Who is Jesus?

[PruePhillip]

I don't know who these skeptics are who dismiss the Tanakh in its entirety, but for me the usual rules apply ─ documents are as credible as the available corroboration for each of their claims.

So it's credible to observe on archaeological evidence that Yahweh appears to have come into being as a Canaanite southern-desert tribal god around 1500 BCE.

And on the evidence of the Tanakh that his followers believed he approved of human sacrifice, and invasive war, and the massacre of populations, and mass rapes, and of course slavery, religious intolerance, and women as chattels.

And the Tanakh is never going to be credible evidence of purported supernatural events, whether as talking snakes and donkeys, special creation, burning bushes that will chat with you or prophecies or Noah's Flood, or the tower of Babel, or that pi=3.
Why not? Because every last man jack of them is a professional liar conniving at a greater lie? Phooey.
But nowhere in Egypt or the Sinai is there any evidence of an Egyptian captivity, or a credible date for an Exodus, or a real Moses.

Should some be found, that archaeologist will be world-famous and the books will be rewritten. Meanwhile there's no such evidence and a number of conclusions follow from that.

Wrote this here before. I contacted a professor at the Uni of New England regards strange
stone ruins surrounding a statue she did a paper on. She claimed to have not seen the
stones, despite being forced to climb over them. Stone ruins don't fit the Australian aborigine
narrative. It was my FIRST experience with a scientist, and I was lied to.
So I have no issue with Muslim archaeologists not wanting to make a big deal out of Jewish
relics in ancient Egypt. There's this not-so-funny joke in archeology about "burying it again"
when things turn up uninvited.

But when things are not found - that doesn't mean they don't exist.
We know now that Edom had a vastly larger population than first thought. This came through
a study of mining activity. And on the same basis the hill country of Judea had a population of
about 50,000 people in David's day. This is called 'invisible archaeology" - just think of the
archaeology surrounding Genghis Khan for instance.

As for burning bushes and the like - that's faith, not history. History is King David, the prophet
Isaiah, the genetic substance of the tribe of Levi, the Temple etc..

 

[blü 2]

Wrote this here before. I contacted a professor at the Uni of New England regards strange stone ruins surrounding a statue she did a paper on. She claimed to have not seen the stones, despite being forced to climb over them.

You know that from photos taken at the time, I assume?

Stone ruins don't fit the Australian aborigine narrative. It was my FIRST experience with a scientist, and I was lied to.

And the name of this liar is?

And assuming you're right, how does one bad apple discredit an entire orchard? I mean, your form of argument works a great deal better against being a priest, given the enormous evidence of institutional pedophilia ─ since raping children, and actively consealing the crimes of the rapists, are orders of magnitude viler than lying about field research, bad though that be, and your rules allow us to pay no attention to the small (but none the less shocking) percentage of clergy involved.

So I have no issue with Muslim archaeologists not wanting to make a big deal out of Jewish relics in ancient Egypt.

What Jewish relics in ancient Egypt, exactly? And anyway, there's no doubt at all that Semitic merchants traded with Egypt over tens of centuries. Jewish relics in ancient Egypt have to demonstrate the Captivity and/or the Exodus to have any relevance here.

But when things are not found - that doesn't mean they don't exist.

But it may mean there's no credible basis for asserting that they exist at all.

We know now that Edom had a vastly larger population than first thought.

Ahm, so what? Who discovered that Edom had a vastly larger population than first thought, the professionals you brand as liars when it suits you, or the Sunday School Teachers' Fellowship?

As for burning bushes and the like - that's faith, not history. History is King David, the prophet Isaiah, the genetic substance of the tribe of Levi, the Temple etc..

So ─ just to be perfectly clear ─ you acknowledge that the supernatural is a subset of the imaginary then?

 

[PruePhillip]

You know that from photos taken at the time, I assume?
And the name of this liar is?

This was in 1975. I knew the site because I was writing an article on the
strange carving. It looked Polynesian to me. The unknown professor's
response was that the carving was "typical of the culture" of the aborigines
in that area (without addressing why they were different, even alien to all
other tribes.) I knew she had to step across the stone work because I had
to do it. That told me she wasn't telling the truth.
Another example, I suppose, has been the long running debate about the
"pre-Clovis" people. I grew up with the bitter debate about continental
drift. So yes, academics take a stand on something, and stick to it until
the bitter end. As has been said, people often don't change their POV,
they just die out.

 

[PruePhillip]

Ahm, so what? Who discovered that Edom had a vastly larger population than first thought, the professionals you brand as liars when it suits you, or the Sunday School Teachers' Fellowship?
So ─ just to be perfectly clear ─ you acknowledge that the supernatural is a subset of the imaginary then?

There's interesting papers coming out on the copper mines of Edom from the time of King David.
What is noteworthy is the sheer scale of the operation at Timna - suggesting that Edom, and by
extension Israel, had much larger populations than first thought.

Technically, in physics, there is no such thing as a miracle. Anything is possible, and the universe
is far stranger than we CAN imagine. But certainly, there WAS a "House of David" but as to whether
God spoke to David - that's an article of faith. A clue can be given though in the pronouncements of
these historical figures - for David, as a symbol of the rejected and reigning king, spoke often of the
Messiah what was to come, including His rejection, suffering and death. Just as Jacob, Isaiah, Malachi
Zechariah and others spoke of Him. That they gave such detailed accounts of the Messiah, Israel and
the fate of the Jews in itself is not normal.

 

[blü 2]

This was in 1975. I knew the site because I was writing an article on the
strange carving. It looked Polynesian to me. The unknown professor's
response was that the carving was "typical of the culture" of the aborigines
in that area (without addressing why they were different, even alien to all
other tribes.) I knew she had to step across the stone work because I had
to do it. That told me she wasn't telling the truth.
Another example, I suppose, has been the long running debate about the
"pre-Clovis" people. I grew up with the bitter debate about continental
drift. So yes, academics take a stand on something, and stick to it until
the bitter end. As has been said, people often don't change their POV,
they just die out.

Both scientific method and historical method are forms of reasoned enquiry, and sometimes both are required to address particular problems, eg with archaeological dating, with fossil description and dating, and so on.

And it's the nature of history that sometimes a great deal of inferring is required to devise an hypothesis that may be testable only to a small extent. Hence phrases like "educated guesswork" and so on.

However, if we take the Exodus for an example, the problems aren't hard to find.

The first one may be the sheer naivete of the Moses story, with many scenes very much in the style of the marketplace storyteller eg:

Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said to Moses, “See, I make you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
2 You shall speak all that I command you; and Aaron your brother shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his land.
3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt,​

How dumb is that? Even before we get to to the notion that God needs Pharaoh's permission to leave? Or:

10 ... Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and his servants, and it became a serpent.
11 Then Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers; and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same by their secret arts.
12 For every man cast down his rod, and they became serpents. But Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.
​

That's really stuff you read to 5-year-olds. Or

20 Moses ... lifted up the rod and struck the water that was in the Nile, and all the water that was in the Nile turned to blood.
21 And the fish in the Nile died; and the Nile became foul, so that the Egyptians could not drink water from the Nile; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.
22 But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts; so Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them; as the LORD had said.
​

So this is just a pissing contest between magicians, with the plot twist that the bad guy can't decide anything that the good guy doesn't want him to decide, thereby removing any need for a plot at all ─ the text should instead read,

Vacations 2:13 So God softened Pharaoh's heart, and Pharaoh gave everyone carts and food and weapons for the journey, and a big farewell feast. 14 And then God said to Pharaoh and to the land of Egypt, "Oblivio!" and thereafter no one west of the Sinai remembered Moses or his people.​

Then there's the problem that there's no evidence either in words or artifacts that points to any such Captivity in Egypt, a place neither entirely unknown to archaeologists nor entirely unkind to them. (And other details, like stealing the Mesopotamian yarn about Sargon the Great's birth and giving it to Moses, opening and crossing the Red Sea then destroying the Egyptian army wholesale without leaving a single record, and so on.)

So what hypothesis best fits what we presently know, would you say?

Technically, in physics, there is no such thing as a miracle. Anything is possible, and the universe is far stranger than we CAN imagine.

Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, often enough just by wishing. Miracles are that subset of magical events which are done by a god.

That they gave such detailed accounts of the Messiah, Israel and
the fate of the Jews in itself is not normal.

I say again ─

a. Prophecy is magic and magic exists only in the imagination of the individual.
b. And Jesus gets not a single mention in the Tanakh.
c. Jesus fails all the tests for a Jewish messiah. The idea that the Jewish establishment in Jerusalem recognized he was the messiah and rejected him is baldly absurd.
d. And the existence of an historical Jesus is problematic. There may have been, there may not have been. But if there was, neither Paul nor the gospel authors knew anything of substance about him.

 

[PruePhillip]

b. And Jesus gets not a single mention in the Tanakh.
c. Jesus fails all the tests for a Jewish messiah. The idea that the Jewish establishment in Jerusalem recognized he was the messiah and rejected him is baldly absurd.
d. And the existence of an historical Jesus is problematic. There may have been, there may not have been. But if there was, neither Paul nor the gospel authors knew anything of substance about him.

Just this for now.
Quote - "Jesus gets not a single mention in the Tanakh"
Certainly, He is the Messiah, Michael, the Branch, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the lion of the
tribe of Judah, Savior, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, new Adam etc.. No verse
in the Old Testament refers to "Jesus", if it did, everyone would be calling their boys Jesus.

In the "Tanakh" (why not just say "Old Testament"?) about half the books refer to the Messiah-
as-Redeemer. The one rejected of His people but believe upon by the Gentiles. The one the Jews
will mourn for when He comes in glory as it was they who crucified Him.

 

[blü 2]

Just this for now.
Quote - "Jesus gets not a single mention in the Tanakh"

Correct. Magic exists only in the imagination of individuals.

Certainly, He is the Messiah, Michael, the Branch, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the lion of the tribe of Judah, Savior, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, new Adam etc.. No verse
in the Old Testament refers to "Jesus", if it did, everyone would be calling their boys Jesus.

Those are all retrofits. If there was indeed an historical Jesus, the authors of those references had no concept of him hence no intention of referring to him. The Tanakh's messiah is a leader ─ a king, war leader, or high priest ─ of the Jewish nation, distinguished by being anointed by the Jewish priesthood. Once you see that, as a messiah Jesus scores fail, fail, fail, and fail.

In the "Tanakh" (why not just say "Old Testament"?)

Because that implies it's merely Part 1 of the Christian bible, whereas in fact it's the Jewish bible complete in itself.

about half the books refer to the Messiah-as-Redeemer.

We've been through that before, and above. Whatever Jesus might be, he's not a Jewish messiah.

The one rejected of His people but believe upon by the Gentiles. The one the Jews will mourn for when He comes in glory as it was they who crucified Him.

Where does it say that? "He was despised and rejected of men" is the Suffering Servant and the Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel, as anyone who reads the text with a clear mind will quickly confirm.

You persist in asserting the reality of fairies and magic. I disagree. There's no coherent concept of a real God, such that if we found one we could tell it was a God; and that's because the only place gods, fairies and magic are found is in the imagination of individuals. There isn't even a coherent concept of 'godness', the quality a real god would have and a superscientist who could make universes, raise the dead &c, would lack.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Tanakh's messiah is a leader ─ a king, war leader, or high priest ─ of the Jewish nation, distinguished by being anointed by the Jewish priesthood. Once you see that, as a messiah Jesus scores fail, fail, fail, and fail.
.

I'll give the figures
The Messiah has two descriptors -
1 - Redeemer (He who pays the price for our sins)
2 - King (He who reigns over the nations)

10% of Messiah as Redeemer prophecies
90% of Messiah as King prophecies

And a few prophecies showing Redeemer and King are one
and the same.

The Jews wanted/want a King but not a Redeemer. They ignore
Redeemer verses.
Retrofitting Jesus to Redeemer verses is essentially impossible
on the basis of probability. You would have to find all the Redeemer
verses and craft a story about some guy called Jesus - but it begs
the question, WHO ARE THE REDEEMER VERSES SPEAKING
OF? And... it is someone who has ALREADY LIVED AND DIED as
the temple was gone and Israel returned to slavery.

ps someone on this forum stated the New Testament was written
after the fall of the temple. This too is not factual. The destruction
of the Jewish nation, over a 65 year period, was not known to the
NT authors - they "guessed it" from reading the prophecies of
the Old Testament and what Jesus told them.

 

[blü 2]

I'll give the figures
The Messiah has two descriptors -
1 - Redeemer (He who pays the price for our sins)
2 - King (He who reigns over the nations)

10% of Messiah as Redeemer prophecies
90% of Messiah as King prophecies


The Jews wanted/want a King but not a Redeemer. They ignore
Redeemer verses.

What particular need for redemption are you referring to?

What particular redeemer are you referring to?

What particular act of rejection on behalf of the Jewish people are you referring to?

And if by chance you wish to repeat the nonsense that the Jewish religious authorities recognized Jesus as a messiah but went ahead and rejected him for their own selfish ends anyway, then I point out again that

─ Jesus may or may not have been an historical figure
─ If he was, no one in his reputed lifetime noticed him sufficiently to have left even one contemporary mention of him; that's to say at the very best he was small beer
─ He was never a civilian leader, a war leader or a religious leader.
─ He was never anointed by the priesthood

So what acts by the religious authorities of Jerusalem constituted a recognition of Jesus as a messiah, and what acts of theirs constituted a rejection of Jesus nonetheless?

And a few prophecies showing Redeemer and King are one and the same.

"Prophesizo!" cried Harry, and purple sparks showered from his wand ...

ps someone on this forum stated the New Testament was written
after the fall of the temple. This too is not factual.

The letter of Paul are dated to the 50s CE. The Romans besieged and took Jerusalem in 70 CE, destroying the Temple and much else along the way. The destruction of the Temple left a very big psychological scar on the Jewish nation.

The first gospel is Mark's. Ted Weeden observed that Mark's trial scene has some 24 points in common with Josephus' description of the trial of Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias aka Jesus of Jerusalem, and was available from 75 CE, dating Mark, hence the other gospels, to the post-Temple period. (Mark 13:2 can be read as a 'prophesy' of the sacking of Jerusalem too.)

A further argument is consequently available that a causal link can be implied between the fall of the Temple and the writing of Mark. I don't think there's a clincher for that idea, but it's a neat fit in many ways.

 

[PruePhillip]

"Prophesizo!" cried Harry, and purple sparks showered from his wand ...

Re Messiah as BOTH Redeemer and King.
I am familiar with only two verses that speak of this (the bible is big
book, and you can skip things too easily.)
Zechariah paints a traditional Jewish Messiah figure coming to save
Israel - but this king is the same one who was lowly, suffered and
died at the hands of the Jewish nation.

Quoting Harry is a form of intellectual evasion.

 

[PruePhillip]

The first gospel is Mark's. Ted Weeden observed that Mark's trial scene has some 24 points in common with Josephus' description of the trial of Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias aka Jesus of Jerusalem, and was available from 75 CE, dating Mark, hence the other gospels, to the post-Temple period. (Mark 13:2 can be read as a 'prophesy' of the sacking of Jerusalem too.)

A further argument is consequently available that a causal link can be implied between the fall of the Temple and the writing of Mark. I don't think there's a clincher for that idea, but it's a neat fit in many ways.

I was a science teacher, science writer. I am familiar with how science thinks.
So "science" takes the scripture, ie prophecy, and says, "This prophecy refers
to such and such an event, therefor it was written AFTER the event. There is
no other scientific way to explain it."
That's not science to start with.

Another method is to take something in the bible and find something similar. Thus
people can say "This scripture is borrowed" without asking how many historical,
religious or fictional events are actually out there. Could I "prove" there was no
Hannibal by finding equivalent events in ancient mythology?
No, there's no mention of the most significant NT historical event after Jesus,
the destruction of the Jews. BTW this didn't happen in AD60 but about 135 AD
with the removal of all Jews from "Palestine."

 

[PruePhillip]

─ Jesus may or may not have been an historical figure
─ If he was, no one in his reputed lifetime noticed him sufficiently to have left even one contemporary mention of him; that's to say at the very best he was small beer
─ He was never a civilian leader, a war leader or a religious leader.
─ He was never anointed by the priesthood

So what acts by the religious authorities of Jerusalem constituted a recognition of Jesus as a messiah, and what acts of theirs constituted a rejection of Jesus nonetheless?

That's true. A lot of Redeemer prophecies point to Him being rejected by His own people.
David said He would be disbelieved even by his own brothers and sisters.
Jesus had no recognition in the world.

I might add that both John the Baptist and Jesus were given some tentative recognition
but both rejected this out of hand.

 

[blü 2]

Re Messiah as BOTH Redeemer and King.
I am familiar with only two verses that speak of this (the bible is big book, and you can skip things too easily.)
Zechariah paints a traditional Jewish Messiah figure coming to save Israel - but this king is the same one who was lowly, suffered and
died at the hands of the Jewish nation.

If you're going to quote the bible, chapter and verse please.

And you're continuing to ignore that the very meaning of 'messiah' (hence of 'Christ') is 'anointed by the priesthood,' a status neither Paul nor any of the gospels attributes to Jesus.

Quoting Harry is a form of intellectual evasion.

That was an allusion rather than a quote, 'prophesizo' being my coinage for the occasion. I intended thus to remind you that prophecy is magic and magic is imaginary.

I was a science teacher, science writer. I am familiar with how science thinks.
So "science" takes the scripture, ie prophecy, and says, "This prophecy refers to such and such an event, therefor it was written AFTER the event. There is no other scientific way to explain it."
That's not science to start with.

Then put it this way. Here's an apparent reference to a relevant future event some 40 years after the death of the speaker. There are four main possibilities ─

1. That the reference does not intend to refer to any particular future event.
2. That the reference is a lucky guess.
3. That the reference is an accurate record of the character's actual supernatural foresight
4. That the reference is a well-known technique here used by the author of the account to enhance the prestige of his character by attributing supernatural foresight to that character.

Easy to see that if 1 doesn't apply, then 2 is seriously unlikely, though not impossible; and 3 is so remote a notion as to be worthless, there being not a single authenticated example of supernatural foresight anywhere, nor even a falsifiable hypothesis as to how such a thing might occur, nor even a credible unfalsifiable hypothesis.

And once we include other evidence, such as Weeden's observation, 4 goes from easily the most probable explanation to being the only serious contender.

No, there's no mention of the most significant NT historical event after Jesus,
the destruction of the Jews. BTW this didn't happen in AD60 but about 135 AD with the removal of all Jews from "Palestine."]/quote] I wasn't, and am not, talking about the Diaspora. At all times I've been quite clearly talking about the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE.

A further point is that if magic works then it's been around a lot longer than Yahweh, who doesn't appear till about 1500 BCE. We have tales of magical gods from before that date from Mesopotamia, Egypt and Persia, so I take it you have no reason to doubt the miracles there reported?

 

[blü 2]

That's true. A lot of Redeemer prophecies point to Him being rejected by His own people.

You're thinking of the Suffering Servant again.

But since you haven't responded to the point, I take it that, assuming an historical Jesus, you agree that the Jewish religious establishment in Jerusalem had no reason to think that Jesus, or anyone answering his description, was or could be a messiah, and that if there was a rejection, it was well and properly founded according to their law, lore, and cultural values?

 

[PruePhillip]

You're thinking of the Suffering Servant again.

But since you haven't responded to the point, I take it that, assuming an historical Jesus, you agree that the Jewish religious establishment in Jerusalem had no reason to think that Jesus, or anyone answering his description, was or could be a messiah, and that if there was a rejection, it was well and properly founded according to their law, lore, and cultural values?

The suffering servant is a motif of the Old Testament - His hands and His feet
pierced, rejected by His own etc..
If you want to know who the Jews saw as Messiah there's some good sites on
the subject. The last one in the Jewish Commonwealth was Simon Kochbar,
"Son of the star." The last in our time was Schneerson.
I can assure you - none of them wanted to be the lamb slain.
They were all worldly men, concerned for the things of earth and time.

 

[PruePhillip]

[QUOTE="blü 2, post: 6419954, member: 62549I intended thus to remind you that prophecy is magic and magic is imaginary.
QUOTE]

So do YOU believe the Jews will one day return to Israel and take it back with force?
That they will come out of the nations that were their "graves"?
And do YOU believe the Jews will remain a people long after all peoples from that
age are gone?
And do YOU believe that despite being about five million in population in Jesus' day
they will still remain a tiny population today?
And do YOU believe they will be a blessing to the nations who bless them?

Certainly, prophecy is magic. It's incredible. It wasn't for Josephus as he saw the
prophecies of the Old Testament coming to fruition with the destruction of Israel -
whether Jew or Roman wanted it or not.

 

[PruePhillip]

Easy to see that if 1 doesn't apply, then 2 is seriously unlikely, though not impossible; and 3 is so remote a notion as to be worthless, there being not a single authenticated example of supernatural foresight anywhere, nor even a falsifiable hypothesis as to how such a thing might occur, nor even a credible unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Jacob's prophecy for the rise of a Jewish state, and its fall with the coming of the Messiah
is one of my favorites.
I worked out here a few weeks ago what were the chances - I think it was about one in
nine hundred thousand of getting such multi-predictions correct.

 

[blü 2]

The suffering servant is a motif of the Old Testament - His hands and His feet
pierced, rejected by His own etc..

Yes, and as I've repeated told you, and as any amount of scholarship will support, the Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel.

If you want to know who the Jews saw as Messiah there's some good sites on
the subject. The last one in the Jewish Commonwealth was Simon Kochbar, "Son of the star." The last in our time was Schneerson.
I can assure you - none of them wanted to be the lamb slain. They were all worldly men, concerned for the things of earth and time.

I'm only interested in what the Jewish establishment of Jerusalem thought was a messiah in 30CE.

So do YOU believe the Jews will one day return to Israel and take it back with force?

Sure. The Zionist movement made free with slogans from the Tanakh in their politics.

Do you believe the Jews will one day own all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates? That's what God promised. Or are the Arabs living proof that Islam provides the heirs of Yahweh's promise?

And do YOU believe the Jews will remain a people long after all peoples from that age are gone?

Depends what you mean. There are plenty of people in Australia who have held their land and their religion for many thousands of years before Yahweh was around. The African Bushmen eg the Twa, may have even older claims, going back 150,00 years or more.

And do YOU believe that despite being about five million in population in Jesus' day they will still remain a tiny population today?

Don't forget when counting the numbers of the Jewish faith that a considerable number of people in the First World who identify as Jewish nonetheless have no religious beliefs.

And do YOU believe they will be a blessing to the nations who bless them?

Not by magic, no.

Certainly, prophecy is magic. It's incredible. It wasn't for Josephus as he saw the prophecies of the Old Testament coming to fruition with the destruction of Israel - whether Jew or Roman wanted it or not.

So it's your view that there were gods more ancient than Yahweh and that their magical claims are no less legitimate?

And incidentally, what modern prophecies have you got for me? Supernatural foretellings of incredible accuracy about the stock exchange would be very useful, horse racing tips never go amiss, winning lottery numbers are good. Even reliable information relating to the security of nations might come in handy.

But that's just HarryPotter dreaming, of course ─ we both know that God neither says nor does, the world proceeds exactly as it would if gods existed only in individual imaginations, and that good and deserving men, women and children incur arbitrary suffering and death all the time, and rogues flourish wonderfully, while the gods, yours and the others, sit on their immaterial hands.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, and as I've repeated told you, and as any amount of scholarship will support, the Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel.

Forget your scholars/scribes.
Psalm 69 and 22 were written by David. They are similar to Isaiah 52/53.
I never asked any Jew who they think the Psalms are speaking of

Do YOU believe David is speaking of himself, his nation or his Christ?

Psalm 22
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
But be not thou far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.
For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.
The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the Lord that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.
All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
For the kingdom is the Lord's: and he is the governor among the nations.
All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.
A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.

 

[PruePhillip]

And incidentally, what modern prophecies have you got for me? Supernatural foretellings of incredible accuracy about the stock exchange would be very useful, horse racing tips never go amiss, winning lottery numbers are good. Even reliable information relating to the security of nations might come in handy.

Only the prophecy I mention here often - that the Jews will return to Israel, most if not all of them.
I made a prediction twenty or thirty years ago that one day anti-Semitism would become a thing
once more in Western nations. My belief was based upon the famous Ezekiel 39/39 of a war in
Palestine which has not yet happened - it says the Jews will live safely in Israel, in cities without
walls, "all of them."
At the time that sounded absurd because anti-Semitism, like other forms of racism, was declining
in liberal democracies. I have seen figures from 30-80% increase in anti-Semitism in Australia
this year, similar to Europe and America.
I don't hang my faith on such a prophecy, but it's something I suspect will continue to the point
that living outside of Israel will be unbearable for Jews.