No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Reason to Believe: Ps. 22

This is a sticky topic.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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.


    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.


    Yes, mostly your humility.


    • Originally posted by servent101

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

      With Christ's Love

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


      • 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.


        • aikido, who is Jack?

          Is that One Eyed Jack?


          • prophecy turned into history

            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.
            Last edited by aikido7; June 10th, 2004, 12:54 AM.


            • Re: prophecy turned into history

              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".

              ...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)


              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
              "I Am A Transcendologist"


              • 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.
                Psalm 1[/COLOR] and Job 28:28

                Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

                Joh 4:23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.


                • "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


                  • 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
           (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?


                    • Reason to Believe; Psm 22

                      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.

                      THANK YOU JESUS CHRIST.


                      • 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.

                        THANK YOU JESUS CHRIST.


                        • Re: Reason to Believe: Ps. 22

                          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 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.


                          • Re: Re: Reason to Believe: Ps. 22

                            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?
                            BRXI: Should Christians support the Death Penalty?


                            • I wonder how the Christians managed to change all the copies of the Scripture owned by the non-Christian Jews.

                              (Not to mention the Greek translations from centuries before Christ was born.)
                              BRXI: Should Christians support the Death Penalty?


                              • Re: Reason to Believe: Ps. 22

                                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