Tony wrote:
laugh all you want but all one need do is see that, umm, how shall I say this politely, that there hasn't been a temple for around 2000 years in Jerusalem to accept libation offerings?
 
njc replied:
Umm, wrong conclusion from the evidence provided. When there is a Temple, God will again accept the libation offerings of Jews (provided He accepted them in them past, which I would have to consult with a Rabbi or well-informed Jew to confirm).
But substituting a forbidden drink offering of blood (as jesus did do) was not - and never will be - acceptable to God, afaik.

Tony's reply:
Actually it was a correct conclusion.

Hmm, thinking to myself, . . . I wonder why God destroyed Jerusalem, its temple and has not accepted sacrifices for about 2000 years? Could it be that . . . no . . . surely it couldn't be because Jesus was THE sacrifice that the whole sacrificial system looked to in fulfilling all the types of that system? According to historical records which we have, the curtain of the temple was rent from top to bottom whcn the true Messiah of Israel died thus opening the way to God for all mankind.

Getting back to the original question:

Psa 16:10 For You shall not forsake my soul in the unseen; You shall not allow Your benign one to see corruption.

How did David fulfill that verse, since, as you say, it is not about the true Messiah of Israel, Jesus Christ?

How did David fulfill that verse, since, as you say, it is not about the true Messiah of Israel, Jesus Christ?

The answer is, "he did NOT fulfill that verse. Not even a little bit."
You see, it's not a prophecy that it has to be fulfilled.
But it does refer to King David.

But trying to change the meaning of the words won't impress anybody but you.
The verse is already dealt with above. I repost "Shalom's" words:

16:9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth; my flesh also dwelleth in safety;

[David describes both his emotional and physical security.]

16:10 For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to the nether-world; neither wilt Thou suffer Thy -g-dly one to see the pit.

Key words (underlined above):

Nether-world: Hebrew = Sheol.
Thy g-dly one: Hebrew = Chasid (same root word used for the Hassidic Jews; the men in black. It means righteous, g-dly. It does not mean Holy. Holy in Hebrew is Kadosh - a totally different word.
pit: Hebrew word = Shachat. It means a hole - a pit to capture animals etc.

To me it is very simple. Verse 10 is a confirmation, a justification if you will of verse 9. I read the same trust expressed in Psalm 139. [/i]

Here is that verse in the Concordant Literal Old Testament which I use.

There's your problem, right there: you're trusting a faulty translation.
The Hebrew doesn't say that at all. It is better expressed in the English as it has been given to you by Rashi.

Historical evidence shows that the Jews in Jesus' day saw this verse as a fulfillment of what Jesus did in rising from the dead.

False. There is no historical evidence jesus ever lived, and so there's no historical evidence that the Jews saw this verse as applying to him.
But even if it did, he would be excluded because he offered a drink offering of blood that he wanted his disciples to drink, which the subject of the psalm was not to do, as seen in that earlier verse.
You see, if verse 10 applies to the christ, then so does verse 4.
This is because of the principle of "context."

God did not leave him to see corruption in the tomb. David did see corruption.

Since the psalm doesn't mention corruption, this is exactly the rabbit hole you keep seeing, though your myopia leads you to think it's in my posts rather than in your own, where it really is.

Whether you believe this historical document or not, they were all witnesses to His being raised from the dead. Poopoo it all you want. Witnesses are witnesses.

Oh, hardy, har har! It has less to do with whether I think it's historical or not than it does that it's not historically accurate.

Once again, I can't help thinking nojc4me is making more sense...

...I swear, one of these days I'll just go out and translate the Bible myself just for the sake of seeing what it really says.

Then you are just as ignorant as he.

For instance, let's look at some of the ignorant things he wrote in his last post:

Tony wrote:
Here is that verse in the Concordant Literal Old Testament which I use.

njc's ignorant reply:
There's your problem, right there: you're trusting a faulty translation.
The Hebrew doesn't say that at all. It is better expressed in the English as it has been given to you by Rashi.

Tony's reply:
Do you really think that makes more sense than what I wrote? If is does to you then you need to take some courses on logic.
For instance, it proves nothing to say I am "trusting a faulty translation." Furthermore, of course the Hebrew does not say that! It says it in Hebrew. Hebrew is not English!
It also proves nothing for him to say "It is better expressed in the English as it has been given to you by Rashi." He would have made as good a case logically to have said "has been given to you by Flippo the Clown." It proves nothing, Deep Thought, to say crap like that. That is using several fallacies in that one sentence by him i.e. the fallacy of appealing to the human and the fallacy of appealing to authority. IT PROVES NOTHING on his part. Yet you are swayed by such ignorant tactics by njc? How about I sell some property to you I have on the moon?



Tony wrote:
Historical evidence shows that the Jews in Jesus' day saw this verse as a fulfillment of what Jesus did in rising from the dead.

njc's reply:
False. There is no historical evidence jesus ever lived, and so there's no historical evidence that the Jews saw this verse as applying to him.
But even if it did, he would be excluded because he offered a drink offering of blood that he wanted his disciples to drink, which the subject of the psalm was not to do, as seen in that earlier verse.
You see, if verse 10 applies to the christ, then so does verse 4.
This is because of the principle of "context."

Tony's reply:
Are you really swayed by njc Deep Thought? Of course there is historical evidence Jesus lived.
"Tactius gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate. Tactius also wrote about the burning of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Christians are mentioned as a group that were connected with these events. "All we can gather from this reference is that Tactius was also aware of the existence of Christians other than in the context of their presence in Rome," states Habermas. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian, wrote, "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the City." Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ. Suetonius refers to a wave of riots that broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 A.D. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city."

"Before Tacitus, Suetonius or Josephus, Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in Thallus' work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D. Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. He wrote that such a phenomenon was caused by an eclipse. Though Christ was not proclaimed a deity until the fourth century, Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator who served as the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote in 112 A.D., two hundred years before the "deity" proclamation, that Christians in Bithynia worshipped Christ."

"The Talmud, which consists of Jewish traditions handed down orally from generation to generation, was organized by Rabbi Akiba before his death in 135 A.D. The writings in the Talmud embrace the legal, ritual and exegetical commentaries that have developed right down to contemporary times. In Sanhedrin 43a, reference to Jesus is found. "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."If Jesus had been stoned, his death would have been at the hands of the Jews. The fact he was crucified shows that the Romans intervened. The Talmud also speaks of five of Jesus' disciples and recounts their standing before judges who made individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. No deaths are recorded."

"Other Talmud references to Jesus indicated that Jesus was "treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty." These Talmud accounts were written long before the New Testament was assembled. They provide clear evidence that Jesus did live. The Talmud does not embrace Christ as a deity and would have no reason to sanction his existence. The Talmud also states that Jesus was 33 or 34 years old when he died. The risen Christ is the foundation of Christianity. But Christ would have to have lived and died before His resurrection could become an historical factor."



Tony's reply:
God did not leave him to see corruption in the tomb. David did see corruption.

njc's reply:
Since the psalm doesn't mention corruption, this is exactly the rabbit hole you keep seeing, though your myopia leads you to think it's in my posts rather than in your own, where it really is.

Tony's reply:
He Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew word in question into the Greek word  "diaphthoran" which does indeed mean "corruption" in Greek. Now I'd venture to say that those Hebrew speaking Jews knew Hebrew and Greek much better than modern day Hebrew and Greek people do. Are you still swayed by njc's ignorance, Deep thought? Please say you aren't. I'm beginning to doubt you are a deep thinker.

Tony wrote:
Whether you believe this historical document or not, they were all witnesses to His being raised from the dead. Poopoo it all you want. Witnesses are witnesses.

njc's reply:
Oh, hardy, har har! It has less to do with whether I think it's historical or not than it does that it's not historically accurate.

Tony's reply:
Notice Deep Thought that njc proves nothing by what he has just said. He would have been just as far ahead to have said that cows might fly over the moon. It proves nothing to say it. What proves something is actual proof. njc has provided no actual proof. Yet you are swayed by his illogic? It is both historical and historically accurate.

Deep Thought,

You should remember that your calling to Christ comes through faith, and not through theological proof. When I accepted Christ as my Savior at the age of 17, no one provided me with proof whether Christ was the Messiah. No one sat down in front of me with a pile of books, trying to prove or disprove that Jesus is the only Jewish Messiah.

I remember, I had failed the 11th grade and was on my way to be a street thug with a Muslim gang in Kuwait. I would have ended up being an Anti-American or Anti-Jewish bomber or something. Nevertheless, Christ saved me and I