and a short life can be cured, is correct. If one detaches their happiness from the accumulation of material objects, happiness can be found without attributing this mental exercise to a Christian doctrine and an eternal life. That is my point. Budhist monks do this same thing without a desire for eternal salvation. In that sense their reasons are more pure then those Christians who have chosen this philosophy for an alterior motive. That alterior motive being a seperate and eternal life. Budhist monks do what is right because it is right, and not because they want some reward for doing right. I distrust anyone who has fallen prey to the alterior motive bait. Those people can be convinced of anything, right or wrong, because of their quest for eternal life. Hence I do take issue with your proposed problem presented from living only 80 or 90 years and your contention that happiness can only be found from Christian doctrine.

I have chosen Christ because of his actions and ideas. Not because of birth right, religious prophecy, or the desire for eternal life.
I'm not sure where to begin.
Soteriologicaly, I am an exclusivist. Consequently, it is my postion that God calls all men to Christ and that to reject Christ is a wicked and self destructive act. A Budhist monk cannot be spiritually right if he is not in Christ. Anyone outside of a regenerated position in Christ is under God's wrath. This is what the Bible teaches.

Regarding motives, I confess to wanting to live forever. I don't see why that fact should cause you to distrust me. I also confess to wanting God's blessing in my life. But I also concede that God may allow both pleasant and unpleasant phenomena into my life, regardless of how I behave.

It seems like you are trying to run to the high ground of altruism. In your view, somehow Budhist monks get points for their selfless posture. I submit that unless they submit to God's righteousness in Christ, they will face a Christless eternity. In which case, what good is their altruism?

There exists self-interested motives in all humans. I doubt Budhists monks are any exception. Myself, I struggle to understand what motive there could be to behave in any particular "moral" way if God does not exist, or if there were no eternal life in the offing. Your words, while flowery, seem to lay a grand foundation for some atheistic morality. Jesus' ideas and actions are rooted in a Biblical world view. Jesus is not to be likened to some atheistic Budhist monk. On the contrary, Jesus' sacrifice was rooted in truth. You "have chosen Christ because of his actions and ideas," but He was the son of God who submitted His actions, will and ideas to His Father in heaven. It does no good to try to separate the truth of eternity from some spiritless altruism. It is not my desire to undermine altruism, but rather to show that any (self)"righteous" deed, which is not rooted in truth and a desire to glorify the living God, is not worth anything.

How do you reconcile the following scripture with your stated distrust of ulterior motives?

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Hebrews 12:1,2

This passage clearly reveals a particular aspect of Jesus' motive. I hope you do not distrust Him.

jeremiah
February 14th, 2004, 07:26 PM
I read some of the anti -Christian web articles. Here is one from a messianic Jewish perspective. www.hadavar.org/antimissionary11.html
The belief in Yeshua as Messiah does not rest opon one scripture, let alone one word in one verse. Even so the believer in this article actually prefers the translation of "as a lion".

Dimo
February 26th, 2004, 10:04 PM
Lightson posted:

I'm not sure where to begin.
Soteriologicaly, I am an exclusivist. Consequently, it is my postion that God calls all men to Christ and that to reject Christ is a wicked and self destructive act.

Dimo:

I understand your position. Another persons call to Christ must fit it into your criteria for such. Unfortunately for you and fortunately for the rest of us it is God's opinion that really matters. What you consider "wicked" and "self-destructive" may or may not be the same as what God considers wicked and self destructive.

Lightson posted:

A Budhist monk cannot be spiritually right if he is not in Christ. Anyone outside of a regenerated position in Christ is under God's wrath. This is what the Bible teaches.

Dimo:

That depends on what is meant by "in Christ". I believe that whether or not someone is following Christ cannot be determined by religious doctrine or lip service. That is an issue between the individual and his/her creator. God knows what is in our hearts and disregards what we say with our lips when they are not the same."You will know them by their fruits". This is also in scripture.

Lightson posted:

Regarding motives, I confess to wanting to live forever. I don't see why that fact should cause you to distrust me.

Dimo:

I already explained why I distrust such motives. Your goal is a selfish and divisive reward. You need an intellectual reason to be good, because you cannot find this desire in your heart. You believe that those who do not agree with your accepted doctrine will go to hell. Whereas you shall, by virtue of your creed, enjoy an enternity in bliss. If you were to lose this reward, you would have no reason to be good.

Lightson posted:

I also confess to wanting God's blessing in my life. But I also concede that God may allow both pleasant and unpleasant phenomena into my life, regardless of how I behave.

Dimo:

I agree. However, if what God and Jesus meant by enternal salvation is not one's own individual and seperate existence I will be happy. I still have in my heart the desire to do good, regardless of the eternal outcome for myself. If all I can do is contribute to the salvation of humankind as a whole I will still be happy. I am grateful for this chance to live and contribute to the future of humankind.

Lightson posted:

It seems like you are trying to run to the high ground of altruism.

Dimo:

Sorry. I didn't mean to intimidate you by trying to be better.

Lightson posted:

In your view, somehow Budhist monks get points for their selfless posture.

Dimo:

No points involved. I believe life is a game of give and take. Some of us are takers others are givers. Most of us are both in varying degrees. Sometimes it is good to be selfish other times it is good to be selfless. Those who do only one without ever experiencing the other are cheating themselves and/or other humans. Philanthropy strikes me as the the best way to live. The attempt to give as much as one has recieved seems the most noble to me. Budhist monks give and take in different currency than most people.

Lightson posted:

I submit that unless they submit to God's righteousness in Christ, they will face a Christless eternity. In which case, what good is their altruism?

Dimo:

I believe they have humbled themselves to submission of God's righteousness. They just don't agree with the exact religious doctrine that you accept.

Their altruism is just that. Altruism, nothing more nothing less. Whether or not they will receive some tangible reward for their good deeds is irrelevant. I suspected that you would have a hard time understanding this.

Lightson posted:

There exists self-interested motives in all humans. I doubt Budhists monks are any exception.

Dimo:

I agree 100%. It is just that their self interests are broader than yours.

Lightson posted:

Myself, I struggle to understand what motive there could be to behave in any particular "moral" way if God does not exist, or if there were no eternal life in the offing.

Dimo:

I am not suprised. That is exactly why you have chosen your specific doctrine and disregard the rest.

Lightson posted:

Your words, while flowery, seem to lay a grand foundation for some atheistic morality.

Dimo:

I'm sorry that my words cover up the smell of your attitudes. My words do not lay the foundation for any type of morality. I am simply using my reason and logic to critically analyse these issues.

Atheism in itself is not immoral. I believe that atheists are not totally honest. Humans can no more prove that God doesn't exist than they can prove that he does exist. Some atheists follow the same school of thought that you have chosen. They must recieve some tangible reward for good things that they do. Those atheist wil no doubtedly act in ways that are immoral.

Lightson posted:

Jesus' ideas and actions are rooted in a Biblical world view.

Dimo:

I agree. Just not in your ideas and actions.

Lightson posted:

Jesus is not to be likened to some atheistic Budhist monk.

Dimo:

What? Budhism does not require one to be theistic or atheistic. The choice is left up to the individual, as the reality of this situation is played out. Jesus could have been a budhist monk and still had faith in God. In my opinion Jesus did learn about eastern religions. He was in my mind the pinnacle of all religions and sprituality.

Lightson posted:

On the contrary, Jesus' sacrifice was rooted in truth.

Dimo:

How is this contrary to anything I have said?

Lightson posted:

You "have chosen Christ because of his actions and ideas," but He was the son of God who submitted His actions, will and ideas to His Father in heaven.

Dimo:

I agree. And I follow Jesus by trying to do the same.

Lightson posted:

It does no good to try to separate the truth of eternity from some spiritless altruism.

Dimo:

This was not my intent. I believe in the truth of eternity. I also believe that true altruism takes honest spirituality.

Lightson posted:

It is not my desire to undermine altruism, but rather to show that any (self)"righteous" deed, which is not rooted in truth and a desire to glorify the living God, is not worth anything.

Dimo:

That all depends on what you mean by a "desire to glorify the living God". I believe that genuine altruism is rooted in truth, and the righteous deeds that follow from such beliefs do "glorify the living God".

Lightson posted:

How do you reconcile the following scripture with your stated distrust of ulterior motives?

Dimo:

I think I just have.

"In order to win, you must be prepared to lose sometimes
and leave one or two cards open."

George Ivan Morrison

servent101
June 9th, 2004, 11:39 AM
Dimo:

Sorry. I didn't mean to intimidate you by trying to be better.

But your answere were the best - at least in my view anyways - good post - glad I looked you up to see how you are doing.

Some of my greatness must of rubbed off on you somehow.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Dimo
June 9th, 2004, 11:50 AM
Servent101 posted:

But your answere were the best - at least in my view anyways - good post - glad I looked you up to see how you are doing.

Dimo:

Well thank you. I think that is because you realize that I try very hard to speak honestly from the heart about my experiences. As opposed to following some predetermined party line.

Servent101 posted:

Some of my greatness must of rubbed off on you somehow.

Dimo:

Yes, mostly your humility.

the Sibbie
June 9th, 2004, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by servent101

Some of my greatness must of rubbed off on you somehow.

With Christ's Love

Servent101 Shouldn't you have signed this as ???!!!!First???

aikido7
June 9th, 2004, 01:34 PM
Jack, you need to study the Word for meaning. Sharpen your understanding and seek precision of language. Walk as a child of light. Vanquish the darkness.

Stop arguing about meanings. You are using definitions to draw lines. You idolize your precision of language and demonize the vague and poetic.

You don't want understanding, do you? You want a target to shoot at.

The Bible admonishes us to think again, to listen for surprises, to see Creation behaving oddly--wolves lying down with lambs, trees clapping hands, rainbows in the skies.

Remember, Jack: Jesus taught in parables--the pinnacle of vagueness. He resisted calls like those from Simon the Pharisee to define and codify.

That only kills the Spirit, friend.

Dimo
June 9th, 2004, 04:17 PM
aikido, who is Jack?

Is that One Eyed Jack?

aikido7
June 9th, 2004, 11:33 PM
The belief that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy has been a cornerstone of the notion that Christianity completes Judaism. Christians have correlated statements about Jesus with carefully chosen Old Testament prophecies to document their belief that God's plan for human salvation reached its fulfillment in Jesus. That interpretive practice is evident in most of the New Testament, but it is Matthew's gospel that carries it out most thoroughly and most explicitly.

The way Matthew matches prophecies to the story of Jesus creates the strong impression that anyone who believes in the scriptures of Israel must see that Jesus is the promised Messiah. Matthew thus uses prophecy as a proof that Israel's history had been building up to Jesus.

Since Matthew's "proof from prophecy" theme buttresses Christianity's conviction that it is superior to Judaism (and since that conviction has played out with horrific consequences in history), doesn't it make sense that all of us have an ethical obligation to examine Matthew's claims and assess their value for Christian theology?

Matthew manipulated prophecy when he integrated the words of the prophets into his narrative.

From my perspective it is obvious that Matthew was reading Jesus into the prophecies he quoted. Respect for the Bible requires me to understand the prophets as speaking to their own times, with messages that they and their audiences understood in relation to their situations--centuries before the time of Jesus.

Respect for the Bible also requires me to understand Matthew on his own terms. Matthew, like all Jews of his time, treated the words of the prophets as coded messages having significance beyond the prophets' own understanding. This view of prophecy was absorbed into Judaism during the Hellenistic period, having originated among the ancient Greeks, who believed that their prophets spoke under the influence of a "spirit of prophecy" that overrode the speaker's own rational capacities. Because of this, sometimes neither the prophets nor their audiences could understand the true significance of their words, and thus the real meaning of some of those pagan prophecies could be discerned only after the predicted events had already occurred.

So it was a Greek idea, and first-century Jews applied these Greek beliefs about prophecy to the biblical prophets. So they believed that God had planted throughout their writings cryptic clues about his plans for the future. Many Christians evidently hold this same belief today.

Do you actually think that prophets such as Isaiah and Ezekiel, as well as New Testament authors such as Paul, Peter, and John, unwittingly wrote about events happening in OUR own time? Or about things that will happen in the near future?

I say no.

Today I can easily find books in the "End Times Prophecy" sections of Christian bookstores that claim to understand the prophets better than the prophets understood themselves! These books always say that we are living in the last generation, a time of unparalleled evil from which only a few will be saved.

So all of history has been building up to our own lifetime? What egocentricity!

The prophets did not fully understand their own messages, but we DO?

Only WE are among the "saved" and the rest of the world is "unsaved" and is awaiting its eternal damnation?

These are extremely self-centered beliefs. They make me wonder what human needs are answered by such self-centered beliefs? What kind of God is worshiped by a religion that caters to these needs?

It is a deeply rooted belief in Christianity that Jesus fulfilled prophecy and somehow the Old Testament contains a number of prophetic predictions about the coming messiah. The prophecies were just waiting to be fulfilled: Everyone would know the messiah when he finally shows up because all the prophecies were just waiting to be fulfilled.

Matthew's catalogue of the prophecies and how they were fulfilled gives believers the idea that it should have been clear to people who knew the Old Testament that Jesus was the long-awaited messiah. The Jews of Jesus' time--according to Matthew--"rejected him," or at the very least opposed him because of their hypocrisy and hardened hearts.

At the very end of the gospel, Matthew declares that the Jewish authorities knew that Jesus had risen from the dead but conspired to deceive their own people about the truth of his resurrection.

And don't forget that Matthew's attitude toward the Jewish leaders bears directly on his proof-from-prophecy theme. There is not a shred of historical evidence for the conspiracy Matthew describes. (Besides, if it had happened the way Matthew says it did, there is no way he could not have known about it: if the soldiers really "took the money and did as they had been instructed" no one could have known about the alleged bribery and the lying!) Matthew made this story up. It is fiction. The gospels contain many fictions that express truth—stories that are not historically true yet still communicate truths that are more important than historical facts--Jesus' parables and the stories that he multiplied bread and fish are good examples.

Unfortunately, Matthew's story about Jewish leaders who covered up Jesus' resurrection is not like those other truths. It is a total lie. Matthew told it to counteract the accusation that the disciples stole Jesus' body.

Any careful reading of Matthew shows that he had a real conflict with official Judaism at that time. When he says that his own people are right to follow Jesus as the Jewish messiah, he also makes it clear that Jews who do not follow Jesus are being unfaithful to Judaism. In other words, only Matthew's community has a "right" to exist as a Jewish community, even though "others" say it has no such right. So Matthew sees his group as the only "real" Jews.

You can tell that the bitterly harsh rhetoric in Matthew's gospel (the debate between his people and the keepers of official Judaism at that time--the Pharisees--was pretty acrimonious). And notice the way Matthew's Jesus badgers the Pharisees...Not a very open-hearted and compassionate Jesus, is it?

Matthew did not write his gospel to convince, but to point out the belief of Matthew's own people that all of Jewish history had been building up to Jesus, and thus culminated in them.

Personally, I find it hard to swallow that Matthew's presentation would change the mind of anyone who was not already inclined to believe that Jesus was the messiah. Some at that time neither knew what the prophets really said or even questioned whether Matthew's stories were literally true--they people might even be convinced that Jesus had fulfilled prophecies. Common sense tells me that it have been the effect of Matthew's gospel on a few--but I don't think Matthew's purpose was to trick the gullible.

We have to try to see things the way Matthew and his people did, regardless of whether we see things that way today. Matthew and his readers already believed that Jesus is the messiah. They also believed that God must have been "dropping hints" about the long-awaited messiah in the scriptures--especially in the books of the prophets. So Matthew goes back to the scriptures and studies them carefully, looking for clues about Jesus the messiah. For Matthew, the recognition of Jesus as the messiah is the newly revealed "key" that will "unlock" the hidden meaning of prophecy. When Matthew finds a prophetic statement that could be about Jesus, he tries to match it up with something he already knows—or believes—about Jesus' life.

So whatever a prophet says about the messiah, or the future Davidic king, or God's son, Matthew takes it to be information about Jesus.

The net result of all this is obvious: The early Christian belief that Jesus fulfilled prophecy arose after and because of the belief that he was the promised messiah. This important revelation needs to be emphasized. The belief that Jesus was the messiah was the basis for the belief that he was the fulfillment of prophecy.

So it was not that people noticed that Jesus had fulfilled a series of prophecies and so concluded that he must be the messiah. THE PROCESS WORKED THE OTHER WAY AROUND:

It was because Christians were convinced that Jesus was the messiah that they went searching through the scriptures to discover which prophecies he had fulfilled. The proclamation that Jesus fulfilled prophecy is a testimony to Christian faith, not a description of its origin. .

Matthew must have known that he was not going to change minds with his fulfillment of prophecy theme. He designed it to support the faith of his own Christian-Jewish community, not to convert outsiders. Matthew's message is that since the prophets confirm that Jesus is the messiah, his followers are the true heirs of Israel and children of Abraham, despite what the vast majority of other Jews may say.

His conclusions about Jesus would have offered encouragement to a tiny Jewish sect like Matthew's group--especially at a time when the belief that Jesus was the messiah could make you an outcast in Jewish society! Believing that Jesus was the fulfillment of prophecy helped to reassure his Jewish followers of the rightness of their cause at a time when the prestige of Jewish authority made this cause seem religiously illegitimate.

But that time no longer exists--it has not existed for 2,000 years. Today Christianity belief is not even remotely threatened by Judaism. There is not the slightest possibility that Christians will stop following Jesus because Jews do not regard him as the messiah.

When Matthew wrote his gospel it was necessary for followers of Jesus to believe that the scriptures pointed to Christ and that Jews did not understand their true meaning, and so the Hebrew Bible properly belonged only to Christians (who eventually made it into their own "Old Testament").

I think it is about time to stop we stop insisting on Matthew's mistaken premise. As Christians don't we now have the moral obligation to let go of the notion that if Jews truly understood the scriptures they would become Christians?

The belief that the prophets were pointing to Jesus--though perhaps helpful at the time Matthew wrote his gospel--has long since outlived its usefulness. It distorts the scriptures and has had ugly consequences in history. Out of respect for Judaism and for the Bible, we have an intellectual and moral duty to abandon this obsolete, self-serving, and dangerous belief.

kkawohl
July 1st, 2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by aikido7

The belief that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy has been a cornerstone of the notion that Christianity completes Judaism. Christians have correlated statements about Jesus with carefully chosen Old Testament prophecies to document their belief that God's plan for human salvation reached its fulfillment in Jesus. That interpretive practice is evident in most of the New Testament, but it is Matthew's gospel that carries it out most thoroughly and most explicitly.


Jesus, Abraham, Moses, etc. are alive as spirit and they are now a part of God. They were messengers who interpreted their spirits interaction with the Spirit of God according to their own interpretation thereof. Messengers should not be deified; the message has merit but also is open to misinterpretation by the messenger, hence we have religious divergence.


Is the Bible The Word Of God ?


We can use the Bible as stepping stones that lead to God; we should not interpret everything therein literally. Now our perception of God should be interlaced with logic and common sense if we want to have our beliefs, just like the foundation, get stronger over time.

The Bible was written during a time when superstitions prevailed. There were claims of visions of God physically, and physical conversations with God and the devil.

A road map to God, the "Holy Books" that were considered to be correct and applicable during the time that they were written, would not be totally correct and applicable today by any stretch of the imagination. Oh yes, of course, it says in the "Holy Books" that everything therein is the gospel truth.

A rocket scientist who would attempt to apply his knowledge to a time two thousand years from now, would be considered feeble minded.

The Bible or Torah refers to God as representing a masculine anthropomorphic figure; as the king-like ruler who demands that everyone worship him and unquestionably do his bidding through eternity.

In this 21st Century many religious beliefs are as antiquated as in several millennia past. Most stories in the Bible were passed down verbally through generations, with new additions by each generation. In past centuries superstitions were the norm. Isn't it about time that a belief in God, if one so chooses, makes sense.

The Torah is the Hebrew name for the five books of Moses-the Law of Moses or the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. The Torah is believed by Orthodox Jews to have been handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai and transmitted by him to the Jews. It laid down the fundamental laws of moral and physical conduct. The Torah begins with a description of the origin of the universe and ends on the word Israel, after the story of the death of Moses, just before the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. In a wider sense the Torah includes all teachings of the books of the Torah were written over a period of about 1500 years by about 40 different authors on three continents in three languages.

The first 5 books, written by Moses about 1410 B.C. were accepted as authoritative by the people that initially received them. Transmission refers to the process of getting something written up to 3500 years ago to us. During transmission the documents are copied and errors are introduced. Some, who reject the truth of the bible argue that there errors are so many and so large that the bible is unreliable. Others, who accept the truth of the bible argue that the errors and alterations by copyists only slightly if at all diminish the reliability of the bible.

Jack Cargill is a Professor of Ancient History at Rutgers University, specializing in "Ancient Greece, the Near East, and Rome, and the interactions between them, with special interests in classical Greek epigraphy and historical issues related to the Bible and archaeology".
Quote:

...The Hebrew Bible is simply not a reliable source for the history of ancient Israel... If we are content to provide students with mythical, legendary, uncritical histories of ancient Israel, how can we have any legitimate grounds for complaint or criticism when others are willing to provide mythologized, fictionalized histories of other peoples and places?



Jack Cargill, "Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks," The History Teacher (May 2001) (most Jewish historians agree with his conclusions)

Quote:

As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation...

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document...

The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all."

The rabbi offered what he called a "litany of disillusion" about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."


MICHAEL MASSING - The New York Times, March 9, 2002

keypurr
July 9th, 2004, 07:09 PM
Turbo you are seeing the light. Have you tried to understand Daniel? He tells us WHEN Christ was to come. That will really inhance your faith.

bibleverse2
July 17th, 2004, 03:23 PM
"From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks"

-- Daniel 9:25

myndreach
August 1st, 2004, 08:32 AM
Was Jesus a worm?


But I am a worm, and no man

If not, it seems a nice little rationalization to say that this is not literal, while the part of piercing his hands and feet is literal to you because it fits Jesus's story.

Anyways, show me some evidence that Jesus ever lived, besides the writings of Christians and the one source widely regarded as a forgery. Why, of the 40 or so non-christian historians operating during the first two centuries, did none mention Jesus Christ? Don't say they are biased, surely at least ONE of them would not be an anti-christian, and just purely concerned with recording history. I mean, historians of their day mentioned Buddha, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, etc.

In fact, the only mentions of Jesus in documents outside of Christian sources are ones that say Jesus didn't exist.

For example, the Jew Trypho said

...ye (christians) follow an empty rumour and make a Christ for yourselves...If he was born and lived somewhere he is entirely unknown."

The only two sources that are consistently are cited by Christians are Josephus, a Pharisee, and Tacitus, a pagan. Since Josephus was born in the year 37 CE, and Tacitus was born in 55, neither could have been an eye-witness of Jesus, who supposedly was crucified in 30 CE. Well, perhapse they had reliable soures?

Here's a quote from an article written about early Christian history...


In the case of Josephus, whose Antiquities of the Jews was written in 93 CE, about the same time as the gospels, we find him saying some things quite impossible for a good Pharisee to have said:

About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Now no loyal Pharisee would say Jesus had been the Messiah. That Josephus could report that Jesus had been restored to life "on the third day" and not be convinced by this astonishing bit of information is beyond belief. Worse yet is the fact that the story of Jesus is intrusive in Josephus' narrative and can be seen to be an interpolation even in an English translation of the Greek text. Right after the wondrous passage quoted above, Josephus goes on to say, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." Josephus had previously been talking about awful things Pilate had done to the Jews in general, and one can easily understand why an interpolator would have chosen this particular spot. But his ineptitude in not changing the wording of the bordering text left a "literary seam" (what rhetoricians might term aporia) that sticks out like a pimpled nose.

The fact that Josephus was not convinced by this or any other Christian claim is clear from the statement of the church father Origen (ca. 185-ca. 154 CE) - who dealt extensively with Josephus - that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, i.e., as "the Christ." Moreover, the disputed passage was never cited by early Christian apologists such as Clement of Alexandria (ca.150-ca. 215 CE), who certainly would have made use of such ammunition had he had it!

The first person to make mention of this obviously forged interpolation into the text of Josephus' history was the church father Eusebius, in 324 CE. It is quite likely that Eusebius himself did some of the forging. As late as 891, Photius in his Bibliotheca, which devoted three "Codices" to the works of Josephus, shows no awareness of the passage whatsoever even though he reviews the sections of the Antiquities in which one would expect the disputed passage to be found. Clearly, the testimonial was absent from his copy of Antiquities of the Jews. 13 The question can probably be laid to rest by noting that as late as the sixteenth century, according to Rylands, 14 a scholar named Vossius had a manuscript of Josephus from which the passage was wanting....

Wouldn't the Greeks and Romans have noticed - and recorded - such darkness occurring at a time of the month when a solar eclipse was impossible? Wouldn't someone have remembered - and recorded - the name of at least one of those "saints" who climbed out of the grave and went wandering downtown in the mall? If Jesus did anything of significance at all, wouldn't someone have noticed? If he didn't do anything significant, how could he have stimulated the formation of a new religion?
Considering now the supposed evidence of Tacitus, we find that this Roman historian is alleged in 120 CE to have written a passage in his Annals (Bk 15, Ch 44, containing the wild tale of Nero's persecution of Christians) saying "Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus..." G.A. Wells [p. 16] says of this passage:

Tacitus wrote at a time when Christians themselves had come to believe that Jesus had suffered under Pilate. There are three reasons for holding that Tacitus is here simply repeating what Christians had told him. First, he gives Pilate a title, procurator [without saying procurator of what! FRZ], which was current only from the second half of the first century. Had he consulted archives which recorded earlier events, he would surely have found Pilate there designated by his correct title, prefect. Second, Tacitus does not name the executed man Jesus, but uses the title Christ (Messiah) as if it were a proper name. But he could hardly have found in archives a statement such as "the Messiah was executed this morning." Third, hostile to Christianity as he was, he was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was of recent origin, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus; p.16).

There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself never again alludes to the Neronian persecution of Christians in any of his voluminous writings, and no other Pagan authors know anything of the outrage either. Most significant, however, is that ancient Christian apologists made no use of the story in their propaganda - an unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the works of Tacitus. Clement of Alexandria, who made a profession of collecting just such types of quotations, is ignorant of any Neronian persecution, and even Tertullian, who quotes a great deal from Tacitus, knows nothing of the story. According to Robert Taylor, the author of another freethought classic, the Diegesis (1834), the passage was not known before the fifteenth century, when Tacitus was first published at Venice by Johannes de Spire. Taylor believed de Spire himself to have been the forger. i


Why do none of the reputable early C.E. historians mention Jesus? Could it be that he never lived?

Daniel50
August 11th, 2004, 10:56 PM
Very Very good,
I read several time in my mother tongue this psm 22
Tamil Bible..
Even I shared many things from this Psm.

Bible is Ocean.
Give Thanks To The Lord Jesus Christ.

Daniel50
August 11th, 2004, 10:58 PM
Complaints of discouragement. (1-10) With prayer for deliverance. (11-21) Praises for mercies and redemption. (22-31)

Verses 1-10: The Spirit of Christ, which was in the prophets, testifies in this psalm, clearly and fully, the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. We have a sorrowful complaint of God's withdrawings. This may be applied to any child of God, pressed down, overwhelmed with grief and terror. Spiritual desertions are the saints' sorest afflictions; but even their complaint of these burdens is a sign of spiritual life, and spiritual senses exercised. To cry our, My God, why am I sick? why am I poor? savours of discontent and worldliness. But, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" is the language of a heart binding up its happiness in God's favour. This must be applied to Christ. In the first words of this complaint, he poured out his soul before God when he was upon the cross, (Mt 27:46). Being truly man, Christ felt a natural unwillingness to pass through such great sorrows, yet his zeal and love prevailed. Christ declared the holiness of God, his heavenly Father, in his sharpest sufferings; nay, declared them to be a proof of it, for which he would be continually praised by his Israel, more than for all other deliverances they received. Never any that hoped in thee, were made ashamed of their hope; never any that sought thee, sought thee in vain. Here is a complaint of the contempt and reproach of men. The Saviour here spoke of the abject state to which he was reduced. The history of Christ's sufferings, and of his birth, explains this prophecy.

Verses 11-21: In these verses we have Christ suffering, and Christ praying; by which we are directed to look for crosses, and to look up to God under them. The very manner of Christ's death is described, though not in use among the Jews. They pierced his hands and his feet, which were nailed to the accursed tree, and his whole body was left so to hang as to suffer the most severe pain and torture. His natural force failed, being wasted by the fire of Divine wrath preying upon his spirits. Who then can stand before God's anger? or who knows the power of it? The life of the sinner was forfeited, and the life of the Sacrifice must be the ransom for it. Our Lord Jesus was stripped, when he was crucified, that he might clothe us with the robe of his righteousness. Thus it was written, therefore thus it behoved Christ to suffer. Let all this confirm our faith in him as the true Messiah, and excite our love to him as the best of friends, who loved us, and suffered all this for us. Christ in his agony prayed, prayed earnestly, prayed that the cup might pass from him. When we cannot rejoice in God as our song, yet let us stay ourselves upon him as our strength; and take the comfort of spiritual supports, when we cannot have spiritual delights. He prays to be delivered from the Divine wrath. He that has delivered, doth deliver, and will do so. We should think upon the sufferings and resurrection of Christ, till we feel in our souls the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings.

Verses 22-31: The Saviour now speaks as risen from the dead. The first words of the complaint were used by Christ himself upon the cross; the first words of the triumph are expressly applied to him, (Heb 2:12). All our praises must refer to the work of redemption. The suffering of the Redeemer was graciously accepted as a full satisfaction for sin. Though it was offered for sinful men, the Father did not despise or abhor it for our sakes. This ought to be the matter of our thanksgiving. All humble, gracious souls should have a full satisfaction and happiness in him. Those that hunger and thirst after righteousness in Christ, shall not labour for that which satisfies not. Those that are much in praying, will be much in thanksgiving. Those that turn to God, will make conscience of worshipping before him. Let every tongue confess that he is Lord. High and low, rich and poor, bond and free, meet in Christ. Seeing we cannot keep alive our own souls, it is our wisdom, by obedient faith, to commit our souls to Christ, who is able to save and keep them alive for ever. A seed shall serve him. God will have a church in the world to the end of time. They shall be accounted to him for a generation; he will be the same to them that he was to those who went before them. His righteousness, and not any of their own, they shall declare to be the foundation of all their hopes, and the fountain of all their joys. Redemption by Christ is the Lord's own doing. Here we see the free love and compassion of God the Father, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, for us wretched sinners, as the source of all grace and consolation; the example we are to follow, the treatment as Christians we are to expect, and the conduct under it we are to adopt. Every lesson may here be learned that can profit the humbled soul. Let those who go about to establish their own righteousness inquire, why the beloved Son of God should thus suffer, if their own doings could atone for sin? Let the ungodly professor consider whether the Saviour thus honoured the Divine law, to purchase him the privilege of despising it. Let the careless take warning to flee from the wrath to come, and the trembling rest their hopes upon this merciful Redeemer. Let the tempted and distressed believer cheerfully expect a happy end of every trial.


Matthew Henry Commentary.

john2001
October 21st, 2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

The following is the first half or so of Pslam 22, written approximately 1000 years before Christ was born. Also, it should be noted that the first historical record (http://www.bible.ca/d-history-archeology-crucifixion-cross.htm) of crucifixion is from the 6th century B.C., so it is likely that this psalm was written hundreds of years before anyone was ever crucified.
... the rest deleted



You guys are sooo naive. There is absolutely nothing in the old testament that has any bearing or relevance to jesus or any aspect of the christian cult.

Basically, what *is* recorded is the desperate shift of worldview of people trying to make sense of their superstitions and the world of their experience.

The major event of Jewish history was the Babylonian captivity and the subsequent restoration of the state of Isreal by Persian emperor Cyrus the Great, who, incidentally
being a Zarathustrian, was a monotheist. Cyrus was *the* messiah, there was no other.

Thus began the "great rewrite" of the sacred texts to agree with the notion of falling out of grace followed by restoration. (Suitably faked "prophesies" were put in place after the fact to support this notion.)

Now, along came Alexander, who conquered the eastern Mediterranian region on his way to Asia. After Big Al died, his general Selucus got the area including Judea. His descendents were Antiochus I and II

Under Antiochus II (I believe) you have a faked version of Daniel written, postdated to appear to have been written during
the Babylonian captivity, with a fake prediction of Alexander's invasion, and the whole bit. The Maccabean revolt seemed to fit the messiah story, however, just as the Selucids were out, the Romans were in and it apeared that no Messiah was showing up.

Now, this is where the christian reinterpretation happened. You take all those stories where Isreal is represented by a suffering man motif and reinterpret those to go with the crucified jesus story, combine that with the ressurrected god-man cults that were already in place, and up pops christianity.

There are no prophesies, only reinterpretations and fabrications. The more I read the bible, the less I believe.

Turbo
October 21st, 2004, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by john2001

Thus began the "great rewrite" of the sacred texts to agree with the notion of falling out of grace followed by restoration. (Suitably faked "prophesies" were put in place after the fact to support this notion.) When do you think this happened?

Upon what evidence do you base this assertion?

Turbo
October 21st, 2004, 03:25 PM
I wonder how the Christians managed to change all the copies of the Scripture owned by the non-Christian Jews. :think:

(Not to mention the Greek translations from centuries before Christ was born.)

Xior
December 11th, 2004, 03:24 PM
how is literature, which is a piece of paper. proof of someting which is real. if this other real thing is physical, show it to me, no endless number of words can prove something like the existence of god

theeyologikal
January 8th, 2005, 05:55 PM
How do we know that you are real. there are just words on a screen...??? right?

LightSon
January 8th, 2005, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by theeyologikal

How do we know that you are real. there are just words on a screen...??? right?

:wave: theeyologikal
I am not sure whom you are addressing, but I'm convinced of my reality. **pinch*** :taoist:

Is there something you'd like to talk about? I see that was your first post on this board. Why not try to find a conversation and participate? It works better that way.

Glad you could join us.

theeyologikal
January 8th, 2005, 06:09 PM
I am replying to the last post on this thread.. all you have to do is read the one previous to mine and see what I am discussing.. And thanks for the welcome.. but I have been on this board before.. I just recently changed my info.. But the welcome was appreciated. =)

julie21
February 4th, 2005, 05:32 AM
Xior:how is literature, which is a piece of paper. proof of someting which is real. if this other real thing is physical, show it to me, no endless number of words can prove something like the existence of god

When you were born, there was issued a piece of paper called a birth certificate. Now, in many,many years to come, long after you have passed away, someone within your family may decide to do the family tree.Many generations have passed of course.
Of course, you are no longer around. So first step is to trace back to you, which will lead to a piece of paper - your birth certificate.
Does this prove that you had existed? Yes, but not solely that, as we all know that record offices sometimes get it wrong.
But, there is hopefully a legacy for those trying to prove your existence on this planet...accounts written by those who actually knew you...accounts of your birth, maybe even the words recounted to some friend of your mother about how you were conceived.
Of course, the best thing too is the ongoing legacy that you would have passed on to your friends and family...the recounting on paper or in spoken words of the great person you were and the powerful things you did.
Until you look past wanting only the physical, in the flesh type of proof, and open up to the possibility of belief in what you at this moment can't see,or are not wiling to see, then your questions will remain just that.
Took me many years to see what was there all along...if I'd only been willing to let go of my own standards of reasoning.

JayHoover
February 8th, 2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Crow

Christ died around 33AD. James, Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, and 1 Peter are believed to have been written by AD 65--there is of course debate about the exact dates, James is placed in my reference as AD 45-50, 1 Peter at around AD 64.

So what makes you think this was probably oral tradition? If James, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Peter were the same age as Christ, it is very likely some of them would have surely have survived to age 65--this is within the age range of a human lifetime. James was probably written within 12-17 years after Christ died. If some of the disciples were in their late teens or twenties, then all of the NT books could have been written within the lifetimes of those who actually witnessed Christ's ministry and the crucifixion.

I can't give you solid proof that the above people wrote the books attributed to them. It has been lost, just as much 2000 year old proof has been lost.This then is the point upon which your argument is most severely challenged. The idea that the originals have been lost is troubling in the extreme. Consider:

You are god-- omnipotent, all powerful. You love your creation Mankind. But mankind committed an act which broke him away from you. Now you have to put into place something to redeem him (already we're in deep ewaters, because there's no overt reason any of this shold be the way it is-- an omnipotent god doesn't need all this rigamarole). It is a primary desire for you (as if omnipotent beings have desires at all) that all men should be saved.

Okay, that being said, you as this omnipotent being send your word down to mankind to facilitate the process by whcih these poor sinning men will be saved and...

...you allow the definitive original to be lost.

Why? What purpose does it serve? Indeed, losing the originals immediately begins to grow suspicions. How can the divine word be "lost"? Wouldn't it serve god's purpose to have it clearly in evidence to fulfil his own stated primary desire of salvation? Why is this loss so much in tune with the way humans treat things in general -- they are misplaced, destroyed, lost, discarded or weather away. Why no supernatural intervention in this area?


So, how do we know that men wrapped their feet in rags because they didn't have shoes at Valley Forge? We don't have photos, no one is still alive that can testify to that fact, and that's only around 230 years ago. Sure, people wrote about it, but how can we prove that the people who said they wrote about it are the actual people who wrote about it?We don't know for certain. But the analogy fails because it doesn't affect one's eternal existence if Valley Forge soldiers wore rags instead of shoes. All of history is subject to the same categorization. It might be interesting to know for sure if this event or the other occured, but in the end, whether or not Napolean was actually exiled to Elba isn't going to matter to my eternal well being.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if one asserts a belief in a book as a divine method of communication, that book had best survive all human attempts at impacting it in any way. The bible fails this test: Just that it's been translated at all proves man can tamper with it. The idea that there are numerous versions now proves it can be corrupted. This is a severe hampering to god's stated purpose of salvation, but only those "lucky enough" to discern <insert inerrant / partially inerrant version of bible here> are the ones blessed with salvation. The rest of us?

Tough luck, eh?


We can't know unless we count on written descriptions and accounts left by others. People who did not have the ability to take photos, and who we cannot call back to testify that "Yes, I did write this and it is true." There are books written about the event, but many of these were probably written years later.

Add nearly 1800 years, and the problem of verifying the facts increases. Ye old family legends that "great-great-great-great-grandpaw" served with Washington would be likely be lost. Little by little, more original documents are lost to human carelessness, accident, fire, whatever.

I have researched parts of my family back into the 1100's. How do I know the records are true? They might have lied. I can't ask the guy who recorded it, so it might have just been oral tradition.

Church registers in Pewsey England from the 1300's that show how my family's surname came about could be made up for some ulterior purpose. I can't interview the people who wrote the stuff. The births and marriages might have been recorded years later by people who never knew or met the actual people they wrote about.

If we are to know anything of the past, then we have to take those who recorded it at their words, particularly the further we are from the time of the even. Absolutely.

EXCEPT: where a god would be concerned. See, the whole idea of god is that he (or she or it, take you pick) can do things we cannot do. Like make sure-- make absolutely certain his blueprints is unchangeable.

Heck, I can think of ways to do that myself, and I'm just a mortal.

In the end, your family history is likely very interesting, but its veracity (or lack thereof) is of little impact to even you. But the Christian claim that we will all suffer eternity in the fiery torments of Hell is quite a stake to be making claims about. We best be certian we have the most accurate information, right?

Hmmm... except, your post already points out why we can't.

Pesky humans, changing the plan of an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent god so cavalierly! Tsk, tsk!

avaya
March 30th, 2005, 09:51 AM
Okay, I'm new here so I'll go easy. Let me preface this by saying that while I do not have it, I have no issue with those who have faith so long as they do not try to force me to their POV.

So, why do I think that the bible is not "the word of god"?

1 - It's not the first book written. If you look to the true original civilizations of that time period, back to the period of Mesopotamia and Sumeria, a great number of the stories in the Torah (and hence the Bible) are found in these civilizations stories as well. The one thing that the modern Judeo-Christian system has for it is the quantity and quality of the documentation supporting their claims. By this I mean that there is simply scant information on the civilizations that were in existance for centuries prior to Rome and Egypt.

I am willing to assume that some here have heard of the Grail King books by Sir LAurence Gardner. I highly recommend them for those who want to gain a larger picture of humanities history. It goes off on a few odd tangents here and there but all in all his books are right on target. I used several of them as a begining refference in my historical documentation PhD thesis.

I highly recommend "The Genesis of The grail Kings" as it really helps to correct a significant number of earlyer beliefs that are completely blown away by more recent discoveries.

Taking this argument into an even shorter timeline, Christianity is nothing of not an off shoot of Judiasm. As such, it is foolhardy to dismiss the former and embrace the latter simply becuase one chooses so.

As Mark Twain is famous for saying" "The ease with which I dismiss anothers religion as folly is enough to make me suspect my own."

2 - The current Church based system is whooly not what Jesus had argued for. I apologise in advance if this gets anyone hot and bothered but the entire concept of the church being the sole arbitor of redemption is so far removed from what Jesus originally preached it's physically nauseating to me.

At the time of Jesus, the concept of the One God was gaining solidity as well as another rather sad and unfortunate concept. That of god ineffable nature and man's fallible nature. Personal ambitions were essentially being pushed aside byt eh overwhelming belief that no matter how good it was it was inherrantly flawed becuase it was made by the hands of man.

This is what Jesus preached against. He preached against fearing god and preached for loving him. What we have now in the form of the Church and it's offshoots is wholly and completely contrary to the original teachings of Christ.

3 - The Torah/Bible espouses a mentality of "Do as I say and Not as I Do" being given by God.

From even the account of Genesis God is seen to be a capable liar and to punish those who tell the truth. Then later he gives Moses commandments forbidding lying. In Genesis 2 god tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for doing so will cause their death. The serpent then tells Eve that she will most certainly not die but will in fact gain godly knowledge.

When god discovers that she and Adam did infact eat from the tree he was outraged and tossed them out in fear that they would also eat from the Tree of Life and become as "one of us" [one of the gods]

I've used the King James Version here but please, go and check your Bibles. I guarantee they all use pretty much the same language-(For Jews you waht the book of Bereshit)

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

God was scared that his creations which were essentially made to pay homage to him were now going to become his equals so he cast them out.

Onto another significant lie perpetrated by God.

God tells Abraham that he will raise his people above all others. Tehn they suddnely have to flee their home land from invaders, reside in another community and become citizens and generally end up being persecuted to the current day. It's things like this that make me think that this god is a sadist.

4 - The Bible/Torah has been instrumental in the establishment of a hierarchy between men and woman and has helped fuel the "race wars" pretty much since it began.

Going back to Genesis 3:
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life

This was quoted to me so many times by my pastor that i made me want to puke. His, and others, used this phrase to often push forth their belief that women were made to be subserviant to women and as soon as we started listening to them it cause us to fall out of gods favor.

In fact, the positioning of our women can be taken from an even earlier excerpt of the Book of Genesis.

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

This shows us that the woman was not taken from the foot to be beneath us but that she was taken from our ribs to be beside us. Silly argument, I know, but I like it. :D

5 - It's a translation. Not only it it a translation but it's a whole bunch of translations. From the Cunieform of Sumerian to Akkadian to Mesopotamian to Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to English. Wow. To see just how difficult this can be let me make a small demonstration.

Original Phrase: And it came from the heavans.
French translation - et il est venu des heavans
French to German - und er ist von den heavans gekommen
German to English - and it came of heavans (notice the original "from the" has changed to "of")
English to Portuguese - e veio dos heavans
Portuguese to French - et venait de heavans
French to Greek - και ήρθε του heavans
Greek to English - and came heavans

We started with "And it came from the heavans" and ended with "And came heavans". This alone is more than enough for me to question the validity of the bible.

My point here is not to try and pull anyone away from their faith or relationship with god. What I am trying to demonstrate is that the bible is just not something that can be literally followed. Personally, I think I have a great relationship with god. We don't "talk" much but as I wander through his world I see his magic in everything, especially us humans.

I refuse to believe that he must be "paid homage too" as so many have tried to indoctrinate in me. Instead, I nkow that the best testament to him that I can build is to be the absolute best I can be.

Just my two cents.

Well, that's my feelings on this. I welcome comment but please realize, I have spent a significant portion of my life devoted to the analysis of the document and have come to rather logical and informed decision that pertain soley to myself. Please be as respectful of my right to make a choice as I am of yours.

Anyone commenting that I will not get into heavan or will spend eternity in damnation or any other hogwash will simply be ignored.

Knight
March 30th, 2005, 12:59 PM
Anyone commenting that I will not get into heavan or will spend eternity in damnation or any other hogwash will simply be ignored.avaya, welcome to TOL. Interesting first post.

Would you like a soda?

Zakath
March 30th, 2005, 01:13 PM
Or perhaps a beer? :cheers:

avaya
March 30th, 2005, 04:38 PM
Thank you but I no longer consume alcohol. A soda will do.

Knight
March 30th, 2005, 05:44 PM
Thank you but I no longer consume alcohol. A soda will do.
Then a soda it will be!

LightSon
April 1st, 2005, 01:31 AM
This was quoted to me so many times by my pastor that i made me want to puke. His, and others, used this phrase to often push forth their belief that women were made to be subserviant to women and as soon as we started listening to them it cause us to fall out of gods favor..

"women were made to be subserviant to women"? You may have misstated that.

Anyways, welcome to TOL.
I notice that you idtentify yourself as "agnostic", yet later state, "Personally, I think I have a great relationship with god."

I sense a certain double-mindedness in you. Which is it? Do you have a relationship with god, or are you uncertain he is there?

Your double-mindedness branches out to wanting to discredit the Bible, while alternating to "Jesus said or meant such-n-such". Which is it? I think you need to pick a cogent position and stop wandering back-n-forth between 2 opposite positions.

avaya
April 1st, 2005, 03:35 PM
Actually, I had to make a choice on my signup form and had no choice that really fit me that well. since I do not adhere to any of the "organized" religions and believe that the source to god lies in all of us that makes me not an athiest but again, I'm not any of the listed reliigions. As such, it was the best, though an imperfect, fit.

avaya
April 1st, 2005, 03:38 PM
Darn, hit enter before I could adress your second point.

My point is that the bible is not the word of jesus, in it's purest form. The bible/torah is a recreation of already existing religious beliefs that stemmed from ancient Sumer and Mesopotamia, hence, I question it's validity. Also, I do not believe that jesus was the messiah or any of that. I do believe, however, that he existed and that he was spot on in commenting that humans need not fear god but can love him and that humans were not inherrantly faillable but were infact divinely created.

these were the true teachings of christ which have been, imho, whooly co-opted and distorted by modern established religion.

LightSon
April 2nd, 2005, 01:31 PM
Darn, hit enter before I could adress your second point.

My point is that the bible is not the word of jesus, in it's purest form. The bible/torah is a recreation of already existing religious beliefs that stemmed from ancient Sumer and Mesopotamia, hence, I question it's validity. Also, I do not believe that jesus was the messiah or any of that. I do believe, however, that he existed and that he was spot on in commenting that humans need not fear god but can love him and that humans were not inherrantly faillable but were infact divinely created.

these were the true teachings of christ which have been, imho, whooly co-opted and distorted by modern established religion.

Again you reference "the true teachings of christ [sic]", and you do this in the context of scriptures you want discredited. Where did you get the idea that we should "love god"? Where did you get the notiion that humans were divinely created? Where? Do you have texts that you hold as sacred? If you are going to jettison the Bible, then were do you get your ideas from?

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus acknowledged as much about Himself, so if you want to give credence to Jesus, then do so. He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by [Jesus Christ]" That is what He said. You should ask yourself what wisdom there is in accepting some things Jesus said, and pitching the rest. To deny His words, is to call Him a liar. Is it wise to do that? Be very careful. I believe, as scripture teaches, that you will stand before Him at the judgment and give an answer to everything you've done and said. Be careful with these thoughts you throw out there. You affect others and yourself.

I'm still looking to see if you have a cogent position. When I see it, I'll let you know.

Jesus is Lord.

Eugene51
May 6th, 2005, 08:07 PM
Again you reference "the true teachings of christ [sic]", and you do this in the context of scriptures you want discredited. Where did you get the idea that we should "love god"? Where did you get the notiion that humans were divinely created? Where? Do you have texts that you hold as sacred? If you are going to jettison the Bible, then were do you get your ideas from?

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus acknowledged as much about Himself, so if you want to give credence to Jesus, then do so. He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by [Jesus Christ]" That is what He said. You should ask yourself what wisdom there is in accepting some things Jesus said, and pitching the rest. To deny His words, is to call Him a liar. Is it wise to do that? Be very careful. I believe, as scripture teaches, that you will stand before Him at the judgment and give an answer to everything you've done and said. Be careful with these thoughts you throw out there. You affect others and yourself.

I'm still looking to see if you have a cogent position. When I see it, I'll let you know.

Jesus is Lord.

Eugene51
May 6th, 2005, 08:42 PM
Reasons Why I believe. NOT IMO but Let God be TRUe and every man a liar!
Jesus said" you will know the Truth and the Truth will make you free."
(John 8)There is always room to learn more than what we know and believe
about God and HIS Word. I ( as a believer) have spent years reading and learning all I can about GOD. Time spent in prayer, communicating with that UNseen Spirit that speaks to my heart, not to my head, desires that we love all people, the good, the bad, and the unbelieving; HE loves all mankind. He loves sinners ( including me and you) but He hates sin in all form. It is not my job as a preacher and teacher of God's Word to judge or condemn anyone. My assignment as a disciple is to convince all men of the truth. How can any of us pretend that we know all the answers. God cannot be confined to a box or anyone church or religion. If God is being blamed for letting all those bad things that happen to people, who would want to serve, follow, trust, or believe in HIM. On the other hand, IF GOD does exist and HE is capable of all things good and bad that happen to us in this world,I should serve ONLY HIM out of fear, if not out of love (which HE extended to us all first). We should not ask why should I believe in HIM or How dare HE allow such attrosities
of mankind and not lift a hand to help us. where is GOD when we need HIM?? He is only a prayer away! And may I add that it is not for me or anyone to question GOD. Rather than NOT TRUST GOD, believe GOD, read HIS Word daily, search the scriptures daily to find out if these things are true. GOD has revealed HIMSELF to the world and to every generation. We may trust in GOD and hope in Christ for eternal life, but never can we fully trust any man. I am a sinful creature,falible and frail, prone to error; yet when I read GOD's Word, I find truth and pure holiness. I find no errors or untruth in any translation I read. In closing may I say
that When we ( you or I ) read GOd's Wrod, we should read it fresh every day as though we have never read it before. We if we go to reading with preconcieved ideas and expectations, we may miss what God has to say to us in the now of our lives. If we search for contradictions and untruths there, in our minds we will find them, even though they are not there. We must read GOD's Word as though we were searching for gold, silver or buried treasure. When we humble ourself in HIS Presence, while in prayer, or reading HIS Word, we will find God. Abiding in HIM and letting HIM live our lives as though He were living it for us. We will be drawn to love others, caring for their eternal well being, praying for them to come to grips with their failures, faults and problems. Then and only then do we have the right to show them the way to eternal life, which has been freely offered to all manking, and has been rejected by many, because they refused to believe all that GOD has said in HIS Word.

cattyfan
May 10th, 2005, 11:22 AM
Reasons Why I believe. NOT IMO but Let God be TRUe and every man a liar!
Jesus said" you will know the Truth and the Truth will make you free."
(John 8)There is always room to learn more than what we know and believe
about God and HIS Word. I ( as a believer) have spent years reading and learning all I can about GOD. Time spent in prayer, communicating with that UNseen Spirit that speaks to my heart, not to my head, desires that we love all people, the good, the bad, and the unbelieving; HE loves all mankind. He loves sinners ( including me and you) but He hates sin in all form. It is not my job as a preacher and teacher of God's Word to judge or condemn anyone. My assignment as a disciple is to convince all men of the truth. How can any of us pretend that we know all the answers. God cannot be confined to a box or anyone church or religion. If God is being blamed for letting all those bad things that happen to people, who would want to serve, follow, trust, or believe in HIM. On the other hand, IF GOD does exist and HE is capable of all things good and bad that happen to us in this world,I should serve ONLY HIM out of fear, if not out of love (which HE extended to us all first). We should not ask why should I believe in HIM or How dare HE allow such attrosities
of mankind and not lift a hand to help us. where is GOD when we need HIM?? He is only a prayer away! And may I add that it is not for me or anyone to question GOD. Rather than NOT TRUST GOD, believe GOD, read HIS Word daily, search the scriptures daily to find out if these things are true. GOD has revealed HIMSELF to the world and to every generation. We may trust in GOD and hope in Christ for eternal life, but never can we fully trust any man. I am a sinful creature,falible and frail, prone to error; yet when I read GOD's Word, I find truth and pure holiness. I find no errors or untruth in any translation I read. In closing may I say
that When we ( you or I ) read GOd's Wrod, we should read it fresh every day as though we have never read it before. We if we go to reading with preconcieved ideas and expectations, we may miss what God has to say to us in the now of our lives. If we search for contradictions and untruths there, in our minds we will find them, even though they are not there. We must read GOD's Word as though we were searching for gold, silver or buried treasure. When we humble ourself in HIS Presence, while in prayer, or reading HIS Word, we will find God. Abiding in HIM and letting HIM live our lives as though He were living it for us. We will be drawn to love others, caring for their eternal well being, praying for them to come to grips with their failures, faults and problems. Then and only then do we have the right to show them the way to eternal life, which has been freely offered to all manking, and has been rejected by many, because they refused to believe all that GOD has said in HIS Word.




did smaller's LITTLE brudder post THIS?

Poly
May 10th, 2005, 11:35 AM
did smaller's LITTLE brudder post THIS?

:taoist: "Lil brudder.... oh lil' brudder.... he has the heart of a champion.... keep scrapin' along lil' brudder....":taoist:

philosophizer
May 10th, 2005, 11:47 AM
He has such a strong...... one leg. :cry:

cattyfan
May 12th, 2005, 11:25 AM
:taoist: "Lil brudder.... oh lil' brudder.... he has the heart of a champion.... keep scrapin' along lil' brudder....":taoist:


Ohhhhh, lil' brudder!!!!

:taoist:

philosophizer
May 13th, 2005, 07:32 AM
I'm thinking of getting into...... male modeling... :taoist:

Letsargue
August 29th, 2005, 06:23 AM
great stuff there. I really enjoyed the read and I will use it in future bible studies I give.

This one is going in my files for sure!

peace
7thwatch
Psalm 22


---This is truly a need to read and study portion of the Bible. It will bring tears to your eyes. If I may insert what I’ve learned here, you can take it for what you will.
---There’s a few things revealed there that people have never been taught.
---15, Christ bled all his blood and water from his body to the point the he was like a crisp. A potsherd is a piece of a clay pot.
And also 15, Christ gnawed his own tongue out; in order not to disobey his own law. If thine eye offends you, pluck it out. If thy hand offends you cut it off. Notice He is saying if it OFFENDS “YOU”, cut it off. Christ’s tongue offended him; it got him on the cross. As he died it was seen, the Lamb of God, chewing it’s cud before he went to sleep.
And also 15, Christ was asleep or dead throughout most all of that, and became conscious just to cry out, and gave up the Ghost. That is referred to as a resurrection.
---I know; again it’s insane, you don’t have to except it.
*
------------Paul---
*

Frank Ernest
August 29th, 2005, 06:39 AM
Psalm 22


---This is truly a need to read and study portion of the Bible. It will bring tears to your eyes. If I may insert what I’ve learned here, you can take it for what you will.
---There’s a few things revealed there that people have never been taught.
---15, Christ bled all his blood and water from his body to the point the he was like a crisp. A potsherd is a piece of a clay pot.
And also 15, Christ gnawed his own tongue out; in order not to disobey his own law. If thine eye offends you, pluck it out. If thy hand offends you cut it off. Notice He is saying if it OFFENDS “YOU”, cut it off. Christ’s tongue offended him; it got him on the cross. As he died it was seen, the Lamb of God, chewing it’s cud before he went to sleep.
And also 15, Christ was asleep or dead throughout most all of that, and became conscious just to cry out, and gave up the Ghost. That is referred to as a resurrection.
---I know; again it’s insane, you don’t have to except it.
*
------------Paul---
*
Ok. I won't accept it for the reason you stated. :thumb:

David2
September 3rd, 2005, 03:33 AM
when digging for gold and you find it , try it to know it's not fools gold.
This is one of the intersting pslams, that confirms David, as the Prince of peace.Try this on it's own without the though of the future ie Jesus. When you read psalms, you will hear the voice of the heart of love as is the spirit of trust and truth and will know that the the key to your heart is David , He who will stand in the congregation and praise Him and tell of His glories. 22:22 " i will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the congregation will i prasie thee. 29 " all they that be fat upon the earth, shall eat and worship, fat refers to goodness, as in the fat of the lamb is it's wool, that which is good 30 " a seed shallserve Him, it shall be accounted to him for a generation , this implies a period of time ps 23 :4 thou i walk through the valley of death ie live and walk in darkness amonst a world of sinners , i will not fear anyone b/c your staff and rod comfort me. this refers to God's Word and His personal Guidance
23: 6 " surely goodness and mercy follow me all the days of my life and i will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever. So what does this imply, that David has been assured of the right hand of God and not to see hell.
Ps 24 : 3 " who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord or who shall stand in His Holy place? 4 He that hath clean hands and a pure heart who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity nor sworn deceitfully.
Jer 18 :15 " b.c my people have forgotten me, they have burned insense to vanity and they have cause them to stumble in their ways, from the ancient paths, to walk in paths, in a way not cast up. 17 i will scatter them as with an east wind before their enemy, i will shopw them the back...........1818 " then they came ( who is they?, ) come let us devise devices against Jeremiah, for the law (God's word) shall not perish from the presists (levites).......come let us smite him with the tongue, and let us not give heed to any of his ( jeremiah's ) words.
what you hear here is the expressions of David repeated . Throughout the OT you will hear the repetitions of the Words of Moses and David.
David is the central figure 25 % of the bible is of Moses 50% of DAvid and 25 % of jesus , but it is all about the same one soul ie He who brought the children forth out of egypt , the first begotten ie Moses, David the gfirst begotten ps 2: 7 'Thou art my son this day have i begotten thee" Jesus as the begotten son, and in Revelation the first begotten from the dead the comforter as repeatd in rev ch 2 & 3 " 7 times i have over come the darkness, ie sins of this world. Now you have Jesus confirming this character in spirit that is the key of David rev 3 :7 and that he is the root ( what is the root of a plant in the ground but every year a new body comes up resemmbling the old but it 's yet different. the life is in the root ie the soul, the spirit is in the moving new body with is fed from the root, ) ( what is the root of David besides his soul and his heart, which is the central theme of the entire Bble. the Jews will rightfully argue that messiah is David , but could not accept that Jesus was him. Wo what do you think will be the case for Jesus in face to the christian heiarchy, rejection of course based on what? that they too as the jews cannot see relinguishing their power, to him, so they would prefer to kill him REv 12 :4 . But as scripture must be filled that women is the bride that will bring forth the man child which is after the great white thropne judgement which as i keep telling you is around the corner, why? B/C i am he who is walking among you as the thief in the night or walking amon you in the valley of death which is filled with dry bones, Read Eze 37 and 3 " can these bones live? ( bones ie people ie dead walking in spirit, but still living ) Now the next several verses will speak to the rasing of these dead until verse 9 an you will see the expression " prophecy unto the winds, prophecy, son of man and say to the wind,,,Say to the four winds ( four corners of the world) oh breath , breath upon them and live."------- now read the nest couple of verses.

what is important is to recognize the symbolisms and their correlations to the other similar usages throughout the Text.
you have Folly wood and various christian teaching s trying to bring some p[hysical expression to hese words eye graves and raising dead from the groun and so on and these repetitions abre blinding you all and keeping you confused and dazed about the truth.
As jew cannot possibly understand unless they accept Jesus and as Christians cannot poosibly understand unless they accept David you are all lost . And this is carefully , and strategically organiniezed by king evil , Satan and his modern day reps,.

so what happens with Reveklation the final chapter, if the christians call it speculation at best and the jews call it garbage made up by heathens . it is the theif in the fnight , who has been preserveand who's name and correlations are written to confirm from the beginning of the tText ie Bible to the very end and God shall as you are doing with this ps 22 prove who messiah is,

This is your time to prove and see the correlation, messiah will not go away, lest he is booted, away. Now get busy instead of tearing me apart for what you think i don't know challenge the Text to prove who i AM. Just as you have hear.

peace and may your hearts be open to hearing the word.
You should know it is impossible in this type of forum to simply write and write and write.
it's the night and i am busy writing to you .
i have been getting up between 2 an 6 am for over 25 years and much and most was simply for meditationa nd reading , being groomed for this day.
Hurry don't be late, you won't be disappiointed lest you hold fast to wanting to live in sin and continue in sin life thinking you can have the kingdom and sin life too, waiting for the pill years and a horrible cancer death and then a pulpit preacher at graveside saying" he's gone to a better place now", That 's a crock of bull !!!!!!
wake up my friends the" beastly boys" are covering you with lies and deceit and you arduously are working for them 10 -12 hours / day 3 -4 days per week. __________think on this.

God 's promise is far and away much more pleasing and satisfying than this life of sin, in a culture of sodom and gamorrah _____ hell____o___.

peace and love from your eternal friend and well wisher.

Letsargue
September 3rd, 2005, 08:30 AM
Ok. I won't accept it for the reason you stated. :thumb:


---wow!!! -- I ask for that one. Thumbs I accept it.
*
--------------Paul---
*

Charity
September 4th, 2005, 01:50 AM
It is a good thing to look up Who will beleive the report of who the arm of the lord is extended . Is a vexation from day to day night to morning only to understand the report. for the arm came to do its work, and the arm is is all god , but infact not completely god , because god is to be all in all as christ tells . I tell you christ came to get that with had been lost . count the comings starting with the people of old or we forsake them and thy perish. guess what there has to be a coming befor theres agoing. lets not just start at a going because u have to come to go . Who is the elected one , choosen to be the light , his work is before him, his soul will be made an offering to justerfy many,he shall see his seed, and be comforted , christ ends a generation waiting his coming . we must have care that we dont pervert gods grace to those before, count 1 for them may god bring us to a full understanding so we may depart all evil.

David2
September 4th, 2005, 01:49 PM
charity tells me that we need some more friends,
nice post there kiddo.
if you believe, then you will see his coming an if your faith is pure then you may be there, it;s your choice.
from your friendly messiah,
David2

svnthdysthsbbth
September 15th, 2005, 03:50 PM
Resons to BELIEVE ........

•In the entire Bible as the inspired Word of God. II Timothy 3:16.

•In the Godhead as mentioned in Matthew. Matthew 28:18-19.

•In salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. John 3:16; Acts 4:12.

•That the personal visible return of Jesus is according to Bible prophecy. We must prepare to meet Him. John 14:1-5; Luke 21:25-26; Matthew 24th Chapter; Amos 4:12.

•We are saved by grace, through faith, not by our works, nor the keeping of the law. Ephesians 2:8-10.

•Good works are the fruitage of the true faith. James 2:17-20.

•In regeneration, the new birth, Bible conversion, true sanctification and holiness of life. John 3:17; Acts 3:19.

•It is now the judgment time, when a special gospel message is calling mankind back to special Bible truth. Revelation 14:6-12.

•The Ten Commandments will be the standard of judgment. Exodus 20:1-17; Ecclesiastes 12:13-14; James 2:10-12.

•The original Seventh-Day Sabbath is the true Lord’s Day of the entire Bible. John 1:1-3; Mark 2:27; Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11; Matthew 5:17-19; Revelation 22:14; Isaiah 66:22-23.

•The follower of Christ will shun worldly pleasure and follies that unfit him for heaven. II Timothy 3:1-5; John 2:15-17.

•Being called into holiness of life, the Christian will be discreet in conduct; and will manifest in simplicity in dress and appearance. II Corinthians 6:16-18; Isaiah 3:16-24; I Timothy 2:8-10.

•The body is the temple of the Holy Ghost. We should, therefore, not defile it with alcoholic beverages, tobacco in any form, narcotics, or foods that are not in harmony with God’s Word. I Corinthians 9:24-27; 6:19-20; 10:31; Romans 12:1-2; I Thessalonians 5:23.

•The dead sleep in the grave until the resurrection. Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10; I Corinthians 15:20-21; 51-55; I Thessalonians 4:13; Romans 6:23.

•In baptism by immersion. Matthew 28:18, 20; Colossians 2:12; 3:12; 3:1-4.

•In all the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I Corinthians 12; Revelation 12:17; 19:10.

•In the support of the gospel by tithes and offerings. Leviticus 27:30; Malachi 3:7-12; Matthew 23:23.

:)

SOLAGRATIA
September 25th, 2005, 09:16 PM
hi

David2
October 13th, 2005, 06:00 AM
the list of points mentioned above are very good.
a little revision on some taking too literally but all in all as you have many good points and references

i say, this confirms the " song of Moses" rev 15:3.

and they sung it AS IF, it were new, but it's not, the commandments, God's Will will never change, but if you want to be there, then you must put on a new dress. ah, how sweet.

if any of you saw my Bibles , 7 of them , with all their notes and highlights and line connections, page after page, you would atleast admit , that's alot of reading.
But more importantly they are prepared for you not me, to some day scrutinize and see for yourself, what is the supporting documentation and the mysteries.

my 19 year old daughter, did her own carefull anlaysis, and it was pleasant to watch here say " wow, the Bible is so simple top read now", put down her NIV, and immediately bought her own KJV and started noting the contents.
She's an angel, are you?

David2

goldeneye
October 21st, 2005, 09:30 PM
fear is the dread to futher confusion, to seek and not find, to desire and be unfulfilled ....for the heart must find true romance...and what is true romance but the hearts complete surrender, ....................how many of us can say we are romanicng God
i say i love god.....i say i love jesus...but would i recognise jesus if i met him, would i surrender my heart to romance, as he , and be this one heart ,mind and soul ...one Song..is a female character capable of complete surrender, marriage Love..... the soul created below (incompliance with) for him is she continuance and to her is he that which is Love...will the companisons of the holy spirit hearken and cause God to hear

`Love.
February 7th, 2006, 08:56 PM
fear is the dread to futher confusion, to seek and not find, to desire and be unfulfilled ....for the heart must find true romance...and what is true romance but the hearts complete surrender, ....................how many of us can say we are romanicng God
i say i love god.....i say i love jesus...but would i recognise jesus if i met him, would i surrender my heart to romance, as he , and be this one heart ,mind and soul ...one Song..is a female character capable of complete surrender, marriage Love..... the soul created below (incompliance with) for him is she continuance and to her is he that which is Love...will the companisons of the holy spirit hearken and cause God to hear

Lay off the crack, dude. :up:

JumpinJack
February 20th, 2006, 07:56 AM
Mind if I cut in?

Under the sub-heading reasons not to believe, elaborating on JayHoover’s point re: Christianity “losing” it’s founding documents, it is unlikely in the extreme that the “originals” were “lost” “accidentally.” Apparently, the originals managed to survive for almost two centuries before Nicea, with far less formal oversight than they would have received, and should have received, after Nicea, with the wealth and bureaucracy of imperial Rome at the Church’s fingertips.

Strange, that. Meticulous record-keepers before Nicea, and since, but somehow immediately after Nicea they lose the originals! There one minute, gone the next! Not the originals of one, or two, or three, or four, or five books of the Bible, God’s Holy Word. The original of EVERY book of the New Testament was lost. If lost through mere incompetence or neglect, the Church didn’t even preserve one original manuscript “accidentally.” What are the odds of that?

What amounts to the Church’s founding “Articles of Incorporation,” proving its legitimacy, and proving the Bishop of Rome’s apostolic claim of title to the throne of St Peter, unaccountably “lost.” If the same rules we apply to corporate accounting practices today were applied to the theologians of Nicea, they’d go to jail for shredding the evidence. Don’t have a list of the books in front of me considered at Nicea, included in Constantine’s New Testament; but whatever the number of books was, multiply it by the number of copies of each book the bishops made, unless we’re expected to believe that two hundred bishops took turns “sharing” one original of each book. So, not only were the “originals” “lost,” every copy of an original used at Nicea was lost, as well.

The oldest complete New Testament manuscripts date to the late fourth century (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), and are thought to be two of fifty copies commissioned by Constantine after Nicea. What became of the manuscripts used by Church “historian” Eusebius to compile Constantine’s New Testament? Would a “historian” simply throw them out when he was through with them?

Given the unparalleled historical (not to mention spiritual) value of the originals, it’s naïve and unreasonable to believe that every original NT document was “accidentally lost” by the very people responsible for determining what is, and what isn’t, God’s Holy Word. After months of debate, they cull out the pretenders, settle on the accepted texts, burn what was rejected -- and lose the originals? With all the “crap” the Church has rat-packed away and preserved over the years, “losing” the originals of every NT book in the Bible, written, presumably, in the author’s own hand, is inconceivable. We can only conclude that the original manuscripts were systematically and deliberately destroyed (or hidden). But, why? Only one reason to hide or destroy an original document. Because someone’s got something to hide.

Not very reassuring.

JumpinJack
February 21st, 2006, 10:28 AM
Kind of a "buzz" killer, huh?

allsmiles
February 21st, 2006, 10:36 AM
The oldest complete New Testament manuscripts date to the late fourth century (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), and are thought to be two of fifty copies commissioned by Constantine after Nicea. What became of the manuscripts used by Church “historian” Eusebius to compile Constantine’s New Testament? Would a “historian” simply throw them out when he was through with them?

wasn't Eusebius an Arian heretic?

not to make too fine a point of it, but one of the things that i find most compelling about this point in christian history is the political intrigue... Constantine himself was a sun worshipping pagan who ordered the murder of his son and his mother in law, if memory serves, and to emphasize just how interested he was in the theology of the fledgling faith, he appointed a heretic to compile the canon from the before mentioned "lost" - :chuckle: - documents... :think:

and also, the references in Psalms that are supposed to be prophetic... how hard would it have been for the compilers of the NT to have simply added the fulfillment of the prophecies in the gospel accounts?

sorry if that's already been covered, but it's a really simple explanation for the "prophecies".

kratus1
March 6th, 2006, 08:31 PM
'Love.....what branch of "God" do you stem from? Some may talk like poets, and some may talk jibberish. But your comment, your handle, Marilyn Manson and your christian listing does not all mix together.

If you do have Jesus in your heart and are just a little resentful or crass, then be encouraged, that God wants us to "live to be a relfection of Christ to others."
To put it simply, unless you have an intellectuall or spiritual viewpoint, then the response was unnecessary.

Daniel50
March 6th, 2006, 09:22 PM
Jmaes 1:23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror;

kratus1
March 6th, 2006, 09:22 PM
)[/FONT]
wasn't Eusebius an Arian heretic?

not to make too fine a point of it, but one of the things that i find most compelling about this point in christian history is the political intrigue... Constantine himself was a sun worshipping pagan who ordered the murder of his son and his mother in law, if memory serves, and to emphasize just how interested he was in the theology of the fledgling faith, he appointed a heretic to compile the canon from the before mentioned "lost" - :chuckle: - documents... :think:

and also, the references in Psalms that are supposed to be prophetic... how hard would it have been for the compilers of the NT to have simply added the fulfillment of the prophecies in the gospel accounts?

sorry if that's already been covered, but it's a really simple explanation for the "prophecies".


[FONT=Lucida Console]Interesting question. The most honest answer a christian could give you is that our faith in God's word rest in it's inerrancy and accuracy. For God to have allowed any man to recreate or add to what He created, would have a negative reflection of God's sovereignty--which is another point. God makes it clear in Revelations that anyone who is to add or take away from this book will be thrown into the pit. (summarized for context

chair
March 21st, 2006, 04:41 AM
Psalm 22 has nothing to do with Jesus. What we see is an attempt (typical, as others have pointed out) to read Jesus into the Old Testament.

1. It would be completely natural for Jesus, who likely knew the oT quite well, to use Biblical expressions in his time of trouble.

2. The Psalms were not all written by David, and thus this particular one does not necessarily predate Jesus by 1,000 years

3. The Hebrew text (as has been noted by my Karaite friend) does not have anything at all to do with piercing or crucifixion. It seems that only Christian translations of this, and possibly versions of the Septuagint that have been preserved by Christians over the centuries have the word "pierced" in them.

4. To top it all off, when the NT was written, it is quite possible that they wrote a story that matched their OT expectations.

In short, this argument would not convince a knowledgable atheist or Jew.

All of these OT arguments will only convince the convinced.

Oh- if anybody out there wants to start up on the Hebrew word "echad" meaning "one-that-is-many", you will get an earful from me. Another bit of nonsense.

Psalmist
March 28th, 2006, 12:16 PM
:think: TURBO Nice piece of work on on Psalm 22, nicely referenced :thumb: For me as a student of the scriptures it is A+ work ;)

Have read "The Treasury of David" by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, it is worth reading. It comes in two styles 3 volume complete, and a single volume abridged.

What would David the writer of the 22nd Psalm, tell us about what he wrote?

I myself think it is marvelous the way the prophicies of the coming of the Messiah Jesus are woven like tapestry through out the Old Testament, so that when we see the finished work in the New Testament the tapestry from the front, we see a truly beautiful finished work, Amen and Amen!

Psalmist
April 10th, 2006, 05:07 AM
:think:

This is what I found concerning Psalm 22

www.spurgeon.org/treasury/ps022.htm

Further exposition on the Psalms from the Treasury of David by Charles H. Spurgeon

www.spurgeon.org/treasury/treasury.htm

Frank Ernest
April 10th, 2006, 05:54 AM
Psalm 22 has nothing to do with Jesus. What we see is an attempt (typical, as others have pointed out) to read Jesus into the Old Testament.
Yes, it does and, no, it isn't.


1. It would be completely natural for Jesus, who likely knew the oT quite well, to use Biblical expressions in his time of trouble.
Why would that be "natural" and why pick Psalm 22?


2. The Psalms were not all written by David, and thus this particular one does not necessarily predate Jesus by 1,000 years
Psalm 22 is attributed to David. Who are the other candidates for authorship?


3. The Hebrew text (as has been noted by my Karaite friend) does not have anything at all to do with piercing or crucifixion. It seems that only Christian translations of this, and possibly versions of the Septuagint that have been preserved by Christians over the centuries have the word "pierced" in them.
Your Karaite friend needs some instruction in Hebrew then.


4. To top it all off, when the NT was written, it is quite possible that they wrote a story that matched their OT expectations.
Got any documentation for this?


In short, this argument would not convince a knowledgable atheist or Jew.
Interesting you put Jew and atheist in the same category.


All of these OT arguments will only convince the convinced.
:darwinsm: They certainly won't convince the unconvinceable atheist or unconvinceable Jew.

brandplucked
April 23rd, 2006, 10:16 AM
How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - Three examples

Number 1 - Haggai 2:7 The Desire of all nations

One of my favorite hymns, O Come, O Come Emmanuel, has the line "O come Desire of nations, come." Handel’s beautiful work, The Messiah, also has this line in one of the hymns taken from the King James Bible. "And the Desire of all nations shall come. But who may abide the day of His coming? For He is like a refiner's fire."

This line comes from Haggai 2:6,7: "For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land: And I will shake all nations, and THE DESIRE OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts."

There are also references to this event in the New Testament. The book of Hebrews says in 12:26: "Whose voice then shook the earth; but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." Again, in Hebrews 10:37 we read: "For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry."

Matthew Henry comments on Haggai 2:6-7:

"He shall come as the desire of all nations — desirable to all nations, for in him shall all the families of the earth be blessed with the best of blessings — long expected and desired by the good people in all nations, that had any intelligence from the Old-Testament predictions concerning him."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on Haggai 2:7

“So Hebrews 12:26, which quotes this passage; the apostle compares the heavier punishment which awaits the disobedient under the New Testament with that which met such under the Old Testament. At the establishment of the Sinaitic covenant, only the earth was shaken to introduce it, but now heaven and earth and all things are to be shaken, all kingdoms that stand in the way of Messiah's kingdom, "which cannot be shaken," are to be upturned. Paul condenses together the two verses of Haggai 2:6-7 and 2:21-22, implying that it was one and the same shaking, of which the former verses of Haggai denote the beginning, the latter the end."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown continue: "There is scarcely a prophecy of Messiah in the Old Testament which does not, to some extent at least, refer to His second coming."

"While the Jews as a nation desired Him not, the Gentiles, who are plainly pointed out by "all nations," accepted Him; and so to them He was peculiarly desirable. The "good tidings of great joy" were "to all people" (Luke 2:10). The Jews, and those in the adjoining nations instructed by them, looked for Shiloh to come unto whom the gathering of the people was to be, from Jacob's prophecy (Genesis 49:10). The early patriarchs, Job (Job 19:25-27) and Abraham (John 8:56), desired Him."

"fill this house with glory-- As the first temple was filled with the cloud of glory, the symbol of God, so this second temple was filled with the "glory" of God (John 1:14) veiled in the flesh at Christ's first coming, when He entered it and performed miracles there ; but that "glory" is to be revealed at His second coming, AS THIS PROPHECY IN ITS ULTERIOR REFERENCE FORETELLS." (Caps are mine)

John Gill comments on Haggai 2:6-7 (Caps are mine):"and the desire of all nations shall come; NOT THE DESIRABLE THINGS OF ALL NATIONS, or them with them, as their gold and silver; and which is the sense of Jarchi, Kimchi, and Aben Ezra; but this is contrary to the syntax of the words, to the context of Haggai 2:8, and to facts; ... but one far more glorious and excellent, is intended, EVEN THE MESSIAH, in whom all nations of the earth were to be blessed;... HIS PERSONAL COMING; his spiritual coming; his coming to take vengeance on the Jews; and HIS LAST COMING, of which some understand the words particularly."

John Calvin remarks on Haggai 2:6-7 "But we may understand what he says of Christ, Come shall the desire of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory. We indeed know that Christ was the expectation of the whole world, according to what is said by Isaiah. And it may be properly said, that when the desire of all nations shall come, that is, when Christ shall be manifested, in whom the wishes of all ought to center, the glory of the second Temple shall then be illustrious."

Other Bible versions that agree with the King James Holy Bible "and the desire of all nations shall come" are the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Green's interlinear and Modern KJV 1998, Darby, Douay 1950, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation into English, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (el Deseado de todas las naciones vendrá), the Italian Diodati 1602, Webster’s 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, God's Word Translation 1995, and Third Millenium Bible 1998.

J.P. Green's 2005 KJV3 reads: " And I will shake all the nations; and the Desire of all nations shall come. And I will fill this house with glory, says Jehovah of Hosts.hands; and you did not turn to Me, a state- ment of Jehovah."

The NIV is pretty good here with "and the desired of all nations will come."

Miles Coverdale 1535 gives the same idea with: " the comforte of all Heithen shall come"

God's Word to the Nations version 1995 - "and the one whom all the nations desire will come." This gives the same sense as that found in the King James Bible.

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902 also reads similar to the King James Bible - "and the delight of all the nations, shall come in."

However things begin to go awry in the NKJV with its: "and THEY shall come to the Desire of All Nations." This is incorrect because it is the Lord Jesus Christ who is coming to us; not we who are not going to Him.

But with the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation everything has changed, and this is no longer a prophecy about Christ at all. The NASB reads: "And I am going to shake all the nations and THEY WILL COME WITH THE WEALTH of all nations."

The Message - "And I'll shake down all the godless nations. They'll bring bushels of wealth and I will fill this Temple with splendor. GOD of the Angel-Armies says so."

The RSV, NRSV, ESV (2001 English Standard Version) and the 2004 Holman Standard all unite in reading: "and I will shake all nations so that THE TREASURES OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME IN, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts." Again, any prophesy about the return of Christ has been eliminated from this passage.

Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological seminary is writing his own bible version called the NET bible. He often rejects the Hebrew readings, changes many others, and frequently comes up with a translation that does not agree with any other version in print.

He renders this verse: "I will also shake up all the nations, and THEY(12) will offer their treasures;(13) then I will fill this temple with glory,’ says the sovereign Lord."

Then in his footnotes he admits to emending the Hebrew text. He tells us: (12) Heb “all the nations.” (13) Though the subject here is singular (“desire”), the preceding plural predicate mandates a collective subject, “desired (things)”. This has no direct reference to the coming of the Messiah."

In other words, Dr. Wallace first changed the text, and then said the Hebrew subject "the desire" does not agree with his changed text, and finally that the verse has no reference to the coming of the Messiah! Truly, modern scholarship is a marvel to behold.

The word used here for "desire" - #2532 khem-daw - does not mean "wealth", as the NASB says, nor "treasures" as the ESV, RSV, NET and Holman have it. The correct meaning refers not to THEY who will come, but to Christ, the Messiah, and the Desire of all nations. The NASB has only once translated this word as "wealth", and yet has the same word rendered as "desire" in Daniel 11:37 - "he will show no regard for... the desire of women".

This noun "desire" comes from the verb "to desire" # 2530 and is used in 1 Samuel 9:20 referring to the first king over Israel, when Samuel said to Saul "and on whom is all the DESIRE of Israel?." It is used again in Isaiah 53:2: "and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should DESIRE him." The Isaiah passage clearly refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, at His first coming in the flesh.

The same verb is used in Genesis 3:6 where the woman saw that the tree "was a tree to be desired to make one wise", and in Psalm 19:10 where the judgments of the LORD are described as "more to be desired than gold, yea, than much fine gold."

The King James Bible is right, as always, and the statement by scholarly experts such as James White, who now works for the NASB committee, that we need to compare all versions to get an accurate sense of the meaning, is utter nonsense and results in total confusion.

Will Kinney

brandplucked
April 23rd, 2006, 10:19 AM
How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - Three examples

Number Two - Daniel 9:26 "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself"


Daniel 9:26 "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was cut off out of the land of the living and He died, not for Himself, but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 tells us.

There is no verb in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26; it reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí) but they changed the 1995 Reina Valera and it now reads like the NIV. Also agreeing with the King James reading of "but not for Himself" are Webster's 1833 translation, The Modern Greek Translation (pleen ouxi di heauton), the Third Millenium Bible, Green's 1998 Modern KJV, and the KJV 21st Century Version. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".

The NIV is not always translated in the same way into foreign languages. The NIV in Spanish simply omits this last phrase altogether. The 1984 Nueva Versión Internacional says: "After the 72 weeks, the life of the elect prince will be taken away."

Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is writing his own bible version on the internet. It is called the NET bible and it often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and frequently comes up with meanings not found in any other bible out there in print. His NET version with commentary says: "Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Then he footnotes: "The expression "HAVE NOTHING" is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting A VICARIOUS DEATH, CANNOT BE DEFENDED."

This "renowned scholar" admits his own rendering "is difficult", and "a presumption", but then he adamantly tells that the idea of a substitutionary death as found in the King James Bible "cannot be defended". He is uncertain about his own reading, but certain that the King James Bible got it wrong! Aren't Bible correctors a kick in the head? Well, as we shall soon see, a great many Bible teachers and translators are not at all in agreement with Dr. Wallace's opinions.

Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa. 53:8. He must be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF —not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, HE MUST DIE FOR THE PEOPLE, IN OUR STEAD and for our good, it was TO ATONE FOR OUR SINS, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - BUT FOR OUR SAKES, and for our salvation."

John Gill offers two different interpretations but he gives this one first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, BUT FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE, to make satisfaction for them, and TO OBTAIN THEIR REDEMPTION and salvation."

David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, NOT FOR HIMSELF."

C.H. Spurgeon comments: "The Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself." - Daniel 9:26 "Blessed be his name, there was no cause of death in him. Neither original nor actual sin had defiled him, and therefore death had no claim upon him. No man could have taken his life from him justly, for he had done no man wrong, and no man could even have lain him by force unless he had been pleased to yield himself to die. But lo, one sins and another suffers. Justice was offended by us, but found its satisfaction in him. Rivers of tears, mountains of offerings, seas of the blood of bullocks, and hills of frankincense, could not have availed for the removal of sin; BUT JESUS WAS CUT OFF FOR US, and the cause of wrath was cut off at once, for sin was put away for ever. Herein is wisdom, whereby SUBSTITUTION, the sure and speedy WAY OF ATONEMENT, was devised! Herein is condescension, which brought Messiah, the Prince, to wear a crown of thorns, and die upon the cross! Herein is love, which led the Redeemer to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS ENEMIES!

Bible Babel in Action

Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statements made by many today that "There are no conflicting bibles", or "By reading a multitude of different versions we get a better idea of what the text says".

Wycliffe 1395 - "Christ shall be slain, and IT SHALL NOT BE HIS PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM."

Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

The New English bible 1970 says: "one who is anointed is removed WITHOUT ANYONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

Young's 'literal' translation has: "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

The alleged Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads: "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."

The Message of 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM." (Not quite true, is it?)

1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (Again not true)

The Good News Translation - Second edition says: "And at the end of that time God's chosen leader will be killed UNJUSTLY." Then it footnotes: "One ancient translation unjustly; Hebrew unclear."

The Easy To Read Version 2001 - "After the 62 weeks, the chosen person will be killed. HE WILL BE GONE."

The Catholic versions are all in disagreement with each other too.

The Douay Version of 1950 says: - "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: AND THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

Then the Jerusalem Bible of 1968 has: "an anointed one will be cut off - AND....WILL NOT BE FOR HIM." (This is actually how it reads)

The St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 has: "an anointed shall be cut down WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSES THE CITY"

And finally the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 says: "an Anointed One put to death WITHOUT HIS...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come." (Again, this is actually how it reads)

May I suggest you take a few moments to review this list of conflicting bible readings, and then ask God to open your eyes to see which one presents the truth about why Messiah was cut off, and what His death accomplished? The King James Bible always comes out on top when the Truth of God is revealed to the believing heart.

Will Kinney

brandplucked
April 23rd, 2006, 10:21 AM
Number Three - Isaiah 66:5 But He shall appear to your joy

There are literally hundreds of examples of how the New KJV has changed the meaning of the Scriptures as found in the King James Bible. One of these hundreds of examples is found in Isaiah 66:5.

There we read: "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: BUT HE SHALL APPEAR TO YOUR JOY, and they shall be ashamed."

This is the reading of not only the KJB but also the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569 (42 years before the KJB), the subsequent Spanish versions of 1602, 1909 and 1960, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible of 1902, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, Green's interlinear translation 1985 and Modern KJV 1998, the Jewish translation of the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21st Century Version.

The Modern Greek translation also reads as does the King James Bible. Though the alleged LXX reads differently even from the NKJV, NASB, with "and may appear THEIR joy", yet the Modern Greek translation has: "and he will appear to your joy" - just as found in the King James Bible.

However a host of modern versions, including the NKJV, give a very different meaning to this passage of Scripture. The NKJV, along with the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard, says: "Who cast you out for my name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, THAT WE MAY SEE YOUR JOY'. But they shall be ashamed."

Again, the good Doctor Daniel Wallace and his NET version render this verse: “so that we might witness your joy.” Then Wallace significantly remarks in his footnotes: "The point of this statement is unclear."

Well, Duh. Sure it's unclear NOW. You just changed the whole meaning of the verse!

What happened to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is the true meaning "But He shall appear to your joy" or "That We may see your joy"?

The verb used here is # 7200 variously translated as "to see, to appear, to provide". It is a very common verb, but this particular instance is what is called a Niphal participle. According to George Wigram's Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, 1980, Baker Book House Company, on page 1141, Dr. Wigram informs us that this Niphal participle occurs only three times and every time it refers to the Lord who appears. The other two times this verb form is found both refer to either God or the Lord. Genesis 12:7 "the LORD who appeared unto him"; Genesis 35:1 "God that appeared unto thee". The third time is here in Isaiah 66:5 "but he shall appear to your joy."

Jamison, Faucett and Brown comment: They cast you out for my name's sake - excommunicate, as if too polluted to worship with them. So in Christ's first sojourn on earth. So it shall be again in the last times, when the believing shall be few (Luke 18:8). Let the Lord be glorified - the mocking challenge of the persecutors, as if their violence towards you was from zeal for God. "He shall appear to your joy," --giving you "joy" instead of your "rebuke"

John Gill comments: "but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed: that is, the Lord shall appear, either in a providential way, as he did for the Christians at Jerusalem... or else this may respect the second coming, the glorious appearance of Christ, which will be to the joy of those believing Jews, and of all his people; since he will appear to their salvation, and they shall appear with him in glory, and see him as he is, (Hebrews 9:28) (Colossians 3:4) (1 John 3:2) , and to the shame, confusion, and destruction of those that have pierced him, despised and rejected him, and persecuted his people."

John Calvin remarks: "But he will be seen to your joy. As if he had said, “God, by his coming, will cause believers to know that they have not hoped in vain; for he will appear for the advantage of believers, and for the destruction of those who maintain that he will appear as the defender of wickedness, of which he will be the severe avenger. The former shall enjoy gladness and consolation, while the latter shall be ashamed and shall blush, for they shall quickly feel that the judgment of God, which they now laugh at, is at hand.”

I believe this verse has a great deal of application to the Bible version issue being fought today. "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed."

We who really believe God has given us an inerrant, complete, preserved and inspired Holy Bible, and tremble at His words, are called ignorant fanatics, church dividers and members of a Cult, from which we need to repent.

Those who deny there is any Bible or Hebrew or Greek text that is the inerrant word of God actually think they are the ones who are glorifying God by promoting a multitude of conflicting, and admittedly non-inspired bible versions, while ridiculing our position on the King James Holy Bible. .

There are two camps in this battle for an inerrant Bible. There are thousands upon thousands of Christians who believe God has kept His promises to preserve His pure, inspired words and that He has done so in the King James Holy Bible for the last 400 years. And then there are those who SAY the Bible is the inspired word of God, but when closely examined, will admit the "originals" no longer exist. They then will tell you what they really believe: "No Bible is 100 percent correct; All translations have errors; The correct text is...; I think a better rendering would be..." yada, yada, yada. Every man does that which is right in his own eyes, and submits to no final, written word of God.

The battle lines are clearly drawn and you cannot sit on the fence. By the grace of God, may we be found among those who tremble at His word. We have God's promise that He will appear to our joy, and they shall be ashamed.

Stick with the old King James Bible and you will not go wrong.

Will Kinney

allsmiles
April 23rd, 2006, 12:49 PM
does anyone here know what midrash is?

Frank Ernest
April 23rd, 2006, 02:37 PM
does anyone here know what midrash is?

Start here (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/03-Torah-Halacha/section-25.html)

kmoney
April 23rd, 2006, 02:42 PM
hey Frank, don't bother. allsmiles wasn't asking because he wants someone to tell him what it is. He was asking because he wanted to explain to us all what it is.

allsmiles
April 23rd, 2006, 02:44 PM
hey Frank, don't bother. allsmiles wasn't asking because he wants someone to tell him what it is. He was asking because he wanted to explain to us all what it is.

i've explained it several times, i was actually curious if anyone besides myself had run into it before.

thanks for the link Frank.

kmoney
April 23rd, 2006, 02:53 PM
i've explained it several times, i was actually curious if anyone besides myself had run into it before.

thanks for the link Frank.
You'll have to forgive my cynicism because I don't buy it.....

allsmiles
April 23rd, 2006, 03:27 PM
You'll have to forgive my cynicism because I don't buy it.....

fair enough, you can buy whatever you want.


The "classical" Midrash starts off with a seemingly unrelated sentence from the Biblical books of Psalms, Proverbs or the Prophets. This sentence later turns out to metaphorically reflect the content of the rabbinical interpretation offered.

The homiletical midrashim embrace the interpretation of the non-legal portions of the Hebrew Bible. These midrashim are sometimes referred to as aggadah or haggadah, a loosely-defined term that may refer to all non-legal discourse in classical rabbinic literature.

Aggadic explanations of the non-legal parts of Scripture are characterized by a much greater freedom of exposition than the Halachic Midrashim (midrashim on Jewish law.) Aggadic expositors availed themselves of various techniques, including sayings of prominent rabbis. These aggadic explanations could be philosophical or mystical disquisitions concerning angels, demons, paradise, hell, the messiah, Satan, feasts and fasts, parables, legends, satirical assaults on those who practice idolatry, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

kmoney
April 23rd, 2006, 03:35 PM
fair enough, you can buy whatever you want.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash
What I wasn't "buying" was your intentions in asking that question, not midrash.

allsmiles
April 23rd, 2006, 03:39 PM
What I wasn't "buying" was your intentions in asking that question, not midrash.

yeah, i know. i included a link for the heck of it, not because i misunderstood you, sorry about that :D

kmoney
April 23rd, 2006, 03:42 PM
yeah, i know. i included a link for the heck of it, not because i misunderstood you, sorry about that :D
Well be more careful next time! I'm easily confused. :noid:

allsmiles
April 23rd, 2006, 03:43 PM
Well be more careful next time! I'm easily confused. :noid:

aww...:(

immivik
May 13th, 2006, 08:07 PM
Isnt it interesting that

Jesus was crucified during the passover week.

His trial was held during a night court, when most Jewish people were preparing for the
Sabbath and His sentence was decided by the Jewish leaders since the Roman authorities did not want to condemn Him?

hung on a tree( a cross) while the Jewish people were eating thier passover lamb.

no more sacrifices (animal) are made for sin in the Jewish religion because of gross injustice?

are these things I have written all true? and if so arent they interesting when we concider that Jesus claimed to be the Lamb of God? :confused:

brandplucked
May 14th, 2006, 12:05 PM
1 Samuel 13:1
Have some of God's inspired words been lost? The modern version proponents would have us believe that such is the case. We will consider one specific passage of Scripture to illustrate this point and will also hear from one of the NIV translators regarding a few others.

One of the hundreds of Scripture references called into question by today's bible translators is 1 Samuel 13:1. We read in the Authorized King James Bible: "Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin; and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent."

"Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS..." This is the reading of the KJB, the NKJV, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Daniel Webster's translation of 1833, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1960, the Italian Diodati version, the KJV 21st century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

There is a brand new Hebrew-English translation put out in 2003 called the Judaica Press Complete Tanach. It can be seen online here:

http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive.asp?AID=63255

In 1 Samuel 13:1 it reads as does the King James Bible: "Saul was a year in his reign, and he reigned two years over Israel..."

The Spanish Reina Valera 1960 reads: "Había ya reinado Saúl UN ANO; y cuando hubo reinado DOS años sobre Israel..."= KJB

Italian Diodati - Saulle avea regnato UN ANNO, e poi (then) dopo (after) aver regnato DUE ANNI sopra Israele..." = KJB

Luther 1545: Saul war ein jar König gewesen / vnd da er zwey jar vber Jsrael regiert hatte...

"Saul was king one year, and when he had reigned two years over Israel...= KJB

The Swiss Zürcher 1531 says exactly the same thing.

There are several bible versions like Darby's, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the New Scofield KJV, which actually read: "Saul was ____years old when he began to reign; and he reigned_____and two years over Israel." Then in a footnote they tell us "the number is lacking in Hebrew" and "two is not the entire number. Something has dropped out."

The ASV of 1901, which is the predecessor of the NASB, says: "Saul was (forty) years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel..." Then in a footnote it tells us "The number is lacking in the Hebrew text, and is supplied conjecturally."

When we finally get to the NASB and the NIV we really get confused. The NASB of 1972 and 1977 reads: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned THIRTY TWO years over Israel." But the 1995 edition of the NASB has changed the 32 years to now read 42 years. The NIV says: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FORTY TWO years." So was Saul 30 or 40, and did he reign 2 years as the ASV tells us, or 32 as some NASBs have it or the 42 of the NIV?

Not only do the NIV, ASV and NASB all contradict each other, but they also contradict Acts 13:21 where we are told that Saul reigned over Israel 40 years.

Will Kinney

chair
May 16th, 2006, 02:07 AM
Well, since I know Hebrew, teh whole list of traslations is irrelevant. The Hebrew (massoretic) text in fact seems to be misisng a number. It says Saul was ___ years old when he started ruling, and he ruled for two years. The two years may not be his entire reign, at least from this text, since the story goes on to say what he did after two years of being king.

The translations that filled in the missing number were doing just that - filling in a missing number.

Where the New Testament got the idea that he ruled for 40 years is beyond me. 40 is a magic number, an official generation. David ruled for 40 years.

In any case, the idea that the Old Testament is competely perfect is rather silly. I don't know the New Testament as well, but it has plenty of textual problems as well.

Joel

brandplucked
May 17th, 2006, 09:16 AM
Well, since I know Hebrew, teh whole list of traslations is irrelevant. The Hebrew (massoretic) text in fact seems to be misisng a number. It says Saul was ___ years old when he started ruling, and he ruled for two years. The two years may not be his entire reign, at least from this text, since the story goes on to say what he did after two years of being king.

The translations that filled in the missing number were doing just that - filling in a missing number.

Where the New Testament got the idea that he ruled for 40 years is beyond me. 40 is a magic number, an official generation. David ruled for 40 years.

In any case, the idea that the Old Testament is competely perfect is rather silly. I don't know the New Testament as well, but it has plenty of textual problems as well.

Joel

Hi Joel. Thank you for at least attempting an answer. So, I guess according to your view, all Hebrew texts have been corrupted or lost in this place, and there is no such thing as a complete and 100% true Bible in any language. This is where Christianity is headed.

Here is the whole article I wrote about this verse. You and most "scholars" are mistaken. Nothing has been lost at all, except your faith in an inerrant Bible.

Here is why the KJB and many other bible versions are correct and fake bibles like the nasb, niv, esv are all wrong.

1 Samuel 13:1
Have some of God's inspired words been lost? The modern version proponents would have us believe that such is the case. We will consider one specific passage of Scripture to illustrate this point and will also hear from one of the NIV translators regarding a few others.

One of the hundreds of Scripture references called into question by today's bible translators is 1 Samuel 13:1. We read in the Authorized King James Bible: "Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin; and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent."

"Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS..." This is the reading of the KJB, the NKJV, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Daniel Webster's translation of 1833, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1960, the Italian Diodati version, the KJV 21st century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

There is a brand new Hebrew-English translation put out in 2003 called the Judaica Press Complete Tanach. It can be seen online here:

http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive.asp?AID=63255

In 1 Samuel 13:1 it reads as does the King James Bible: "Saul was a year in his reign, and he reigned two years over Israel..."

The Spanish Reina Valera 1960 reads: "Había ya reinado Saúl UN ANO; y cuando hubo reinado DOS años sobre Israel..."= KJB

Italian Diodati - Saulle avea regnato UN ANNO, e poi (then) dopo (after) aver regnato DUE ANNI sopra Israele..." = KJB

Luther 1545: Saul war ein jar König gewesen / vnd da er zwey jar vber Jsrael regiert hatte...

"Saul was king one year, and when he had reigned two years over Israel...= KJB

The Swiss Zürcher 1531 says exactly the same thing.

There are several bible versions like Darby's, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the New Scofield KJV, which actually read: "Saul was ____years old when he began to reign; and he reigned_____and two years over Israel." Then in a footnote they tell us "the number is lacking in Hebrew" and "two is not the entire number. Something has dropped out."

The ASV of 1901, which is the predecessor of the NASB, says: "Saul was (forty) years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel..." Then in a footnote it tells us "The number is lacking in the Hebrew text, and is supplied conjecturally."

When we finally get to the NASB and the NIV we really get confused. The NASB of 1972 and 1977 reads: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned THIRTY TWO years over Israel." But the 1995 edition of the NASB has changed the 32 years to now read 42 years. The NIV says: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FORTY TWO years." So was Saul 30 or 40, and did he reign 2 years as the ASV tells us, or 32 as some NASBs have it or the 42 of the NIV?

Not only do the NIV, ASV and NASB all contradict each other, but they also contradict Acts 13:21 where we are told that Saul reigned over Israel 40 years.

Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is creating his own personal bible version called the NET Bible. It frequently departs from the Hebrew texts. He has come up with a reading in 1 Samuel 13:1 that is even different than all the others.

His NET bible reads: "Saul was THIRTY (1- footnote) years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for FORTY (2 - footnote) years."

Then in the footnote "today's most eminent textual scholar" tells us: The Hebrew Masoretic Text does not have “thirty.” A number appears to have dropped out of the Hebrew text here, since as it stands the MT (literally, “a son of a year”) must mean that Saul was only one year old when he began to reign! Although most LXX mss lack the entire verse, some Greek mss have “thirty years” here (while others have “one year”). The Syriac Peshitta has Saul’s age as twenty-one... The present translation (“thirty”) is a possible but admittedly uncertain proposal.

Regarding the change from "when he had reigned TWO years" to "he ruled over Israel for FORTY years", the good Doctor says: The MT has “two years” here. If this number is to be accepted as correct, the meaning apparently would be that after a lapse of two years at the beginning of Saul’s reign, he then went about the task of consolidating an army as described in what follows."

(Note: What a shocker! If we follow what the Hebrew text says, the King James reading is correct! But Dr. Wallace can't seem to accept this.) So he continues:

" But if the statement in v. 1 is intended to be a comprehensive report on the length of Saul’s reign, the number is too small. According to Acts 13:21 Saul reigned for forty years. The NIV, taking this forty to be a round number, adds it to the “two years” of the MT and translates the number in 2 Sam 13:1 as “forty-two years.” While this is an acceptable option, the present translation instead replaces the MT’s “two” with the figure “forty.” Admittedly the textual evidence for this decision is weak, but the same can be said of any attempt to restore sense to this difficult text. The Syriac Peshitta lacks this part of v. 1."

There you have it - the fevered ramblings of America's foremost Evangelical textual scholar. Small wonder that 85 % of the students in America's largest Evangelical seminary say they do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

Have some of God's words been lost or dropped out of the text? Or has God been faithful to His promises to preserve His words here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away? Jesus said in Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." This is either a true statement or Jesus lied to us. The modern version translators imply that the Lord Jesus Christ didn't really mean what He said.

One of the members of the NIV translation committee has written a book called The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. His name is Gleason Archer and his book is highly recommended by Hank Hanegraaff, 'the Bible answer man'. Regarding this passage in 1 Samuel 13:1 Mr. Gleason tells us on page 171 "the Masoretic text has lost the number that must have been included in the original manuscript." Gleason Archer goes on to tell us: "the REIGNED of the KJV is not justifiable, for the Hebrew text does not say "reigned" but "he became king".

Now this is interesting. Here is a scholar telling us emphatically that "reigned" is not justifiable, yet the NASB has "reign" and has translated this same word as reign or reigned some 144 times and even his own NIV has translated this word malak as "reign or reigned" 117 times.

Gleason Archer not only believes the numbers have been lost here in 1 Samuel 13 but also on page 39 of his book he tells us that 15 words have been lost in the Hebrew text of Psalms 145 that are restored to us in the Greek Old Testament version.

The RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman Standard have added these 15 words to the Old Testament from the Greek LXX. However, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the NASB and the NKJV have not added these extra words. In Psalm 145:13 we read: "Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations."

The extra fifteen words that supposedly were lost but now are finally restored to us in the NIV, ESV and Holman are "The LORD is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made." You won't find these added words even in the 1995 update version of the NASB, so I guess not all scholars share Mr. Gleason's views. In fact, not even the other NIV translators apparently share his views either.

In the very next chapter of 1 Samuel in verse14:41, Mr. Archer tells us on page 40 of his book that 26 Hebrew words have been passed over by the Jewish scribes but have been restored to us by way of the Greek LXX. These 26 added words are found in the liberal RSV and in the brand new ESV versions, but not even the NIV or the Holman Standard include them. See how consistent these "latest findings" of modern scholarship are? If Mr. Archer is so fond of the Greek LXX, why did he not take note of the fact that the Greek Septuagint entirely omits 1 Samuel 13:1 altogether? Thus he could have easily disposed of the whole problem by saying it never was part of the inspired text at all.

It is a marvel to behold when a Bible corrector like the NIV's Gleason Archer writes a book telling us that some of God's words have been lost, but they are restored to us in some other version, though we shouldn't always follow that other version, and not even the rest of his fellow NIV translators adopt his conclusions. And this is a book recommended by Hank Hanegraaff, who himself uses the NASB, which differs from the NIV in hundreds of places. Such is the confusion and unbelief foisted upon the Church by today's "science of textual criticism.”

So, how do we explain the passage in 1 Samuel 13:1? Have God's words been lost in the shuffle, as Gleason Archer and Hank Hanegraaff tell us? Absolutely not. The King James Bible is 100% correct. What the NASB, NIV translators missed here is a Hebrew idiom. Nothing has been lost; it has been there all the time.

The Hebrew text in question translated in the KJB and many other versions as "ONE year" consists of two words, ben (Strong’s # 1121) and shanah (Strong’s #) 8141. The "problem" is how the word ben is translated. Hebrew words often have multiple meanings, depending on the context. The NIV and NASB concordances tell us they have translated this one word as: "age, aliens, arrow, afflicted, beast, bought, child, bulls, calf, builders, breed, father, fellow, foal, fools, foreigner, grandchildren, heir, kids, lambs, low, man, mortal, nephew, offspring, old, ONE, ONE born, ONES, opening, overnight, people, scoundrels, son, troops, warriors, whelps, young, and youths."

Both the NASB and the NIV have translated this same Hebrew word in other places just as it stands in the KJB's "ONE" year. In Leviticus 12:6 we read: "she shall bring a lamb of the FIRST YEAR for a burnt offering.” The NASB reads: " a ONE year old lamb,” the NIV "A year old lamb.” In Exodus 29:38 "Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the alter; two lambs of the FIRST YEAR day by day continually." The NASB has: "a lamb of the FIRST year" while the NIV has: " she is to bring A year old lamb.”

In 2 Samuel 17:10 the NASB reads: "Even the ONE (ben) who is valiant...will lose heart." In Genesis 15:3 both the NASB and NIV read: "ONE (ben) born in my house is my heir." The same thing occurs twice in Nehemiah 3:8 and 31 where the NASB, NIV have "ONE of the perfumers...ONE of the goldsmiths", and the NIV has "ONE of the wise men" in Isaiah 19:11. Again, both the NASB and NIV translate this same word ben as ONES in Zechariah 4:14 "Then said he, These are the two anointed ONES, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth."

Other well known Bible commentators, who certainly are not King James Only, also agree with the KJB reading in 1 Samuel 13:1. Here is what a few of them have to say.

Matthew Henry

" But we take it rather, as our own translation has it, Saul reigned one year, and nothing happened that was considerable, it was a year of no action; but in his second year he did as follows -1. He chose a band of 3000 men, of whom he himself commanded 2000, and his son Jonathan 1000, v. 2. The rest of the people he dismissed to their tents."

Jamieson, Faussett & Brown

Saul reigned one year-- The transactions recorded in the eleventh and twelfth chapters were the principal incidents comprising the first year of Saul's reign; and the events about to be described in this happened in the second year.

John Gill

"The sense Ben Gersom gives is best of all, that one year had passed from the time of his being anointed, to the time of the renewal of the kingdom at Gilgal; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, then he did what follows, chose 3000 men. In the first year of his reign was done all that is recorded in the preceding chapter; and when he had reigned two years, not two years more, but two years in all, then he did what is related in this chapter."

So you see, God has not lost any of His words at all. The modern bible translators set themselves up as the final authority and they want you to come to them, buy their books and their "bibles" so you too can doubt God's ability to preserve His inspired words. No thank you, Mr. Archer. I choose to believe God and His infallible words as found in the King James Bible.

Will Kinney

Turbo
May 17th, 2006, 11:25 AM
Hey brandplucked, don't you have about eight dozen other threads devoted to KJV-only topics? That is not the topic of this thread. Take it someplace else, please.

brandplucked
May 18th, 2006, 06:58 PM
Hey brandplucked, don't you have about eight dozen other threads devoted to KJV-only topics? That is not the topic of this thread. Take it someplace else, please.

Hi Turbo, this thread originally dealt with some apparent contradictions in "The Bible" (not identified), and the first brother to open the discussion was doing a good job of trying to explain some Messianic prophecies. I then pointed out that not all bible versions teach the same things about Messianic prophecies, and that not all apparent contradictions can be reconciled, simply because not all bibles read the same in many places.

There is only one true Holy Bible without error, and it is the King James Bible. All others are imposters.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Will

chair
May 23rd, 2006, 09:32 AM
Will,

Thanks for your response.

I have read your article again. You have made a few glaring assumptions. And you are just plain wrong.

1. "So, I guess according to your view, all Hebrew texts have been corrupted or lost in
this place, and there is no such thing as a complete and 100% true Bible
in any language."

Whoa! I didn't say that all Hebrew texts have been corrupted. I am only sayiing that there are some mistakes and textual problems in the text.

On the other hand, I do say very clearly: "there is no such thiing as a complete and 100% accurate bible in any language."

This is true in Hebrew, and even more so ( and by definition) in the translations.

2. "Nothing has been lost at all, except your faith in an inerrant Bible."

I can't lose a faith I never had.

3. You seem to be assuming, throughout your discussion, that I am Christian. I am not!

You have a strange iinsistance that a late translation of the Bible is completely accurate, when even the Hebrew version has problems. I don't understand where you get such a silly idea. I really don't. The Hebrew Bible nowhere claims to be perfect (or God-given, for that matter).

You seem to be basing quite a bit on the following verse:
Matthew 24:35
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Well,
a) I am not Christian, so this is of little interest to me
b) the quote from Matthew is not speaking of the Bible per se.

The whole discussion of the various translations and evangelists in meaningless to me. I read the original Hebrew text. I know what the word "ben" means in its context - yes, better than somebody who investigates 15 different translations.

By the way, I never claimed to be a scholar - so insulting me by calliing me a "scholar" is just a cheap shot. Let's stick to the discussion itself.

The idea that the KJV is the perfect word of God is just silly. A late translation, conveniently into English (talk about ethnocentric), of a text that even in its original Hebrew form is far from error free.

We haven't even mentioned the plain inconsistencies in the Bible- both New and Old Testament. (What exactly was Jesus' lineage, for example)

Translation is never perfect, and always involves some interpretation.

In short - take a good look at the facts, keep your insults out of this, and try to be realistic.

Joel

rev_gar
June 18th, 2006, 07:00 PM
The following is the first half or so of Pslam 22, written approximately 1000 years before Christ was born. Also, it should be noted that the first historical record (http://www.bible.ca/d-history-archeology-crucifixion-cross.htm) of crucifixion is from the 6th century B.C., so it is likely that this psalm was written hundreds of years before anyone was ever crucified.

Studying this Psalm was one of the final steps that convinced me that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is who He says He is. I can think of no other rational conclusion, given the content of this psalm. To anyone who is unsure whether the Bible truly is the Word of God or simply a collection of books written by men, please take a few minutes to read this study of Psalm 22.

In Christ,
Turbo



(Passages from the Gospels are inserted in a smaller font, echoing the portion of the psalm that is above them, particularly the bold phrases. All scriptures quoted are from NKJV)

Psalm 22:
1 My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
Why are You so far from helping Me,
And from the words of My groaning?

Matthew 27:46
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?

Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

2 O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear;
And in the night season, and am not silent.

3 But You are holy,
Enthroned in the praises of Israel.
4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.

6 But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised by the people.
7 All those who see Me ridicule Me;
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 "He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him;
Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!"

Matthew 27:39-43
And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross."
Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, "He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, "I am the Son of God."'

Luke 23:35
And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God."

9 But You are He who took Me out of the womb;
You made Me trust while on My mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon You from birth.
From My mother's womb
You have been My God.
11 Be not far from Me,
For trouble is near;
For there is none to help.

12 Many bulls have surrounded Me;
Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me.
13 They gape at Me with their mouths,
Like a raging and roaring lion.

14 I am poured out like water,
And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It has melted within Me.

John 19:34
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And My tongue clings to My jaws;
You have brought Me to the dust of death.

John 19:28
After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!"

16 For dogs* have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;

Matthew 27
2 And when they had bound Him, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

11 Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?"
Jesus said to him, "It is as you say." 12And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing.
13 Then Pilate said to Him, "Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?" 14But He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly.

26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.
27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole garrison around Him. 28And they stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him. 29 When they had twisted a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand. And they bowed the knee before Him and mocked Him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" 30 Then they spat on Him, and took the reed and struck Him on the head. 31 And when they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified.

17 I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.

John 19:33
But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.

Luke 23:35
And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God."

18 They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.

Matthew 27:35
Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet:
"They divided My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots."

Mark 15:24
And when they crucified Him, they divided His garments, casting lots for them to determine what every man should take.

Luke 23:34
Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."
And they divided His garments and cast lots.

John 19:24
They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says:
"They divided My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots."
Therefore the soldiers did these things.

19 But You, O LORD, do not be far from Me;
O My Strength, hasten to help Me!
20 Deliver Me from the sword,

John 19:34
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

My precious life from the power of the dog*. (Roman Empire)

Luke 3:1
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene,

Luke 23:24
So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested.

21 Save Me from the lion's mouth
And from the horns of the wild oxen!


(* “dog” is a pejorative term for Gentile. See Mat 15:22-28; also Rev. 21:12, 22:15; Ps. 59:5-7,13-15, 1 Sam. 17:43, and 2 Ki. 8:13)



i'm new to this forum but not to the word of God and the bible tells us that the just must live by faith. your belief should be your faith in Christ and the word of God. take his word by faith, it is onlythe carnal minded man who looks for evidences that christ and the word of God is real. you know what the word of god has done in your life. and his word shall not come back void, if you stand on God's word you will never have to look for proof it will already show itself!

epistemaniac
July 6th, 2006, 12:18 PM
i'm new to this forum but not to the word of God and the bible tells us that the just must live by faith. your belief should be your faith in Christ and the word of God. take his word by faith, it is only the carnal minded man who looks for evidences that christ and the word of God is real. you know what the word of god has done in your life. and his word shall not come back void, if you stand on God's word you will never have to look for proof it will already show itself!

it's not that you have to look for evidences for the existence of God, one can't help but to see the evidence all around them... Ps 19 and Romans 1:18ff

but that being said, John the Beloved said ;
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (Joh 20:30-31 esv)

So John says that the signs were done and recorded so that you might believe, so its not wrong to point people to solid reasons for belief, after all, prior to being saved, everyone's mind was "carnal".

another interesting way to look at this subject comes from Alvin Plantinga... he says that belief in God is "properly basic", that is, it is belief in something that one takes to be irrational to not believe even though it can't be touched or seen etc... the human mind falls into this category, in most cases we really do believe that the person we are speaking to has a mind, though we may have never seen it, even if it is a person we have never talked to at all, say, someone merely walking down the street... even though we have never seen them, we believe that they have minds.... Plantinga says that for the person who's brain and cognitive activity is functioning properly, this person will believe in God... it is only those who do not believe in God who's mind is not working properly.... while truth is not determined by numbers, it does seem rather odd that the majority of people who have ever lived have believed in God, so it is the person who denies this fact who ought to be able to state/prove why this is the case, who ought to prove to me that there is no God, not the other way around. It is a common believe that the one doing the asserting who has the obligation to prove to others why they believe what they believe... so atheists often put the burden of proof on the Christians shoulders.... but there is no reason whatsoever why this ought to be the case.... Who made this rule up and carved it into stone? Where is the empirical proof that demands that I must be the first one to empirically prove my position? One such belief system, logical positivism, says that it is immoral to believe anything without proper evidence. One person (Clifford) who held this belief failed to realize that when this criterion for knowledge was applied to his own theory of knowledge, it itself failed to meet the test, where the criteria for proofs under discussion were generally metaphysical in nature.

That is, Clifford's (and to this day, many many others) continue to maintain that unless something is empirically verifiable, one should not believe it as being true. Also, not only did we just note that this statement itself is not empirically verifiable, it also commits the Category Fallacy. This is because the Logical Positivists (and all other Naturalists and Materialists) start out, a priori, with the unproven presupposition, namely that something can be “true” if and only if it can be empirical verifiable. But this is erroneous at the start because it is a position that starts out saying that only the physical can be proven to be true, all the while we are discussing metaphysical issues! Thus all discussions on metaphysics are ruled out before we even begin the discussion, because anything immaterial or metaphysical are not the sorts of things that tests for physical objects can be applied to or used for testing purposes regarding whether or not something is true or false. Its taking a theory on truth verification that is designed to test only for truthfulness and the verification of the physical, then taking this theory and then attempting to apply it to the immaterial, and complaining that that which is being tested fails!!!!

blessings

Poly
July 6th, 2006, 12:27 PM
i'm new to this forum but not to the word of God and the bible tells us that the just must live by faith. your belief should be your faith in Christ and the word of God. take his word by faith, it is onlythe carnal minded man who looks for evidences that christ and the word of God is real. you know what the word of god has done in your life. and his word shall not come back void, if you stand on God's word you will never have to look for proof it will already show itself!

We know that God enjoys being "figured out" by the many parables He gives in hopes that people will do, just this. He likes for His children to discover the evidence of the things we hope for but have yet to see and the evidence that He Is.

Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

chair
July 11th, 2006, 08:13 PM
while truth is not determined by numbers, it does seem rather odd that the majority of people who have ever lived have believed in God, so it is the person who denies this fact who ought to be able to state/prove why this is the case, who ought to prove to me that there is no God, not the other way around.


A rather odd statement. Though it is likely that the majority of people who have ever lived beieved in God, it is extremely likely that they did nnot believe in the Christian god, which turns this arguement on its head.



That is, Clifford's (and to this day, many many others) continue to maintain that unless something is empirically verifiable, one should not believe it as being true. Also, not only did we just note that this statement itself is not empirically verifiable, it also commits the Category Fallacy. This is because the Logical Positivists (and all other Naturalists and Materialists) start out, a priori, with the unproven presupposition, namely that something can be “true” if and only if it can be empirical verifiable. But this is erroneous at the start because it is a position that starts out saying that only the physical can be proven to be true, all the while we are discussing metaphysical issues! Thus all discussions on metaphysics are ruled out before we even begin the discussion, because anything immaterial or metaphysical are not the sorts of things that tests for physical objects can be applied to or used for testing purposes regarding whether or not something is true or false. Its taking a theory on truth verification that is designed to test only for truthfulness and the verification of the physical, then taking this theory and then attempting to apply it to the immaterial, and complaining that that which is being tested fails!!!!

blessings

Thhings can be "true" without us being able to prove that they are true. In these circumstances, though, one cn just as easily believe them to not be true.

Metaphysics of the type that we are discussing here ought to be provable, or perhaps proven that they are untrue. We are talking abotu a religion that doesn't make just vague claims about the deity. Christianity makes very specific claims about the interaction of god with physical reality. Christian belief is not, therefore, really "immaterial" at all. Thus, the material claims of Christianity can be subjected to rational scrutiny.

Joel

Is 1:18
August 18th, 2006, 02:31 AM
it's not that you have to look for evidences for the existence of God, one can't help but to see the evidence all around them... Ps 19 and Romans 1:18ff
Hey e-man,
Great to see you are here as well. :wave: I hope you have been keeping well. BTW, I agree with your statement....

God Bless mate.

industry
October 8th, 2006, 09:48 PM
what's interesting is there are many prophecies in the Old Testament about Christ. which make me think, God knew that there would be people like me who have questioned a lot of things about God and the Bible. This literally proves that Christ was who the Bible says he is. Which makes me think, God is great.

seekinganswers
October 21st, 2006, 10:24 AM
Knight (or whichever moderator is involved),

May I ask where the thread entitled "Homosexuality: Does the Church have anything to stand on" went? It disappeared as I was trying to submit a response to one of the posts. Was there something inappropriate discussed on the thread, and if there was why did you not simply remove the offending post instead of removing the entire thread?

I have search for it on other parts of the site (thinking that maybe it was simply deemed inappropriate for the "Religion" section) but I have been unable to find it again.

I understand that there were some topics that were discussed that may not have been pleasant for some to hear (although I myself have not at all gone into detail on those topics), but just because something is not pleasant to discuss does not mean we ought to avoid discussing it. If you would have required a warning on the post I would understand, but I must point out that much more graphic descriptions of homosexual acts are clearly stated on Clete's thread. No where did I state that I was in agreement with such activity. I simply was trying to broach on the subject with those who either agreed or disagreed with me in a way that would allow for dialogue (because one can disagree with grace, instead of simply silencing the other out of disagreement; to use one's influence to silence the other unillaterially is not a logical approach to an argument, it simply illustrates an imbalance of power).

Clearly I was not the one who offended others seeing how I am still given the privilege to post on TOL, but I'm curious as to what happened. Please, will someone respond.

Peace,
Michael

kmoney
October 22nd, 2006, 12:55 PM
Bump for Michael.

And it's good to know that when a thread is deleted the starter of the thread is notified. :rolleyes:


PS: Michael, this thread isn't really the place to put a question like this. The "Ask Knight" thread might be more appropriate.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12147&page=1

malachi151
January 9th, 2007, 12:34 PM
The following is the first half or so of Pslam 22, written approximately 1000 years before Christ was born. Also, it should be noted that the first historical record (http://www.bible.ca/d-history-archeology-crucifixion-cross.htm) of crucifixion is from the 6th century B.C., so it is likely that this psalm was written hundreds of years before anyone was ever crucified.

Studying this Psalm was one of the final steps that convinced me that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is who He says He is. I can think of no other rational conclusion, given the content of this psalm. To anyone who is unsure whether the Bible truly is the Word of God or simply a collection of books written by men, please take a few minutes to read this study of Psalm 22.

In Christ,
Turbo



(Passages from the Gospels are inserted in a smaller font, echoing the portion of the psalm that is above them, particularly the bold phrases. All scriptures quoted are from NKJV)

Psalm 22:
1 My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
Why are You so far from helping Me,
And from the words of My groaning?

Matthew 27:46
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?

Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

2 O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear;
And in the night season, and am not silent.

3 But You are holy,
Enthroned in the praises of Israel.
4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.

6 But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised by the people.
7 All those who see Me ridicule Me;
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 "He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him;
Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!"

Matthew 27:39-43
And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross."
Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, "He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, "I am the Son of God."'

Luke 23:35
And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God."

9 But You are He who took Me out of the womb;
You made Me trust while on My mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon You from birth.
From My mother's womb
You have been My God.
11 Be not far from Me,
For trouble is near;
For there is none to help.

12 Many bulls have surrounded Me;
Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me.
13 They gape at Me with their mouths,
Like a raging and roaring lion.

14 I am poured out like water,
And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It has melted within Me.

John 19:34
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And My tongue clings to My jaws;
You have brought Me to the dust of death.

John 19:28
After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!"

16 For dogs* have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;

Matthew 27
2 And when they had bound Him, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

11 Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?"
Jesus said to him, "It is as you say." 12And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing.
13 Then Pilate said to Him, "Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?" 14But He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly.

26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.
27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole garrison around Him. 28And they stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him. 29 When they had twisted a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand. And they bowed the knee before Him and mocked Him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" 30 Then they spat on Him, and took the reed and struck Him on the head. 31 And when they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified.

17 I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.

John 19:33
But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.

Luke 23:35
And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God."

18 They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.

Matthew 27:35
Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet:
"They divided My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots."

Mark 15:24
And when they crucified Him, they divided His garments, casting lots for them to determine what every man should take.

Luke 23:34
Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."
And they divided His garments and cast lots.

John 19:24
They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says:
"They divided My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots."
Therefore the soldiers did these things.

19 But You, O LORD, do not be far from Me;
O My Strength, hasten to help Me!
20 Deliver Me from the sword,

John 19:34
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

My precious life from the power of the dog*. (Roman Empire)

Luke 3:1
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene,

Luke 23:24
So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested.

21 Save Me from the lion's mouth
And from the horns of the wild oxen!

(* “dog” is a pejorative term for Gentile. See Mat 15:22-28; also Rev. 21:12, 22:15; Ps. 59:5-7,13-15, 1 Sam. 17:43, and 2 Ki. 8:13)

Ironically, this is actually one of the biggest reasons not to believe at all.

The entire story of Jesus is constructed from prior scriptures. This is detailed here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#3


Birth of Jesus:
T1: Matthew 1:2 - Isaiah 7:14 (based on Greek mistranslation):
"Then Isaiah said, 'Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.' "(Note: This is a mistranslation that will be addressed in the next section.)
T2: Matthew 1 - Isaiah 9:6:
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Born in Bethlehem:
T1: Matthew 2:5 - Micah 5:2:
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. "

Escape to Egypt:
T1: Matthew 2:15 - Hosea 11:1:
"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

Massacre of the Innocents:
T1: Matthew 2:17 - Jeremiah 31:15
T2: Matthew 2:16 - Exodus 1:22
"Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born to the Hebrews you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live.""

The Return to Nazareth:
T1: Matthew 2:23 - Judges 13:5:
"because you will conceive and give birth to a son. No razor may be used on his head, because the boy is to be a Nazirite, set apart to God from birth, and he will begin the deliverance of Israel from the hands of the Philistines." (Note: Jesus was called a Nazorean in the gospels because he supposedly lived in a place called Nazareth, but this refers to Samson being from a Nazirite sect. The author himself made the reference however)

John the Baptist Prepares the Way:
T1: Matthew 3:3 - Isaiah 40:3:
"A voice of one calling: 'In the desert prepare the way for the LORD ;make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God."
T3: Matthew 3:4 - 2 Kings 2:8:
"They replied, 'He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist.' The king said, 'That was Elijah the Tishbite.'" (Note: Matthew 3:4 says: "John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist." Later in the story Jesus indicates that John was Elijah.)

The Temptation of Jesus:
T1: Matthew 4:6 - Psalm 91:11,12
T1: Matthew 4:7 - Deuteronomy 6:16
T1: Matthew 4:10 - Deuteronomy 6:13

Jesus Begins to Preach in Galilee:
T1: Matthew 4:12 - Isaiah 9:1:
"Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan"

Jesus Heals the Sick:
T2: Matthew 4:23 - Isaiah 53

Sermon on the Mount:
T2: Matthew 5-7 - Exodus 19...:
(Note: The Sermon on the Mount {which is only in the Gospel of Matthew} refers to how only Moses was allowed up the mountain in Exodus, but Jesus brings everyone up the mountain. Jesus then gives new interpretations of the Commandments and Laws {from Exodus 20...})

Jesus Heals Many:
T2: Matthew 8 - Isaiah 53

Jesus Calms the Storm:
T2: Matthew 8:27 - Job 30:22, Isaiah 25:4, Zechariah 9:14, Psalm 89:9, Psalm 148:8:
"lightning and hail, snow and clouds, stormy winds that do his bidding" (Note: Several passages in the Hebrew scriptures indicate that God controls the weather)

Jesus Heals a Paralytic:
T2: Matthew 9:6 - Isaiah 53
T2: Matthew 9:6 - Isaiah 35:5-6:
"Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy."

Jesus Consorts with Sinners:
T1: Matthew 9:12 - Hosea 6:6:
"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."

A Dead Girl and a Sick Woman:
T2: Matthew 9:22 - Isaiah 53
T2: Matthew 9:25 - Isaiah 26:19:
"But your dead will live; their bodies will rise"

Jesus Heals the Blind and Mute:
T2: Matthew 9:29 - Isaiah 53
T2: Matthew 9:6 - Isaiah 35:5-6

Jesus Sends Out the Twelve:
T2: Matthew 10 - Joshua 4:1-2
"...the LORD said to Joshua, 'Choose twelve men from among the people, one from each tribe...'" (Note: The number 12 is used throughout the "Old Testament" to represent 12 people, 12 rulers, 12 tribes, 12 special objects, etc. Also, Joshua and Jesus are the same name in Hebrew.)
T1: Matthew 10:34 - Micah 7:6

Jesus and John the Baptist:
T2: Matthew 11:5 - Isaiah 53
T1: Matthew 11:10 - Malachi 3:
"'See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,' says the LORD Almighty."

Woe on Unrepentant Cities::
T2: Matthew 11:20 - Genesis 19

God's Chosen Servant:
T2: Matthew 12:17 - Isaiah 53
T1: Matthew 12:17 - Isaiah 42:1-4::
"'Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations. He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his law the islands will put their hope.'"

Jesus and Beelzebub:
T2: Matthew 12:24 - 2 Kings 1:1-4

The Sign of Jonah:
T1: Matthew 12:40 - Jonah 1:17

Jesus Walks on the Water:
T2: Matthew 14:25 - Isaiah 43:5-6:
"When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. ... For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior;" (Note: Walking on water was also a theme in Greek hero literature)

The Demand for a Sign:
T2: Matthew 16:4 - Jonah 1:17
T2: Matthew 16:1 - Genesis 19

Jesus Predicts His Death:
T2: Matthew 16:21 - Isaiah 53

The Transfiguration:
T2: Matthew 17:2 - Exodus 34:29:
"When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the LORD."
T2: Matthew 17:11 - Isaiah 40:3
(Note: The symbolism in the transfiguration scene also reflects stories about Moses in the Hebrew midrash, as well as typical the sun-god imagery of the Greeks. See also: Philo, On the Life of Moses II, (288) "And some time afterwards, when he was about to depart from hence to heaven, to take up his abode there, and leaving this mortal life to become immortal, having been summoned by the Father, who now changed him, having previously been a double being, composed of soul and body, into the nature of a single body, transforming him wholly and entirely into a most sun-like mind;")

The Healing of a Boy With a Demon:
T2: Matthew 17:17 - Isaiah 53

Jesus Again Predicts His Death:
T2: Matthew 20:18 - Isaiah 53
T2: Matthew 20:18 - Jonah 1:17
T2: Matthew 20:19 - Psalm 22

Two Blind Men Receive Sight:
T2: Matthew 20:29 - Isaiah 53
T2: Matthew 9:6 - Isaiah 35:5

The Triumphal Entry:
T1: Matthew 21:2 - Zechariah 9:9:
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
T3: Matthew 21:9 - Psalm 118:26

Jesus at the Temple:
T1: Matthew 21:12 - Isaiah 56:7
"...for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations."
T2: Matthew 21:12 - Zechariah 14.21:
"Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the LORD Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a merchant in the house of the LORD Almighty."
T2: Matthew 21:12 - Nehemiah 13:4-9:
"And I was very angry, and I threw all the household furniture of Tobiah out of the room [in the temple]. Then I gave orders and they cleansed the chambers, and I brought back the vessels of the house of God, with the grain-offering and the frankincense."
T2: Matthew 21:12 - Hosea 9:15
"Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house."

The Fig Tree Withers:
T2: Matthew 21:19 - Hosea 9
"1 Do not rejoice, O Israel; do not be jubilant like the other nations. For you have been unfaithful to your God; ... 7 The days of punishment are coming, the days of reckoning are at hand. Let Israel know this. Because your sins are so many and your hostility so great, the prophet is considered a fool, the inspired man a maniac. 8 The prophet, along with my God, is the watchman over Ephraim, yet snares await him on all his paths, and hostility in the house of his God. 9 They have sunk deep into corruption, as in the days of Gibeah. God will remember their wickedness and punish them for their sins. 10 'When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I saw your fathers, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree. But when they came to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol and became as vile as the thing they loved. 15'... Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious. 16 Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit. Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring.' 17 My God will reject them because they have not obeyed him; they will be wanderers among the nations." (Note: Many scholars have interpreted the cursing of the fig tree as a metaphor for Jesus' rejecting of those Jews who reject him and as a foreshadowing of his second coming and judgment. Hosea 9 provides the scriptural basis for this symbolism)

Signs of the End of the Age:
T3: Matthew 24 - Daniel 9:24-27:
"'Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two week, the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one week. In the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.'"
T3: Matthew 24 - Daniel 11:31, 12:11
T3: Matthew 24 - Isaiah 13:8-11
"Terror will seize them, pain and anguish will grip them; they will writhe like a woman in labor. They will look aghast at each other, their faces aflame. See, the day of the LORD is coming —a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger— to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light. I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless."
T3: Matthew 24 - Isaiah 34
"1 Come near, you nations, and listen; pay attention, you peoples! Let the earth hear, and all that is in it, the world, and all that comes out of it! 2 The LORD is angry with all nations; his wrath is upon all their armies. He will totally destroy them, he will give them over to slaughter. 3 Their slain will be thrown out, their dead bodies will send up a stench; the mountains will be soaked with their blood. 4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree. 5 My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; see, it descends in judgment on Edom, the people I have totally destroyed. 6 The sword of the LORD is bathed in blood, it is covered with fat— the blood of lambs and goats..."

Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus:
T2: Matthew 26:14 - Amos 2
"4 This is what the LORD says: 'For three sins of Judah, even for four, I will not turn back [my wrath]. ... 5 I will send fire upon Judah that will consume the fortresses of Jerusalem.' 6 '... They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. ... 11 I also raised up prophets from among your sons and Nazirites from among your young men. Is this not true, people of Israel?' declares the LORD. 12 'But you made the Nazirites drink wine and commanded the prophets not to prophesy. 13 Now then, I will crush you as a cart crushes when loaded with grain. (Note: The distinction between "Judas" and "Judah" is a part of English translation. In the original Greek they were both written as "Ioudas", thus these names were the same.)

The Lord's Supper:
T2: Matthew 26:20 - Psalm 41:9:
"Even the friend whom I trusted, who ate at my table, exults in my misfortune."

Jesus Predicts Peter's Denial:
T1: Matthew 26:31 - Zechariah 13:7:
"'Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!' declares the LORD Almighty. 'Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones"

Jesus' Prayers of the Cup at Gethsemane:
T2: Matthew 26:36 - Zechariah 12:2:
"I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. 3 On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations."
T2: Matthew 26:36 - Psalm 16:5
"LORD, you have assigned me my portion and my cup; you have made my lot secure."

Jesus Arrested:
T2: Matthew 26:55 - Isaiah 53:7-8:
"...he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. "

Peter Disowns Jesus:
T1: Matthew 27:72 - Zechariah 13:7

Judas Hangs Himself:
T1: Matthew 27:4-10 - Zechariah 11:12-13:
T2: Matthew 27:4-10 - Jeremiah 19, Jeremiah 32

The Soldiers Mock Jesus :
T3: Matthew 27:27 - Flaccus IV ; Philo (Note: The mocking of people as kings was a common practice at the time, one such event was recorded by the Jewish writer Philo, and may be the basis for the mocking of Jesus scene):
"(36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a scepter they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him; (38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state. (39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris!; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa [King Herod of the Jews] was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign;"
T3: Matthew 27:30 - Isaiah 50

The Crucifixion of Jesus:
T2: Matthew 27:32-44 - Isaiah 53
T3: Matthew 27:32-44 - Psalm 22
T3: Matthew 27:32-44 - Amos 2
T3: Matthew 27:32-44 - Psalm 69
T3: Matthew 27:45 - Amos 8

The Death of Jesus:
T2: Matthew 27:32-44 - Isaiah 53
T3: Matthew 27:32-44 - Psalm 22
T3: Matthew 27:32-44 - Psalm 69
T2: Matthew 27:52 - Ezekiel 37:11-13

The Burial of Jesus:
T2: Matthew 26:57 - Deuteronomy 21:22-23:
"If a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree [or plank], his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day, for he who is hanged is the curse of God, so that you do not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance."
T2: Matthew 26:57 - Isaiah 53:9:
"They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth." (Note: Jesus was placed in the tomb of a rich man)

The Resurrection
T2: Matthew 28:7 - Isaiah 26:19:
"Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a radiant dew, and the earth will give birth to those long dead."
T2: Matthew 28:7 - Ezekiel 37:
"1 The hand of the Lord came upon me, and he brought me out by the spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. 2 He led me all round them; there were very many lying in the valley, and they were very dry. 3 He said to me, ‘Mortal, can these bones live?’ I answered, ‘O Lord God, you know.’ 4 Then he said to me, ‘Prophesy to these bones, and say to them: O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. 5 Thus says the Lord God to these bones: I will cause spirit to enter you, and you shall live. 6 I will lay sinews on you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put spirit in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.’"
T2: Matthew 28:7 - Daniel 12:2-4:
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the dome, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end."
(Note: The resurrection of Jesus was portrayed as a sign of the end and as proof of the time of resurrections for all people)

Now, either you believe that the Hebrews were the greatest tellers of the future ever, and that the entire "Old Testament" is a work of coded predictions of the future, or you acknowledge the obvious, which is that the people who wrote the Gospels made up the stories based on the prior scriptures, a tradition in Jewish literature that went back hundreds of years by that time, and can be demonstrated in dozens of other works, including works in the Old Testament itself.

If Jesus really existed, then why is the entire story of his life composed of quotes and paraphrases of prior scriptures?

I think you know the answer. :doh:

Mr. 5020
January 9th, 2007, 02:57 PM
Ironically, this is actually one of the biggest reasons not to believe at all.

The entire story of Jesus is constructed from prior scriptures. This is detailed here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#3



Now, either you believe that the Hebrews were the greatest tellers of the future ever, and that the entire "Old Testament" is a work of coded predictions of the future, or you acknowledge the obvious, which is that the people who wrote the Gospels made up the stories based on the prior scriptures, a tradition in Jewish literature that went back hundreds of years by that time, and can be demonstrated in dozens of other works, including works in the Old Testament itself.

If Jesus really existed, then why is the entire story of his life composed of quotes and paraphrases of prior scriptures?

I think you know the answer. :doh:That's really what you see when you read all that??

My mind is boggled...

Newman
January 9th, 2007, 03:08 PM
Ironically, this is actually one of the biggest reasons not to believe at all.

The entire story of Jesus is constructed from prior scriptures. This is detailed here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#3



Now, either you believe that the Hebrews were the greatest tellers of the future ever, and that the entire "Old Testament" is a work of coded predictions of the future, or you acknowledge the obvious, which is that the people who wrote the Gospels made up the stories based on the prior scriptures, a tradition in Jewish literature that went back hundreds of years by that time, and can be demonstrated in dozens of other works, including works in the Old Testament itself.

If Jesus really existed, then why is the entire story of his life composed of quotes and paraphrases of prior scriptures?

I think you know the answer. :doh:
Well of course his story is going to be filled with quotes and paraphrases from scripture. His life is the fulfillment of prophesy, not a fabrication of historical scripture.

I know that what I said does not prove you wrong (that's not what I'm trying to do), but what you said does not prove the story of Jesus Christ wrong.

malachi151
January 9th, 2007, 03:58 PM
Well of course his story is going to be filled with quotes and paraphrases from scripture. His life is the fulfillment of prophesy, not a fabrication of historical scripture.

I know that what I said does not prove you wrong (that's not what I'm trying to do), but what you said does not prove the story of Jesus Christ wrong.

Well, as I showed here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#11

The few pieces of the Gospel stories that we are able to try and verify historically are either unverifiable or contradicted by the historical record. As I also show, each of these contra-historical claims in the Gospels also has a literary basis, mostly scriptural basis.

Now, for example, if something like that Massacre of the Innocents is contradicted by the historical record, but it has a scriptural basis, don't you think that's a pretty good clue that this is a story element that is DERIVED FROM the scriptures.

Now seeing as every single story element that is potentially verifiable by the historical record and also has a scriptural basis is contradicted by the historical record, that's a pretty good clue that these people were writing FROM scripture.

This really shouldn't even be surprising. Would you be surprised if Euripides wrote a play based on the Iliad and the Odessy? No, not shocking.

Would you be surprised if any other culture wrote religious stories about heroes, where the life of the hero was based on earlier stories? No, not shocking.

Then why would you be surprised that these people did the same thing, when we have hundreds of examples from their own culture and surrounding cultures of the exact same type of story writing?

Not only is this a pattern of behavior in the culture of the time, but the things being claimed are utterly unrealistic.

Healing people by casting out demons.

Walking on water.

Raising the dead.

Dying and coming back to life.

You think these things are real?

Not only are these fantastic stories that sound like all of the other myths of their time, but each and every one of those things HAS A SCRIPTURAL BASIS, it has a reason, other than reality, WHY people would write it into the story.

So, here is the thing, what do you think makes more sense?

People 2,000 years ago wrote fantastic stories based on scriptures, something that occurred many times in their culture and in the surrounding cultures.

The Jews were God's special chosen people and he encoded secret messages into their scriptures, which the Jews themselves couldn't understand, and then after over a thousands years of writing God's stories, God impregnated a virgin to give birth to himself, came to earth and fulfilled all of the secret codes that he had embedded in the Jewish scriptures, and he was rejected by the very same people who had written all the scriptures in the first place, instead being accepted by the Greek and Romans who had never read Jewish scriptures before. After a war in the which the Jews got soundly defeated by the Romans and lost their state, his story was recorded, the message of which was that the world was coming to and end and a new kingdom would be created as soon as he returned, which was going to be within the lifetime of the people in the story, but 2,000 years later...

And Christians have the nerve to call atheists irrational.... :rotfl:

Newman
January 9th, 2007, 06:22 PM
Nothing you said above is irrational... all of it makes sense (assuming all of your sources are true and that your research was comprehensive). However, it is not enough for me to even slightly lose faith (assuming that is your motive). I chose choice B in your post a long time ago (and here comes the cheesey Christian talk) because something (Holy Spirit) moved inside of me, something (again the Holy Spirit) urged me toward becoming a Christian. I'm not a Christian because I have researched historical documents and logically deduced that Jesus Christ was a real person that was also the Son of God and died on behalf of my sins. I'm a Christian because of my faith in what I might not be able to prove empirically, historically, or scientifically. And although you may have found some evidence to support your ideas, your faith in the inexistence of Jesus, I am unmoved, unshaken, and consequently even stronger in my faith.

(BTW: I actually did skim through your book/article thingy, and I was very impressed with your dedication to your work)

littledoc
January 9th, 2007, 08:04 PM
I'm more intrigued by the issue of the "non prophecies".

For example, Jesus states in John 7:38, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." Another great example is Matthew 2:23, when Joseph returned to Nazareth from Egypt, the author states, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene." In both cases, no such reference exists in the Old Testament. In fact, nowhere in the Old Testament do any of the the prophets say anything about Nazareth.

Newman
January 9th, 2007, 08:08 PM
I'm more intrigued by the issue of the "non prophecies".

For example, Jesus states in John 7:38, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." Another great example is Matthew 2:23, when Joseph returned to Nazareth from Egypt, the author states, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene." In both cases, no such reference exists in the Old Testament. In fact, nowhere in the Old Testament do any of the the prophets say anything about Nazareth.
maybe those documents aren't a part of the old testament, i don't know

Nice to see another agnostic here on TOL... I'm always up for reinforcing my ideas on other people's religious perspectives.

Welcome!

TimMiller
March 31st, 2007, 08:49 PM
I'm more intrigued by the issue of the "non prophecies".

For example, Jesus states in John 7:38, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." Another great example is Matthew 2:23, when Joseph returned to Nazareth from Egypt, the author states, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene." In both cases, no such reference exists in the Old Testament. In fact, nowhere in the Old Testament do any of the the prophets say anything about Nazareth.

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

In my understanding, Matthew was referring to all of the prophets in general, of how Jesus was to be of humble birth and despised of many. The Term Nazarene was a derogatory term. Second the Word Nazareth comes from the word netzer which means stem or branch. Nazareth means branch land; this may refer to Isa. 11:1

Isaiah 11
1And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

I started with the notes in Scofield and ran a search for Nazareth and netzer.

Thanks for sparking that.
Newman, BTW , did I miss something earlier on in the thread or are you really an agnostic Christian?

Silk Queen
March 31st, 2007, 09:24 PM
I never heard of an agnostic Christian before.
I guess anything is possible. :think:

TimMiller
April 1st, 2007, 02:09 PM
OK OK I'm an idiot. Looked at the quote and figured it out,
I only have two brain cells left and they are usually fighting with each other, Sorry. :D

Turbo
April 1st, 2007, 02:13 PM
He meant that littledoc is yet another agnostic here at TOL. He was referring to the other agnostics around here, not himself.

TimMiller
April 1st, 2007, 02:18 PM
He meant that littledoc is yet another agnostic here at TOL. He was referring to the other agnostics around here, not himself.
Thanks T,
:grave:

Nick M
April 2nd, 2007, 04:01 AM
Excellent original post.

pythagumus
April 4th, 2007, 03:30 PM
The fool says in his heart, "there is no god"

Hello. I have heard many Believers quote that line from Psalms, but they always fail to continue reading. Here is the complete verse:

Psalm 14:1 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

I don't mind if you think I am a fool, but please know that many atheists do in fact, do good.

called_out
May 18th, 2007, 01:24 PM
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day.

The reason I believe is because I prayed for God's help and God pointed me to Christ. It was all I needed.