ARCHIVE: Reason to Believe: Ps. 22

[aikido7]

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]

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

Mateo,
Perhaps you could share your view. Do you regard Psalm 22 as messianic?

 

[Mateo]

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]

Originally posted by Mateo
LightSon,

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

You have a good memory.
Yes I do recall discussion Psalm 22 with you. As I recall, your main point was

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

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

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

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

 

[Mateo]

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]

"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]

"What rules of evidence are you using here?"


The Bible...


"why are such passages written in the Psalms?"


For our admonition.

 

[aikido7]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

Great answer! You didn't duck the question, you actually thought about what was written and you did it with honor and grace!

 

[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. 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]

"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]

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]

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, if you are interested.

 

[Mateo]

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]

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 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.

 

[aikido7]

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 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. [/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]

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