ARCHIVE: Reason to Believe: Ps. 22 [Archive] - Theology Forum

Turbo

August 31st, 2003, 09:48 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, 09:54 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, 09:59 PM

Thank you, 7thwatch!

Zimfan

August 31st, 2003, 10:03 PM

I concur :thumb:

Nineveh

August 31st, 2003, 10:24 PM

What Zim said :)

Turbo

August 31st, 2003, 10:33 PM

:neck: Thank you sir, ma'am.

Zimfan

August 31st, 2003, 10:39 PM

You just got picked for post of the day, Turbo. :)

tenkeeper

September 1st, 2003, 08:19 AM

turbo,

you have a loving heart

LightSon

September 1st, 2003, 10:24 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, 12:03 PM

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, 12:08 PM

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, 06:03 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, 02:22 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, 06:29 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, 10:38 AM

Good topic

OMEGA

September 7th, 2003, 01:46 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, 06:24 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, 08:46 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, 09:25 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, 09:28 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, 12:44 PM

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, 03:41 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, 06:49 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, 05:52 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, 07:55 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, 08:14 AM

The great throne judgement not the judgement for rewards.

Mateo

September 17th, 2003, 08:42 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, 08:47 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, 09:02 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, 09:06 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, 12:49 PM

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, 03:03 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, 06:38 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.

Dave Miller

September 22nd, 2003, 01:29 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, 03:33 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.

Dave Miller

September 22nd, 2003, 04:46 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, 06:45 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, 06:49 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, 07:06 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.

:)

Dave Miller

September 22nd, 2003, 07:22 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, 08:06 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

Dave Miller

September 22nd, 2003, 08:55 PM

Responded to in the Immanent God thread, which was previously
requested by others as well.

take care,

Dave

Mateo

September 22nd, 2003, 09:05 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 23rd, 2003, 12:44 AM

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, 04:55 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.

Dave Miller

September 23rd, 2003, 06:46 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, 12:08 PM

Gotcha Mr. Dave,

Later

Quasar1011

September 23rd, 2003, 07:08 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, 07:49 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, 08:09 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, 08:38 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, 05:24 PM

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

Mateo

September 24th, 2003, 08:58 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

Dave Miller

September 25th, 2003, 11:44 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, 07:23 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, 10:27 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, 12:36 PM

Yeah Buddy!

aikido7

October 16th, 2003, 02:56 PM

Dave Miller

October 16th, 2003, 07:18 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, 08:38 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, 09:22 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, 12:04 PM

Mateo

October 17th, 2003, 04:46 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, 08:04 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 wasI 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, 09:52 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, 11:01 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, 01:25 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, 02:39 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, 09:02 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, 03:24 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, 04:19 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, 04:26 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, 09:23 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, 01:40 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, 01:51 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 20th, 2003, 12:03 AM

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, 05:03 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, 12:12 PM

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, 02:13 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, 03:48 PM

aikido7's motto: "If you don't like it, spiritualize it."

aikido7

October 25th, 2003, 04:01 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, 04:32 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, 08:41 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, 10:31 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, 01:23 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, 01:43 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, 01:52 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, 01:57 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.