Haran

Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but it's in the thread...

The only real question this website raises, IMO, is the "like a lion" vs. "they pierced" debate which, I'm sure, will rage on till the end of time.

However, what I didn't notice the author say is that the underlying Hebrew makes no sense.

Their translation as presented there is:

"For dogs surround me; the assembly of the wicked encircle me; like a lion [they are at] my hands and my feet."

The problem is that the words between the brackets are not found in the original Hebrew. If "like a lion" is the correct reading, the underlying Hebrew reads like this:

"For dogs surround me; the assembly of the wicked encircle me; like a lion my hands and my feet."

No sense... It doesn't make much sense to go from a group of dogs and an assembly of wicked to a lion either. Something has obviously happened in the transmission of the text.

I propose, like he mentioned in the otherwise excellent and informed article, that the reading "they pierced" or at least "they dug". However, in English, "they dug my hands and my feet" isn't a great translation. Since dogs have teeth, "they pierced my hands and my feet" seems to be a better English translation.

Ultimately, this can still be seen as metaphorically referring to Jesus' crucifixion.

Haran

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

HelenM

jojo-sa

helen

Just wondering how you see Jesus?
Is he God for you?

Please clarify
Peace

HelenM

jojo-sa

helen
Any answer gives little insight into the questioned.

What do you like discussing anyway? Christmas shopping? Do you celebrate Christmas? or do you call it family day?

Peace

HelenM

Nah, I don't really like discussing that either

It would be inconceivable to me not to celebrate Christmas based on my cultural background and upbringing. It's not entirely a 'religious' decision, for me.

We are taking this thread off-topic and I want it to stay on Hell so I won't say anymore here...with all due respect.

love
Helen

jojo-sa

The disobedient will be brought to justice in the afterlife whether they like it or not.

Fact not fiction.

Its like the case of the two cliff jumpers, the one is a suicide case and the other is insane, both will die, end of story......

peace

HelenM

diana

DavidH says: Why do you think that it is silly? You have told me (or others here)that prophecy is so vague. Yet as yet I have seen no evidience of that.

I see I need to start over, as I don't seem to be communicating the width and depth of my objection to your conclusions.

I have thus far not accepted any of your premises, the most important of which is your assumption that what we're told in the bible that happened with Jesus really happened. (I am a "Jesus-myther," which means I see no reason to believe he was ever even a real person at all; since I have no grounds upon which to completely reject this idea, either, I should add that the secular evidence we have from that time period gives us every reason to doubt that he did any of the "miracles" attributed to him.)

Your argument for "prophesy" depends on your assumption that the bible accurately records history. That's a huge assumption.

Here's a Jewish take on your favorite non-prophesy: <a href="http://www.jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr4992.htm" target="_blank">Does Psalm 22 Prophesy the Messiah?</a>.

Furthermore, you're ignoring my point that ALL of OT prophesy concerning the coming messiah should have been come to pass with Jesus, if he was who you like to think he was. I find your avoidance of this point quite telling.

Also, from <a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm" target="_blank">Moshiach: The Messiah</a>, here's a list (partial?) of Jewish messianic prophesies:
You will note as you skim through these they are peppered with words like "will," and "shall," with an occasional "it shall come to pass." Anyone reading these can ascertain immediately--without any knowledge of what may or may not have happened after it was written--that they were intended to be prophesies.

Has your messiah fulfilled all of these?

True Psalm 22 was written by David.

I didn't say that. I said the writer was "David," implying that this is a traditional belief. Psalms, like all the books of the bible, was written by an anonymous author. There is ample reason to believe David was not the writer, actually. I've also read some pretty good arguments that at least some of the psalms were penned long after the traditionally-accepted date.

David was inspired by God to write it.

Another assumption based on what you've already decided to believe. To use supposed prophesy as proof of God then to assert that God inspired the writer is to beg the question, as you're presupposing what you're trying to prove.

Why did David write that Psalm the way he did? When were his clothes divided up and lots cast for them.

Still assuming David wrote this, are you?

Seriously take time to read it and read the various accounts of Jesus death. Don't the parallels strike you?

Please stop assuming I haven't read your holy book. Thus far in the discussion, I've reason to believe I've already forgotten more about it than you'll ever know.

Do the parallels strike me? Of course. Do I find them meaningful, or evidence of foreknowledge? Not at all. Had I any reason to believe Jesus lived and/or did anything that has been attributed to him via the pious pennings of the unquestionably biased AND that they had no knowledge of this "prophesy" (for which you've still not provided a single reason to accept as such, outside of "parallels") when they wrote it, you might have the beginning of an argument.

I don't care about the past, future tenses - what I see is that the parallels are such that you would have literally thought that David was there at the cross writing down what happened to Jesus!

You belittle this point, but it is important, nonetheless. It's clear the Hebrews had a language which allowed them to differentiate between past, present and future. To accept something written in the past and present tense as a "prophesy" and reject those things that were written in future tense as...inconsequential, I guess...is to decide after the fact what was a prophesy and what wasn't.

David, if I made 50 prophesies today about what will happen next year, I'm willing to bet at least two of them will come true.

Now...let's say I don't put a time limit on those prophesies. How many are likely to come true now?

Wait, I'm not finished. Let's say I don't name any names. (My odds of being "correct" about things are going up, huh?)

Now, let's say you look at everything I've ever written and ever said, regardless of verb tense, and look for future "parallels." I bet my odds of accurate prediction are raising astronomically, now. The farther in the future you go, the greater the chance you'll find something more I "got right."

But there's more. Let's say that on top of these criteria for "prophesy," someone reads something I've written (future or past tense is irrelevant by now, remember) and writes something as though it actually happened which appears to be an uncanny parallel to something unusual I once said. VOILA! I'M SUDDENLY INSPIRED!

P.T. Barnum had it right.

That's what is so amazing about this.
You say it's vague but there's nothing vague - everything clearly points to Jesus death.

Everything? Demonstrably untrue--unless you write off anything that doesn't support your theory as "poetic license," or somesuch.

I said: What's more likely: (1) this scripture existed and those writers who gave us Xst referenced it to make it appear that a "prophesy"--having forgotten that it was a mere psalm, a writing form that isn't known for its prophetic value--had been fulfilled OR (2) this is a prophesy of your messiah which was fulfilled on the cross?

You said: Your first point there has no bearing on this at all. Cause it doesn't matter whether this was told as a prophecy or as a worship/prayer to God, the fact that from hindsight you can see it referred to Jesus death. You read it and explain to me how this can not be prophecy and yet accurately tell of Jesus death.

I already have. My first point has all the bearing in the world. Your simple dismissal only indicates your inability to address it honestly.

Since when did we pick out prophesies "from hindsight"?

I focus on this because it's a clear prediction of Jesus death - not so much a prediction but as a commentary of what Jesus was actually feeling and what happened at calvary.

Hm. It's "a clear prediction" but "not so much a prediction" in the same sentence. Listen to yourself, please.

There are also other prophecies that are messianic.

No! Really?

You know why some Jews say Jesus was not who he claimed to be? Because they killed him, to acknowledge him as God is a big step for them.

But your scripture says the Romans killed him.

To realise that they missed the Messiah they had been waiting for for so long, and yet more than that - to kill the Messiah they had been waiting for.

Perhaps the messiah they were waiting for was supposed to fulfil their messianic prophesies. Just a guess.

If you are open minded and willing to examine everything freely, then do so.

I'm always amused when someone suggests I'm the one who isn't being open-minded. Perhaps I am; perhaps I'm not. I do try to be reasonable, though, which includes considering all the evidence and avoiding fallacious reasoning to prove something "true" that simply does not hold up under scrutiny.

I'm not sure what you mean by "examine everything freely," but I would suggest that you yourself have omitted the "everything" part in your studies. I am not completely free in how I examine things; I apply the same criteria I'd want applied in a court of law were I the defendant.

The disciples in the NT in the letters quote passages of scripture that fortell Jesus.

So men who wrote your beloved stories which are not historically supported had access to the "prophesies"? This is actually evidence against the authenticity of the "predictions." Do you not see this?

Does God not have a right to quote himself?

God who?

If he says that these verses speak of him and u can see how they do - do you not accept it?

That's actually doubly circular reasoning, I think. Wow. I'm not sure I've seen that done before.

So I'm to assume God inspired the verse in question (disguising it as a psalm, speaking of past events, no less), then I'm to assume God inspired the NT writings which claim these verses apply to this event (which history doesn't report or support, but that's immaterial to you), and use this as some sort of proof that this "prophesy" was fulfilled AND THEREFORE, that your god exists?

Holy mary mother of god....

d

Haran

I find it interesting that people here keep quoting Jewish "anti-missionary" websites.

Please keep in mind that Jewish people have had plenty of time to develop their own "apologetics" against Christianity as well.

One major thing that these websites ignore in these prophecies is that whether they interpret them as prophecies today, their own people did interpret them as prophecies during Jesus time.

Verses from Psalms and other OT books were frequently quoted as prophecy whether we would do such a thing today or not...

Therefore, yes, Psalms which were written about a specific time period latter came to have a secondary/prophetic meaning to Jews.

By the tone of your post to DavidH, I would not say that you are being reasonable and open-minded, much less very kind. I believe that DavidH is simply trying to help you and others realize that there is at least a possibility that the predictions could be true and could have been fulfilled by Jesus.

I happen to believe him and the prophecies.

Haran