PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
It's also about bulls and dogs attacking this person. Check the Hebrew on this one.
But really, I don't think Psalm 22 is about a lion attack.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why the NT is Historically and Theologically not acceptable for Torath Mosheh Jews
- Thread starter Ehav4Ever
- Start date
It's also about bulls and dogs attacking this person. Check the Hebrew on this one.
But really, I don't think Psalm 22 is about a lion attack.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
And can you look up 'bull' and 'dog' for me?
if I say
'He's as brave as a lion'
'He's as mad as a dog'
'He's watching a bull market today' (as I am actually doing right now!)
These are metaphors. But.. there's no conclusion to the pierce/lion issue,
and if there was, it still doesn't change the context of this Psalm of a man's
suffering - THE REAL ISSUE SHOULD BE, WHO IS THIS MAN?
LOL. Then I think this shouldn’t have been in the debate section - maybe in the journal section?
It was informativeIf it were directed at Christians it would have been titled Christians: Why the NT is Historically and Theologically not acceptable for Torath Mosheh Jews
Also, RF has more than just Christians on it. There are some non-Christians who benefit from knowing about this. I had a long conversation with a Buddhist on this topic and we had a very good productive discussion on the topic.
I think that most RF's by now know what they are signing up for when they see me posting something and they decide to comment. Besides, there is no need to post this in a Jews DIR since there is no Jews DIR. Also, Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews in and outside of RF alerady know and agree with my OP. The OP also clearly matches the title. You can tell by the ratings on the OP - which I see someone by the name of KenS rated as Informative.
i definitely know what you beleive
rosends
Well-Known Member
I don't think I understand the question. There are a couple of major interpretations of the Psalm. One is this is about the suffering children of Israel (some of the language is used elsewhere to describe the nation). The other is that this is a Psalm of David's about his experiences running from Saul. The writer uses animal metaphors to describe attacks on him/them by his/their enemies. (cf Is 38:13). Each animal metaphor explores a dimension of the oppressors. I don't see how there is any question that the "man" who is speaking is either David speaking of himself, or David speaking of the future suffering of the people.
rosends
Well-Known Member
It is about many attacks, and each animal represents an aspect of the attack.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I think it just using metaphors and similes. It's a part of Hebrew language.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Sure it is -- using metaphors of animals attacking, including dogs, bulls and lions.
ToGodorNottoGod
Member
Or adding to it, or giving hints that there is a deeper spiritual meaning other than the surface view. That is the Zohar method, and it is exquisitely interesting and enlightening. The original context is irrelevant on a deeper spiritual and metaphorical meaning. It's why the rabbis said there are several different ways of interpreting the word, and every single word in Torah has multitudes of meaning. Heck, I have read entire papers which deal with the meaning of a single letter, and they are not kidding. It is quite an eye opener to recognize other cultures have more depth in their understanding than we do, even when, and perhaps because of, their having a greater meaning and grasp of the scripture than we do. It take a degree of humility to recognize others really do grasp more than we do.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
So do you think God meant the scripture to be like this - accessible only
to the 'wise and prudent' as Jesus would say?
Do you think Psalm 22 is about a guy attacked by a lion, or someone
facing deep persecution, suffering and death?
Or maybe the Jews are right - it's about lions, and these lions cast lots for
the garments of their victim.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
But BEHIND the metaphor is a suffering human who is killed by his persecutors.
But his posterity will live on, " future generations will be told about the Lord. They
will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it! "
And I don't think it was lions, dogs, bulls or oxen in this Psalm which killed this man.
And no lions drew lots to see who got this poor man's clothing.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
Anytime Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews tell what we hold by and what we don't hold it always turns into a situation where "certain" Christians want to debate us on it - especially when it involves why Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews ignore/don't accept/don't beleive the NT authors/texts. This has been noticed and commented on by both Athiests and members of other religions on RF, in other threads in the past, and not just Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews. So it is in the right section.
Also, I once started a thread in the Judaism DIR on a similar topic. Post #38 was made by someone whose religion originally marked as Christian and then they temperorally changed it to Judiasm just so they could post NT quotes in a Judaism DIR thread. They were called out about this and at least one of their posts was deleted by RF. See link below.
Simple Reasons Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus and Christianity
Besides there are more than enough threads where certain Christians are telling RF's what Jews hold by and what we don't hold by where they often get it completely wrong. A post where we Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews just tell it like it is from our perspective first is always a win win for all. Besides if you look at the video I posted earlier about the debate that the Ramban was forced into you may see the parallels.
Cheers
Last edited:
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Glad to have helped. You may want to visit my YouTube page where I have more things similar to it. The link is below.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Ehav4Ever/videos
Might interest you: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/64962/20472
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
So this guy was surrounded by dogs and then the lion got him?
Or, the lion just got his hands and feet?
Just his hands and feet.
'I am a worm and not a man' - so it's a worm writing this?
And the ones attacking say 'he trusts in his lord...' did the lion or dogs say this to a worm?
and did the dogs or the lions part this worm's garments?
and the worm's enemy is the 'wild oxen' too.
And why would future generations remember this 'righteous' man/worm?
'that he has done this' -- done what?
Whether this man or worm was pierced or torn doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
The context tells you it wasn't wild oxen, dogs, bulls or lions - it was people who hated him.
And this wasn't David because he didn't see his bones staring at him, his tongue stuck to
the roof of his mouth, his enemies parting lots for his garments. I hold this is none other than
Jesus.
rosends
Well-Known Member
The question isn't whether the psalm is literally about a lion attack. No one says it is. The word in question is ka'ari, LIKE a lion. But to ignore the repeated motif of animal imagery and decide that this word is some fictional, ungrammatical and unprecedented construct instead of a reference to the present animal attack metaphor is wilful blindness.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
There's no consensus on the 'pierce' word. I read some good arguments either way.
But my point is - they are not necessary: the entire Psalm is about someone who
suffers and is put to death, but is remembered for what he done. I presume what he
did was allow this to happen.
rosends
Well-Known Member
There is no consensus because some people need to see it as meaning something else even if that something else isn't supported by the local, or larger linguistic and content-based context.
The psalm is in two parts, the first half which bemoans the suffering and the second half which praises God as savior. If you want to say that it speaks of Jesus, and can support that without any reference to piercing, then have at it. That is your interpretation and you will understand the animal and other references as appropriately metaphorical, but at least it will be linguistically honest.
Jewish tradition from way back sees this as something else (and not mysterious about its subject).
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Yes, Jewish tradition. It's strange but the bible condemns Jews (I speak as a part Jew myself)
yet the Jews treat the Tanakh as their book. They are the people of the book - a book which
places curses upon them.
I take Psalm 22 at face value. It's referring to SOMEONE, it's up to you to decide who. Best to
read it without Jews or Christian conventions - just read it for yourself. I am reminded of Psalm
69 and the second half of Isaiah 52 and the whole of Isaiah 53 - I see these all referring to a
single man, single event.
I linked that more for the discussion of the Nachal Chever fragment. If it interests you, here's a digital enhancement of the fragment:
Most curiously, the last two words in the sentence seem to read כארו ידיה - Ka'aru Yade'ah, which translates as [ka'aru = Hebrew gibberish] her hands. I'm sure not many Christians would be too excited to imagine that this fragment refers to a female Jesus.
One can also understand why it's thought to be an "elongated Yod", because when examining the previous Vav, you can see it's shaped differently, while the 'head' of this Vav is shaped like a Yod.
Last edited: