The death of Jesus was a sacrifice

[Logikos]

Sorry that is false

Matthew 27:46 (ESV) — 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

46

περὶ

δὲ

τὴν

ἐνάτην

ὥραν

ἀνεβόησεν

ὁ

Ἰησοῦς

φωνῇ

μεγάλῃ

λέγων

·

Around

but

the

ninth

hour

shouted out

the

Jesus

in voice

great

saying

		ηλι		ηλι		λεμα		σαβαχθανι	;
		eli		eli		lema		sabachthani

τοῦτʼ

ἔστιν

·

θεέ

μου

θεέ

μου

,

ἱνατί

με

ἐγκατέλιπες

;

This

is

God

of me

God

of me

why

me

you left behind

Eberhard Nestle et al., The Greek New Testament (27th ed.; Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart, 1993), Mt 27:46.

Cross reference

46 Jesus. Mar. 15:34. Lu. 23:46. Jno. 19:28–30. He. 5:7. Eli. Ps. 22:1; 71:11. Is. 53:10. La. 1:12.

B. Blayney, Thomas Scott, and R.A. Torrey with John Canne, Browne, The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (vol. 2; London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, n.d.), 22.



Matthew 27:46

cried out with a loud voice, saying

Hebrews 5:7
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”

Psalm 22:1
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?


English Standard Version: Cross-References (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), Mt 27:46.

Matthew 27:46 (ESV) — 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”



Matthew 27:46

ELI

Psalms 22:1
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?


New American Standard Bible: Cross-References (Lockman Foundation, 1995), Mt 27:46.



Matthew 27:46

forsaken Me

Psalms 22:1
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?

Hebrews 5:7
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.


Holman Bible Publishers, The Holman Christian Standard Bible: Cross-References (Nashville: Holman, 2009), Mt 27:46.

BTW did you note

Hebrews 5:7
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

Thank you for conceding the debate!

You might very well be the single most transparently ( edited for personal attack , flaming) person I've ever debated who calls himself a Christian. This isn't even close to the first time you've pulled this sort of ( edited ) tactic, which, unsurprisingly, ( edited discussing another poster ) seems to be only one who is impressed with. It's a simply lie! That's all it is. You couldn't type your post if you were actually ( edited ) enough to have missed the point by this much and so I know that it's intentional and so does everyone else, ( edited ).

From now on, when you respond to my arguments as though I've made a totally different point than that which everyone here knows that YOU know I've actually made, the response will be that I will declare victory and thank you for conceding the debate.

That has been the way it goes for me, by the way! For going on three decades now, no one, and I mean no one AT ALL, has come within a mile of touching my doctrine in any substantive way. Some debate more honestly than others. Some run out of substance less quickly than others and the rarest few have ever allowed themselves to be moved barely an inch off their beliefs. It is only unbelievers who, when they've run out of substance, have ever been as flagrantly dishonest as you have been in this thread, so much so that I generally will not even debate christian doctrine with them any longer at all, (although I do make exceptions for my own benefit on occasion, when it looks to me like there's hope for a substantive exchange). You really ought to be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. I know I would be!

So, you're just the latest in a long line of folks who have served to demonstrate the validity of my doctrine by displaying for the whole world to see your own inability to hardly respond to my arguments at all, never mind actually refute a single one of them. Like nearly everyone else, all you've got is to ignore what I've said and repeat your position. One wonders what you're even doing here? What could you possible believe that you're accomplishing?

I'd be both bored out of my mind if that's all I could pull off here and, more importantly, I'd be literally embarrassed that this was the best that I could do! Not only that, it would frighten me! I'd literally be kept up at night worried about what my complete inability to combat this random stranger on the internet means about the rest of what I claim to believe! Is my entire doctrine this weak? What else have I bought into that rests on such a flimsy unsubstantial foundation? Is my entire worldview built on the same foundation of wet toilet paper that must be defended with intentional obfuscations (i.e. lies)? I wonder how fast my entire theological universe would burn to the ground around me if I decided to be brave enough to be totally honest?!!

Those are not questions that I could live with being unanswered! I pity you because I know already that this post will be even more blown off by you than all the rest of what I've said here.

Edited by @Predestined for several rule violations .

 

[civic]

Thank you for conceding the debate!

You might very well be the single most transparently dishonest person I've ever debated who calls himself a Christian. This isn't even close to the first time you've pulled this sort of dishonest tactic, which, unsurprisingly, @civic seems to be only one who is impressed with. It's a simply lie! That's all it is. You couldn't type your post if you were actually stupid enough to have missed the point by this much and so I know that it's intentional and so does everyone else, (including civic, by the way).

From now on, when you respond to my arguments as though I've made a totally different point than that which everyone here knows that YOU know I've actually made, the response will be that I will declare victory and thank you for conceding the debate.

That has been the way it goes for me, by the way! For going on three decades now, no one, and I mean no one AT ALL, has come within a mile of touching my doctrine in any substantive way. Some debate more honestly than others. Some run out of substance less quickly than others and the rarest few have ever allowed themselves to be moved barely an inch off their beliefs. It is only unbelievers who, when they've run out of substance, have ever been as flagrantly dishonest as you have been in this thread, so much so that I generally will not even debate christian doctrine with them any longer at all, (although I do make exceptions for my own benefit on occasion, when it looks to me like there's hope for a substantive exchange). You really ought to be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. I know I would be!

So, you're just the latest in a long line of folks who have served to demonstrate the validity of my doctrine by displaying for the whole world to see your own inability to hardly respond to my arguments at all, never mind actually refute a single one of them. Like nearly everyone else, all you've got is to ignore what I've said and repeat your position. One wonders what you're even doing here? What could you possible believe that you're accomplishing?

I'd be both bored out of my mind if that's all I could pull off here and, more importantly, I'd be literally embarrassed that this was the best that I could do! Not only that, it would frighten me! I'd literally be kept up at night worried about what my complete inability to combat this random stranger on the internet means about the rest of what I claim to believe! Is my entire doctrine this weak? What else have I bought into that rests on such a flimsy unsubstantial foundation? Is my entire worldview built on the same foundation of wet toilet paper that must be defended with intentional obfuscations (i.e. lies)? I wonder how fast my entire theological universe would burn to the ground around me if I decided to be brave enough to be totally honest?!!

Those are not questions that I could live with being unanswered! I pity you because I know already that this post will be even more blown off by you than all the rest of what I've said here.

I have completely dismantled ever argument for PSA here. It's the most anti-god, anti-christ, anti-biblical view of the atonement ever developed from the minds of depraved men during the dark ages/ reformation. It's worse than tulip and was invented to go hand in hand with the heresies of tulip that were also developed in the time in church history.

You do not know church history or scripture for that matter. You have no argument. It's been destroyed as per 2 Corinthians 10:1-5- Demolished.

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6 And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-nature-of-god-in-the-atonement.30/

hope this helps !!!

 

[Logikos]

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jonah 2:1 Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the fish’s belly. 2 And he said:

“I cried out to the Lord because of my affliction,
And He answered me.

“Out of the belly of Sheol I cried,
And You heard my voice.
3 For You cast me into the deep,
Into the heart of the seas,
And the floods surrounded me;
All Your billows and Your waves passed over me.
4 Then I said, ‘I have been cast out of Your sight;
Yet I will look again toward Your holy temple.’
5 The waters surrounded me, even to my soul;
The deep closed around me;
Weeds were wrapped around my head.
6 I went down to the moorings of the mountains;
The earth with its bars closed behind me forever;
Yet You have brought up my life from the pit,
O Lord, my God.

 

[Logikos]

Edited by @Predestined for several rule violations .

Surely you must believe God predestined me to write every syllable!

 

[civic]

Surely you must believe God predestined me to write every syllable!

No God doesn't make anyone sin- you do that on your own volition.

 

[TomL]

Thank you for conceding the debate!

Sorry but you have no grounds for that statement

You might very well be the single most transparently ( edited for personal attack , flaming) person I've ever debated who calls himself a Christian. This isn't even close to the first time you've pulled this sort of ( edited ) tactic, which, unsurprisingly, ( edited discussing another poster ) seems to be only one who is impressed with. It's a simply lie! That's all it is. You couldn't type your post if you were actually ( edited ) enough to have missed the point by this much and so I know that it's intentional and so does everyone else, ( edited ).

Lets see you stated

You wish that were true! LOL!


A verse which Jesus neither quoted nor made any reference to as I have now demonstrated by merely quoting the passage in plain English!

Face it, Tom! You've got nothing!

seems to me the following addresses exactly what you stated

Matthew 27:46 (ESV) — 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

46

περὶ

δὲ

τὴν

ἐνάτην

ὥραν

ἀνεβόησεν

ὁ

Ἰησοῦς

φωνῇ

μεγάλῃ

λέγων

·

Around

but

the

ninth

hour

shouted out

the

Jesus

in voice

great

saying

		ηλι		ηλι		λεμα		σαβαχθανι	;
		eli		eli		lema		sabachthani

τοῦτʼ

ἔστιν

·

θεέ

μου

θεέ

μου

,

ἱνατί

με

ἐγκατέλιπες

;

This

is

God

of me

God

of me

why

me

you left behind

Eberhard Nestle et al., The Greek New Testament (27th ed.; Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart, 1993), Mt 27:46.

Cross reference

46 Jesus. Mar. 15:34. Lu. 23:46. Jno. 19:28–30. He. 5:7. Eli. Ps. 22:1; 71:11. Is. 53:10. La. 1:12.

B. Blayney, Thomas Scott, and R.A. Torrey with John Canne, Browne, The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (vol. 2; London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, n.d.), 22.



Matthew 27:46

cried out with a loud voice, saying



“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”

Psalm 22:1
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?


English Standard Version: Cross-References (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), Mt 27:46.

Matthew 27:46 (ESV) — 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”



Matthew 27:46

ELI

Psalms 22:1
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?


New American Standard Bible: Cross-References (Lockman Foundation, 1995), Mt 27:46.



Matthew 27:46

forsaken Me

Psalms 22:1
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?

Hebrews 5:7
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.


Holman Bible Publishers, The Holman Christian Standard Bible: Cross-References (Nashville: Holman, 2009), Mt 27:46.

BTW did you note

Hebrews 5:7
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

No translation problem was seen and all cross references point to Psa 22

We see repeated in english "my God my God why have you forsaken me" in both Mat 27:46 and psalm 22

From now on, when you respond to my arguments as though I've made a totally different point than that which everyone here knows that YOU know I've actually made, the response will be that I will declare victory and thank you for conceding the debate.

Very hard to see how what was stated does not address your claim

"A verse which Jesus neither quoted nor made any reference to"

seems the evidence is contrary to your claim

That has been the way it goes for me, by the way! For going on three decades now, no one, and I mean no one AT ALL, has come within a mile of touching my doctrine in any substantive way.

You're a legend in your own mind,

but you have not proven Jesus was not quoting from Psalm 22

and BTW you did not address


Hebrews 5:7
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

also BTW your resort to ad hominem is not advancing your claim

 

[Logikos]

Sorry but you have no grounds for that statement

Of course I do!

You repeatedly quoted several traslations of MY proof text and gave exactly nothing in rebuttal to the arguments I've made concerning it!

Lets see you stated



seems to me the following addresses exactly what you stated


No translation problem was seen and all cross references point to Psa 22

We see repeated in english "my God my God why have you forsaken me" in both Mat 27:46 and psalm 22




Very hard to see how what was stated does not address your claim

"A verse which Jesus neither quoted nor made any reference to"

seems the evidence is contrary to your claim



You're a legend in your own mind,

but you have not proven Jesus was not quoting from Psalm 22

and BTW you did not address


Hebrews 5:7
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

also BTW your resort to ad hominem is not advancing your claim

I've not used even one single ad hominem!

It drives me crazy that seemingly Christians more than any other group on planet Earth have no concept at all of what that term means!

If anything, it is the arbitrary editing of my post that make it appear to be gratuitously insulting. My comments were based strictly on your own words and your conduct on this thread which is all still here for the entire world to read, but even if it were intended as a naked insult, even then it wouldn't qualify as an ad hominem!

 

[TomL]

Of course I do!

You repeatedly quoted several traslations of MY proof text and gave exactly nothing in rebuttal to the arguments I've made concerning it!


I've not used even one single ad hominem!

It drives me crazy that seemingly Christians more than any other group on planet Earth have no concept at all of what that term means!

Nope

You apparently don't seem to understand in quoting the first verse the whole context of the psalm is in view


.......................................................................

What to Do When the New Testament Quotes the Old​

OCTOBER 14, 2022 BY PETER KROL

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.” (Matt 1:23)
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46)
“Not one of his bones will be broken.” (John 19:36)
“You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” (Heb 5:5)

Since the Bible had no verse divisions until the 16th century AD, we ought to consider what this implies about how to read and study the Bible. Ancient readers had no map or reference system to pinpoint particular statements. They could not speak with precision about a textual location such as Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14.
Instead, they referenced Scriptures by broad indicators such as:

• “…in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush…” (Mark 12:26)
• “…the scroll of the prophet Isaiah…He found the place where it was written…” (Luke 4:17)
• “the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah…” (John 12:38)
• “he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way…” (Heb 4:4)

They did not quote things the way we do. They did not have MLA- or APA-style citations, word-perfect precision, or bibliographical indices.

...................................................

The writer felt forsaken but by the end he realizes he was not

and this supports that view

Hebrews 5:7 (ESV) — 7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

 

[TomL]

Of course I do!

You repeatedly quoted several traslations of MY proof text and gave exactly nothing in rebuttal to the arguments I've made concerning it!


I've not used even one single ad hominem!

It drives me crazy that seemingly Christians more than any other group on planet Earth have no concept at all of what that term means!

If anything, it is the arbitrary editing of my post that make it appear to be gratuitously insulting. My comments were based strictly on your own words and your conduct on this thread which is all still here for the entire world to read, but even if it were intended as a naked insult, even then it wouldn't qualify as an ad hominem!

This is so elementary to me I could not figure out what you were talking about

What to Do When the New Testament Quotes the Old​

OCTOBER 14, 2022 BY PETER KROL

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.” (Matt 1:23)
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46)
“Not one of his bones will be broken.” (John 19:36)
“You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” (Heb 5:5)

Since the Bible had no verse divisions until the 16th century AD, we ought to consider what this implies about how to read and study the Bible. Ancient readers had no map or reference system to pinpoint particular statements. They could not speak with precision about a textual location such as Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14.
Instead, they referenced Scriptures by broad indicators such as:

• “…in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush…” (Mark 12:26)
• “…the scroll of the prophet Isaiah…He found the place where it was written…” (Luke 4:17)
• “the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah…” (John 12:38)
• “he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way…” (Heb 4:4)

They did not quote things the way we do. They did not have MLA- or APA-style citations, word-perfect precision, or bibliographical indices
In fact, most people didn’t read their own copies of the Scripture. Most of what they knew about Scripture came through oral delivery, repetition, and memorization.
So if we read our Bibles only like 21st century students at institutions of higher education, we will not be reading them like 1st century commoners, or even nobility, receiving these remarkable works of literature from the hands of Jesus’ first followers.
What does this mean?

1. NT quotes of the OT are referencing passages, not verses.​

Often there’s a verbal connection to the exact verses being quoted. For example, when Peter wants to make a point about being “living stones” (1 Pet 2:5) he grabs a few key statements with the word “stone” in them (1 Pet 2:6-8). But his goal is not to produce sound bytes fitting for a radio interview, or back-cover blurbs promoting a book. He believes the referenced OT passages have something of their own to say, building a theology of God’s stone-construction program, which Peter now interprets and applies for a new audience.

2. Don’t read past the OT quotes.​

When a NT author quotes the OT, he believes the OT passage has an argument to make that he now commandeers for his own use. The quotes are not window dressing, with the real argument coming before or after the quote. No, the quotes are a fundamental part of the argument. The quotes contain the premises upon which the conclusion stands. We might misunderstand the conclusion if we haven’t identified the premises (in their original context).

3. Look up the OT quotes and study them in context.​

To use the four quotes from the top of this post: “Immanuel” had a fulfillment in Isaiah’s day that illuminates why Jesus’ fulfillment was so much greater, and even unexpected (Isaiah 7-8). Jesus’ feelings of abandonment don’t capture the whole story of what happened on the cross (Psalm 22). Jesus’ death was more about the idea of Passover than it was about checking off a prerequisite prediction about bodily injury (Exodus 12). Christ’s appointment as high priest involved more than a particular pronouncement from on high; it involved lasting victory over the rebellious kings of the earth (Psalm 2).

4. Consider how the NT author employs the OT context and repurposes it for his audience.​

Sometimes the NT author applies a timeless principle. Sometimes he makes a theological connection to the person or work of Jesus Christ. Sometimes he sees a shadow that has become reality. Sometimes he identifies a pattern of life meant to be followed.

5. What seems obvious may not be all that obvious.​

When Jesus explains the parable of the soils to his disciples, he references Isaiah 6 (Mark 4:11-12). Many quickly conclude that Jesus is laying out a strategy for intentional deception by parable. This seems obvious if we look only at the precise words and statements being quoted. But go back to read Isaiah 6, in the context of Isaiah’s book of prophecy, in the context of all the prophets, and only then does it become apparent that Jesus’ parables are actually meant to remove deception, to make things crystal clear (something which Mark explicitly suggests—Mark 4:21-22). Jesus is not trying to make people blind. He’s trying to expose the fact that they are already blind because they worship blind and deaf idols and refuse to listen to him. They become like what they worship.1 We see in many other places that the parables were far more illuminating than obfuscating (Mark 3:23ff, 7:17-23, 12:12; Luke 12:41, 15:1-3, 18:1, 18:9, 19:11).

Conclusion​

Bible study is for everyone, even ordinary people. But that doesn’t make it quick or easy. Let’s do good work so we can understand the meaning these authors intended to communicate to us, especially when the NT uses the OT to make its point.

But your reaction shows you to be quite reactive and intemperate

 

[Logikos]

Nope

You apparently don't seem to understand in quoting the first verse the whole context of the psalm is in view

It wasn't the whole Psalm He was drawing attention to, it was the first portion of that Psalm as is made plainly clear by reading the Psalm in modern English WITH PROPER SYNTAX AND PARAGRAPH BREAKS IN PLACE!!!!!

I KNOW FOR A FACT that you understand that to be the point and that I've never once called into question the translation of the first verse or even implied such a thing!


What's the word for it when someone intentionally says things that they know to be false? I can't seem to remember what it is. I feel like its just a single syllable, easy little word! I'd make a guess, but someone is surely predestined to delete it out of my post! No matter. I and everyone here with a functioning mind knows what it is, including you. You should be ashamed but I know you aren't. Go ahead, double down on it yet again!

 

[Logikos]

This is so elementary to me I could not figure out what you were talking about

What to Do When the New Testament Quotes the Old​

OCTOBER 14, 2022 BY PETER KROL


Since the Bible had no verse divisions until the 16th century AD, we ought to consider what this implies about how to read and study the Bible. Ancient readers had no map or reference system to pinpoint particular statements. They could not speak with precision about a textual location such as Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14.
Instead, they referenced Scriptures by broad indicators such as:

• “…in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush…” (Mark 12:26)
• “…the scroll of the prophet Isaiah…He found the place where it was written…” (Luke 4:17)
• “the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah…” (John 12:38)
• “he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way…” (Heb 4:4)

They did not quote things the way we do. They did not have MLA- or APA-style citations, word-perfect precision, or bibliographical indices
In fact, most people didn’t read their own copies of the Scripture. Most of what they knew about Scripture came through oral delivery, repetition, and memorization.
So if we read our Bibles only like 21st century students at institutions of higher education, we will not be reading them like 1st century commoners, or even nobility, receiving these remarkable works of literature from the hands of Jesus’ first followers.
What does this mean?

1. NT quotes of the OT are referencing passages, not verses.​

Often there’s a verbal connection to the exact verses being quoted. For example, when Peter wants to make a point about being “living stones” (1 Pet 2:5) he grabs a few key statements with the word “stone” in them (1 Pet 2:6-8). But his goal is not to produce sound bytes fitting for a radio interview, or back-cover blurbs promoting a book. He believes the referenced OT passages have something of their own to say, building a theology of God’s stone-construction program, which Peter now interprets and applies for a new audience.

2. Don’t read past the OT quotes.​

When a NT author quotes the OT, he believes the OT passage has an argument to make that he now commandeers for his own use. The quotes are not window dressing, with the real argument coming before or after the quote. No, the quotes are a fundamental part of the argument. The quotes contain the premises upon which the conclusion stands. We might misunderstand the conclusion if we haven’t identified the premises (in their original context).

3. Look up the OT quotes and study them in context.​

To use the four quotes from the top of this post: “Immanuel” had a fulfillment in Isaiah’s day that illuminates why Jesus’ fulfillment was so much greater, and even unexpected (Isaiah 7-8). Jesus’ feelings of abandonment don’t capture the whole story of what happened on the cross (Psalm 22). Jesus’ death was more about the idea of Passover than it was about checking off a prerequisite prediction about bodily injury (Exodus 12). Christ’s appointment as high priest involved more than a particular pronouncement from on high; it involved lasting victory over the rebellious kings of the earth (Psalm 2).

4. Consider how the NT author employs the OT context and repurposes it for his audience.​

Sometimes the NT author applies a timeless principle. Sometimes he makes a theological connection to the person or work of Jesus Christ. Sometimes he sees a shadow that has become reality. Sometimes he identifies a pattern of life meant to be followed.

5. What seems obvious may not be all that obvious.​

When Jesus explains the parable of the soils to his disciples, he references Isaiah 6 (Mark 4:11-12). Many quickly conclude that Jesus is laying out a strategy for intentional deception by parable. This seems obvious if we look only at the precise words and statements being quoted. But go back to read Isaiah 6, in the context of Isaiah’s book of prophecy, in the context of all the prophets, and only then does it become apparent that Jesus’ parables are actually meant to remove deception, to make things crystal clear (something which Mark explicitly suggests—Mark 4:21-22). Jesus is not trying to make people blind. He’s trying to expose the fact that they are already blind because they worship blind and deaf idols and refuse to listen to him. They become like what they worship.1 We see in many other places that the parables were far more illuminating than obfuscating (Mark 3:23ff, 7:17-23, 12:12; Luke 12:41, 15:1-3, 18:1, 18:9, 19:11).

Conclusion​

Bible study is for everyone, even ordinary people. But that doesn’t make it quick or easy. Let’s do good work so we can understand the meaning these authors intended to communicate to us, especially when the NT uses the OT to make its point.

But your reaction shows you to be quite reactive and intemperate

I've not one time posted a syllable against this and you know it. You're just playing dumb because you can't answer my actual argument.

 

[civic]

IT wasn't the whole Psalm He was drawing attention to, it was the first portion of that Psalm as is made plainly clear by reading the Psalm in modern English WITH PROPER SYNTAX AND PARAGRAPH BREAKS IN PLACE!!!!!

I KNOW FOR A FACT that you understand that to be the point and that I've never once called into question the transalation of the first verse or even implied such a thing!


What's the word for it when someone intentionally says things that they know to be false? I can't seem to remember what it is. I feel like its just a single syllable, easy little word! I'd make a guess, but someone is surely predestined to delete it out of my post! No matter. I and everyone here with a functioning mind knows what it is, including you. You should be ashamed but I know you aren't. Go ahead, double down on it yet again!

It was a DECLARATION He was the Messiah. Hence the quoting of the opening verse in Psalm 22. The entire psalm was bing lived out before their eyes in detail.

 

[TomL]

I've not one time posted a syllable against this and you know it. You're just playing dumb because you can't answer my actual argument.

I think you are dreaming, and don't have a leg to stand on.

and have not enunciated any reason to reject the connection.

The words my God my God why have you forsaken me are the same

all cross references sources point to the connection

You claim to agree with what i noted regarding how to handle cross references

So You are going to have to do better than what you state above because the evidence is against you

 

[TomL]

It wasn't the whole Psalm He was drawing attention to, it was the first portion of that Psalm as is made plainly clear by reading the Psalm in modern English WITH PROPER SYNTAX AND PARAGRAPH BREAKS IN PLACE!!!!!

I KNOW FOR A FACT that you understand that to be the point and that I've never once called into question the translation of the first verse or even implied such a thing!


What's the word for it when someone intentionally says things that they know to be false? I can't seem to remember what it is. I feel like its just a single syllable, easy little word! I'd make a guess, but someone is surely predestined to delete it out of my post! No matter. I and everyone here with a functioning mind knows what it is, including you. You should be ashamed but I know you aren't. Go ahead, double down on it yet again!

There were no paragraphs breaks in the original text

and you stated you agree with this

1. NT quotes of the OT are referencing passages, not verses.​

Often there’s a verbal connection to the exact verses being quoted. For example, when Peter wants to make a point about being “living stones” (1 Pet 2:5) he grabs a few key statements with the word “stone” in them (1 Pet 2:6-8). But his goal is not to produce sound bytes fitting for a radio interview, or back-cover blurbs promoting a book. He believes the referenced OT passages have something of their own to say, building a theology of God’s stone-construction program, which Peter now interprets and applies for a new audience.

2. Don’t read past the OT quotes.​

When a NT author quotes the OT, he believes the OT passage has an argument to make that he now commandeers for his own use. The quotes are not window dressing, with the real argument coming before or after the quote. No, the quotes are a fundamental part of the argument. The quotes contain the premises upon which the conclusion stands. We might misunderstand the conclusion if we haven’t identified the premises (in their original context).

3. Look up the OT quotes and study them in context.​

To use the four quotes from the top of this post: “Immanuel” had a fulfillment in Isaiah’s day that illuminates why Jesus’ fulfillment was so much greater, and even unexpected (Isaiah 7-8). Jesus’ feelings of abandonment don’t capture the whole story of what happened on the cross (Psalm 22). Jesus’ death was more about the idea of Passover than it was about checking off a prerequisite prediction about bodily injury (Exodus 12). Christ’s appointment as high priest involved more than a particular pronouncement from on high; it involved lasting victory over the rebellious kings of the earth (Psalm 2).

verse 24 is an important fact in understanding verse 1

just as is

Hebrews 5:7 (ESV) — 7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

you cannot reject verse 24 and properly understand what is going on in verse 1

PS many modern translations do not have paragraph breaks in psa 22

 

[Logikos]

I think you are dreaming, and don't have a leg to stand on.

And I think that you are lying!

and have not enunciated any reason to reject the connection.

The whole thread is still right here for everyone to read, Tom!

The words my God my God why have you forsaken me are the same

all cross references sources point to the connection

A point that you already know that I have not contested in the slightest.

You claim to agree with what i noted regarding how to handle cross references

Another point that you ALREADY KNOW that I haven't contested even one single time!

So You are going to have to do better than what you state above because the evidence is against you

You know better.

Just because you like to repeat yourself doesn't mean I have to repeat myself. The thread is here for the whole world to read. I know that you've read it and that you understand the points I've made because any third grade child could read it and understand it. Go on pretending otherwise if you like.

 

[Logikos]

There were no paragraphs breaks in the original text

Not written ones but there are breaks in thought were the author transitions to a new idea, which are what modern paragraphs are intended to convey and so any translations that do not include them are less than ideal and will lead to allowing people like yourself who wish to twist the scriptures to their desired shape in doing just that.

and you stated you agree with this

The fact is that I didn't read it. I don't really care about anything you're saying now because I expect about half of it to be false.

 

[TomL]

Not written ones but there are breaks in thought were the author transitions to a new idea, which are what modern paragraphs are intended to convey and so any translations that do not include them are less than ideal and will lead to allowing people like yourself who wish to twist the scriptures to their desired shape in doing just that.


The fact is that I didn't read it. I don't really care about anything you're saying now because I expect about half of it to be false.

Again, many translations have no paragraph breaks and you cannot understand all that is going on the psalm with reading the whole.

Your attitude is rather unfortunate as you have failed to show I twist the scriptures, and you apparently are just willing to assume it

 

[TomL]

And I think that you are lying!


The whole thread is still right here for everyone to read, Tom!


A point that you already know that I have not contested in the slightest.

Another point that you ALREADY KNOW that I haven't contested even one single time!


You know better.

Just because you like to repeat yourself doesn't mean I have to repeat myself. The thread is here for the whole world to read. I know that you've read it and that you understand the points I've made because any third grade child could read it and understand it. Go on pretending otherwise if you like.

Yes it is, and you have failed to support your denial and the many false accusations you leveled against me

The fact is you have read the whole psalm in context as was noted in the article on how to interpret old testament references

if you do so you will see the important place verse 24 has in the psalm

as it stands your handling leaves one in the false belief the psalmist was indeed abandoned and that God abandons those who trust in him. That is a view contrary to the text

Its sad you cannot dialogue without resorting to accusations.

 

[Logikos]

Again, many translations have no paragraph breaks and you cannot understand all that is going on the psalm with reading the whole.

I understand it perfectly fine.

Your attitude is rather unfortunate as you have failed to show I twist the scriptures, and you apparently are just willing to assume it

On the contrary. As I have already stated MORE THAN ONCE, all one had to do was quote the passage in modern English script with proper paragraphs and your entire point is exploded into dust. Not that it held water in any case because you would have us all believe that verse 24 contradicts verse 1 within a single context which crumbles your point anyway. If Jesus' point was that God hadn't forsaken Him then He sure picked a funny verse of scripture to quote!

 

[Logikos]

Yes it is, and you have failed to support your denial and the many false accusations you leveled against me

The entire thread is right here, Tom!

The fact is you have read the whole psalm in context as was noted in the article on how to interpret old testament references

I know perfectly well how to interpret old testament passages. The difference is that I'm not trying to protect a doctrine and am happy to let Jesus mean what He actually said and so don't need to go looking for reasons to think He meant the opposite of what came out of His mouth.

if you do so you will see the important place verse 24 has in the psalm

I know perfectly well what verse 24 is saying and it does NOT help you because Jesus didn't quote verse 24, He quoted verse 1!

as it stands your handling leaves one in the false belief the psalmist was indeed abandoned and that God abandons those who trust in him. That is a view contrary to the text

No, it's just the twisted, "Jesus meant the opposite of what He said", version that you need to preserve your doctrine.

Its sad you cannot dialogue without resorting to accusations.

I give people the respect that they've earned as well as the derision. I'm happy to dialogue with honest people who substantively respond to the points that I actually make instead of intentionally pretending like I've said something completely different and then acting all pious when I get angry about it. Act differently and you'll be treated differently.