Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For 2000 years Christians have been pointing at that Psalm as a Messianic Psalm. The Gospel writers certainly seemed to believe it was.
Therein lies another problem, did Christ actually say those words or did the gospel authors think that it was a really nice literary touch?
Quote:
And you know this, how? What makes the all-knowing ovcatto more wise than the great minds of the Christian faith in the last 2000 years?
I don't just as you don't know that is what he was referring to. But based upon the text my speculation is as valid as anyone else's.
Quote:
Rome invented it, or adopted it from someone they conquered. They weren't around during the time it was written.
Rome did not! But don't take it from me:
The Romans were not the only people to practice crucifixion in antiquity. The history of crucifixion extends as far back as the Assyrians, Phoenicians and Persians of the first millennium B.C., as well as some Greeks throughout the Hellenized world. Even so, the most detailed accounts are of Roman crucifixion methods.
Dogs = gentiles. They were commonly called dogs by the Jewish people. Mark 7:28 records a woman begging Jesus for help. When he responded that he came for the Jews...not her, she pointed out that even the dogs under the table eat the scraps. She was referencing the Gentiles needing Jesus.
Bulls of Bashan = would appear to be a reference to some of the different religions of the time. One religion would have people stand under an "altar" as a bull was killed, pouring blood down on them.
The lion reference? They were attacking him like a raveonous lion would be my guess. It's a comparison. They were opening their mouths wide at him -- yelling and screaming. It probably wasn't a quiet, peaceful experience.
Ah, that explains it.
Quote:
That's some fascinating stuff. I've seen documentaries on it...apparently even tying a guy to a cross causes extreme stress. It was a horrible death. The Romans were good at killing people.
Glad you like it. Turned my stomach and it not easily turned. If it were me, I would be calling for the calvary.
What Would you say if you were whipped with a whip , beaten up , thorns cut in your head, nails driven through both your hands and both your feet, that hung up on a cross like a lynching post , What you say to your protector ? Where this crime against Jesus will then allow God to judge any one throughout time when they give their life to Jesus and turn away from the spirit at lead people to commit this horrible act, as the blood of Jesus is then only blessing for man from God in the earth.....
One thing to note is that this quotation is not in Luke. That is significant because, if the evidence is taken on board that the three synoptic gospels were based on the same original, it means that it is 'M' material added to a revised Synoptic gospel which Mark and Matthew based their gospels on (I have given reasons why I do not believe that Matthew used Mark's gospel as a basis, though Mark is surely closer to their common original) then Luke is based on a synoptic text but not on Mark, much less Matthew. Which is confirmed by the omission of the second feast and the Phoenician woman episode and other 'M' material (1)
Of course, it is telling that Luke does not have that quote and neither does John. I can only argue that it is too much to believe that Luke and John did not think it worth mentioning 'Eloi, eloi lama sabachthani' but did mention 'Father into thy hands..' which John doesn't mention either but does mention 'It is finished!' which none of the synoptics record.
The individual must decide whether this discrepancy - one of so very many - should be 'woven together' with the other quotes to form a complete narrative as Christianity has always depicted it, or whether it is evidence of three different amendments of an original story.
If one opts for the different story argument, then why have Jesus quoting Psalms? As I suggested, the Roman historical tradition at least provides precedents for putting into the mouths of characters appearing in histories sentiments which the author thought appropriate. Historians say that this is not quite telling lies as it was considered acceptable method.
That point taken, the sentiment does not fit with a Jesus who was God incarnate and knew exactly what was being done to him and why. It reflects the earlier Mark/Matthew 'meant puppet' view of a man used by God and who didn't know what was going on.
We can see this idea in Mark 5.30 in the puzzling 'who touched me?' episode. The sense is that the action of healing power through faith happened without the man Jesus doing it, but being aware of a drain on the spiritual battery.
It is interesting that Matthew DOES indeed 'correct' this (9.21) by changing it somewhat to make it look as though Jesus was somehow allowing it to happen, but the sense is still there - that it occurred without Jesus 'doing it'. It is a direct link of Faith to the healing power of the Spirit inhabiting the man Jesus.
Now, if this was a 'synoptic original' view of the spirit in the man Jesus and not later 'M' material, we ought to find it in Luke. And so we do at 8.43, and interestingly in a version nearer the Mark view of having felt the power go out of him and NOT the Matthew amendment to make Jesus look more in control.
This is very instructive in revealing the methods and, indeed, relative dating, if the various gospel writers and their Gospels and it enables me to suggest the thinking behind the Aramaic passage at the crucifixion that we find in Matthew and Mark.
It only remains to say that the Psalms passage doesn't really hide in coded form a prophecy of the crucifixion. What we get rather in the ransacking of the OT for suitable 'prophetic' quotes that can be used to flesh out the rather too sparse story the evangelists had. Jesus was crucified and died. Mark and Matthew and Luke and John all felt the need to stuff (different and discrepant) words or quotes into Jesus' mouth as he hung on the nails to express the theological ideas that these evangelical writers thought that he ought to have expressed.
(1) 'M' is a term I coin to denote common Mark/Matthew material not found in other gospels, rather like 'Q' indicated material found in Matthew and Luke but nowhere else and indeed 'P' material (I forget why) to refer to that common to Luke and John but found nowhere else.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-24-2012 at 06:37 PM..
It seems amusing now, but I was originally wondering whether Jesus actually said those words. It wasn't until I found out that they were a quotation from Slams that I realized how absurd it was that Jesus being tortured to death would quote a bit of poetry. It was obvious that this was something (in the Roman Historical tradition) put into Jesus' mouth more to show how the writer was thinking.
While I had originally wondered whether the line showed that Jesus had been expecting to be saved but had begin to believe that he had been abandoned to die, I had to start thinking what the evangelist was trying to convey by this quote. What I am left with is the 'meat puppet' idea which is central to Mark and Matthew particularly - that Jesus was a man animated to do his miracles and teachings by the spirit of God which had descended to inhabit his body at the Jordan and which then drove him like some bipedal golf-buggy into the desert.
What more likely than that the synoptic originator wanted to show that God's Spirit, having wangled the Lamb onto the cross as a blood -sacrifice now abandoned the carnal container with a theatrical display of veil - ripping and returned to heaven, leaving the body flopped on the nails.
But, just to make sure that the idea of the Spirit leaving the Bod, some sort of clarifying comment was needed so a quick rummage through the OT for some suitable quote produced the bit of out of context Psalms.
There are of course some problems with that explanation. Apart from Believers simply not wanting to credit it.
No. It was a reference to Psalm 22. He was pointing at that Psalm, indicating that he was fulfilling it.
Psalm 22 is an interesting Psalm. Written 900 years before crucifixion was invented, it provides a startling description of a crucifixion, and some of the things that took place at Jesus' crucifixion.
While I agree that belief in the authenticity of any Jesus quote suggests a good deal of gullibilty the quote itself is not at all unrealistic, simply because referencing pericope in the Tanakh by referencing an opening phrase would not have been all that atypical. To assert:
Psalm 22 had nothing to do with the crucifixion - until Christian authors decided to try to make it fit. Not very successfully.
strikes me as being more than a little silly. It simply counters a faith claim with a faith claim.
Psalm 22 had nothing to do with the crucifixion- until Christian authors decided to try to make it fit. Not very successfully.
I think the link you posted is going to the wrong place.
You can argue that Psalm 22 had nothing to do with it...but you'd be wrong. The fact that the Jewish people missed it is irrelevant. They didn't understand Jesus as their Messiah...not surprising they'd miss Psalm 22. The Gospel writers were inspired to include it--not just the part of the crucifixion, but also the fact that the guards cast lots for his clothing (John 19:24).
The Gospel writers were inspired to include it ...
Rubbish. Inspired by what? Confirmed by what? I understand that your need is great, but you don't get to simply fabricate your 'facts' with impunity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
