ARCHIVE: Reason to Believe: Ps. 22
- Thread starter Turbo
- Start date
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!
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!
Last edited:
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
Have you boys studied the gospels in parallel yet or written down a record to harmonize the resurrection and ascention accounts?
Last edited:
Note 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.
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.
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....
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....
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.
You certainly didn't make it clear to me.
I find most of your claims to be quite unbelievable.
uh, well duh!
Why do you presume I do?
Not "stuff about God." Crude word, "stuff."
You don't think period
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!
Last edited:
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?
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?
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?
Last edited:
One Eyed Jack
New member
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.
I presume nothing. You said the Gospels contain embellished theology. Are you now saying they don't have fictitious details added to them?
What then?
How do my words do that?
I'm not grasping at anything. It's obvious. Maybe if you poured a little less indignation into your posts, it wouldn't be.
I'll let you do that with your next response.
Oh really? Well let's just sit around and hum at each other, and see what kind of messages we can communicate that way.
It doesn't take a mind-reader to do that. A basic understanding of psychology is all it takes.
Ah, so when you stated earlier...
...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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
How was it already clear to me? How do you presume to know what I like?
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.
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....
By asking questions that I have already answered.
"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...
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.
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
New member
So now you're saying you didn't know what you meant?
I presume nothing. I simply judge by your reaction.
No, I don't know that, nor do I believe it.
Oh, I've been paying attention all right. Perhaps you'd be happier if I weren't?
I know the etymology of the word theology. How about just giving a straight answer to the question?
Is that what you're upset about?
I didn't.
I presume nothing.
I'm not being silly.
You do the same.
Speak for yourself. I'm not the one denying that I've said things I've been quoted as saying.
I read all my posts carefully.
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.
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."
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."
Last edited: