The Psalms are the word of Christ

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I certainly agree that I'm not smart enough to figure how Jesus in the NT says love your enemies, and says in Psalms 18:37 "I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed."
And how Jesus in the NT says suffer the children to come unto me, and Jesus says in Psalms, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

I think what you're missing here, what you call cognitive dissonance, is that these seemingly contradictory characteristics of God's divine nature cannot be reconciled by us. Cognitive dissonance is a shortcoming of man's mind. I admit, there are things in the Bible that I do not (CANNOT) understand; there are things that seem horrible to me (Psalm 137:9), but I realize that my problem with them is precisely that, my problem. It isn't God's lack, His not constructing things well enough or whatever. His wisdom is more profound that what we have to work with.

Of course you're smart enough to recognize the seeming disparity in the verses you've quoted. Most people are. People who want to dismiss God's word use such verses to do so because of such seeming disparity.
As Christians, however, we need take those parts of the Word that are difficult in faith. That's not the same as ignoring them. That's just recognizing that God is not contradictory no matter how it seems.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I think what you're missing here, what you call cognitive dissonance, is that these seemingly contradictory characteristics of God's divine nature cannot be reconciled by us. Cognitive dissonance is a shortcoming of man's mind. I admit, there are things in the Bible that I do not (CANNOT) understand; there are things that seem horrible to me (Psalm 137:9), but I realize that my problem with them is precisely that, my problem. It isn't God's lack, His not constructing things well enough or whatever. His wisdom is more profound that what we have to work with.

Of course you're smart enough to recognize the seeming disparity in the verses you've quoted. Most people are. People who want to dismiss God's word use such verses to do so because of such seeming disparity.
As Christians, however, we need take those parts of the Word that are difficult in faith. That's not the same as ignoring them. That's just recognizing that God is not contradictory no matter how it seems.

Or maybe our premise that, The Psalms are the word of Jesus, is wrong. There's always that possibility, that the Psalms are just songs ; a sort of Jewish hymnal.

And faith can sometimes just be a way to live in denial. Not saying that's what you're doing. I can't know such things.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or maybe our premise that, The Psalms are the word of Jesus, is wrong. There's always that possibility, that the Psalms are just songs ; a sort of Jewish hymnal.

And faith can sometimes just be a way to live in denial. Not saying that's what you're doing. I can't know such things.

I count 55 passages from the Psalms that are quoted in the New Testament, and many of these passages are quoted in multiple places. Every gospel quotes them, Acts quotes it, Paul quotes them in multiple epistles, Hebrews quotes them, and Peter and John quote them. I don't think the fact that Awareness has trouble with one verse in one Psalm is much basis to come to the conclusion that these Psalms are not revelation of Jesus.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or maybe our premise that, The Psalms are the word of Jesus, is wrong. There's always that possibility, that the Psalms are just songs ; a sort of Jewish hymnal.

And faith can sometimes just be a way to live in denial. Not saying that's what you're doing. I can't know such things.

Right, cuz if they were the words of Jesus, wouldn't they be red?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, cuz if they were the words of Jesus, wouldn't they be red?

You're right. The Psalms is not a red letter book.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

You're right. The Psalms is not a red letter book.

Not to drag the issue too far afield, but the whole "red letter" idea runs into problems elsewhere, as well. In the book of Revelation, Christ speaks (red letter) to John through the angel, but at some point the speaking is no longer Christ but the angel: "Don't worship me; I am your fellow servant". This is after the angel says, "I Jesus have sent my angel to tell you this & that". See e.g Revelation 19:9,10, and 22:6-20. The speaking is clearly "God", but the speaker is merely a messenger.

And in the Psalms the problem is so knotty as to be insurmountable, I think. We have clear "words of Christ" - "My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?" You have God speaking to the psalmist about Christ; You have the psalmist marveling to God about His Christ; you have etc, etc.

So by giving this thread the title "The Psalms are the word of Christ" I didn't mean to imply that in a red letter Bible the whole book would be in red. Just that the book seems to have a lot more "words of Christ" than WL told us. The master allegorizer WL simply folded up his tent and quit when he hit the Psalms. "Move along, folks; nothing to see here". And thousands of LC sheep moved along, cuz WL said so. Red letters, indeed.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, cuz if they were the words of Jesus, wouldn't they be red?

Silly rabbit, they are red when Jesus quotes them in the Gospels.

[awareness]

Good responses bro Aron ... thanks ...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Silly rabbit, they are red when Jesus quotes them in the Gospels.

Here's a list. Are there more?

1. Ps 8.2 > Mt 21.16
2. Ps 110.1 > Mt 22.44
3. Ps 118.26 > Mt 23.39
4. Ps 82.6 > John 10.34
5. Ps 41.9 > John 13.18
6. Ps 35.19, 69.4 > John 15.25

Silly Psalmsist. He should have known to get his red ink out ...

But isn't this thread considering all of Psalms are red letter?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Here's a list. Are there more?

1. Ps 8.2 > Mt 21.16
2. Ps 110.1 > Mt 22.44
3. Ps 118.26 > Mt 23.39
4. Ps 82.6 > John 10.34
5. Ps 41.9 > John 13.18
6. Ps 35.19, 69.4 > John 15.25

There are so many more.

Nearly the whole of Psalm 22 could have been written by Jesus on the cross, but I'm sure the naysayer will nitpick a verse like v.6, "But I am a worm, and no man," to "prove" it is not the red-letter "words of Jesus."

John 19.28 says, "I thirst," but Psalm 22.15 goes even further to say, "My tongue clings to my jaw." Here the Lord expresses some of the agony He endured, which could never have been known even by eye-witnesses recorded in the Gospels.

Some of Psalms were quoted in the Gospels as indisputable and undeniable proof of divine authorship. For example, John 20.36 declares "not one of His bone shall be broken," to fulfill the prophecy in Psalms 34.20. Considering the ordeal Jesus passed through before and during His crucifixion, this was an impossible feat.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There are so many more.

Nearly the whole of Psalm 22 could have been written by Jesus on the cross, but I'm sure the naysayer will nitpick a verse like v.6, "But I am a worm, and no man," to "prove" it is not the red-letter "words of Jesus."

John 19.28 says, "I thirst," but Psalm 22.15 goes even further to say, "My tongue clings to my jaw." Here the Lord expresses some of the agony He endured, which could never have been known even by eye-witnesses recorded in the Gospels.

Some of Psalms were quoted in the Gospels as indisputable and undeniable proof of divine authorship. For example, John 20.36 declares "not one of His bone shall be broken," to fulfill the prophecy in Psalms 34.20. Considering the ordeal Jesus passed through before and during His crucifixion, this was an impossible feat.

Hey bro Ohio ... so does that make all the words in Psalms red letter?

Are we starting out with the premise that all the Psalms are word of Jesus?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some of Psalms were quoted in the Gospels as indisputable and undeniable proof of divine authorship. For example, John 20.36 declares "not one of His bone shall be broken," to fulfill the prophecy in Psalms 34.20. Considering the ordeal Jesus passed through before and during His crucifixion, this was an impossible feat.

I found Psalm 34, and WL's take on it, to be indicative of his approach. He acknowledged the useage of Psalm 34:20 in John chapter 20, and thus its "divine revelation" of the coming Christ. But he panned the rest of chapter 34 as natural. Why? Because, he says, David used guile to save himself from Abimilech, so God clearly didn't save him, as the Psalm proclaims.

Now, WL can argue this, and get a bunch of people to agree with him, but that doesn't mean this is so. In fact, I find it borderline schizophrenic (the argument, if not the arguee) to pluck one verse out of context and say, "divinely revelatory", while simultaneously discarding the all rest as "natural."

Look at 1 Samuel 17:37, where David tells Saul, regarding Goliath: "The LORD who rescued me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will rescue me from the hand of this Philistine." Now, how does the "armchair warrior" WL tell David whether or not God can and does save him, and from whom? By using his own fallen human logic?

I veer toward the opposite tack (probably nearly as indefensible as WL, I know). If the disciples looked in the text of Psalm 34 and saw "revelation", and nowhere do they say "Only this one verse, and none other", then we should eagerly examine the ENTIRE text for revelation. If John could find revelation, why not I? Don't I have the same Spirit? If the author of Hebrews could hold up the OT and say, "We see Jesus" (2:9), what is stopping me from also receiving revelation of Christ as I consider the rest of the text? If Peter could use his logic and say in Acts chapter 2 that Psalm 16:9-11 could not apply to David (whose flesh did see corruption, after all), but rather Jesus the Nazarene, then why can't the rest of us use our logic and see Jesus Christ in other parts of Psalm 16, and elsewhere?

Now, does my interpretation, whether it be divinely inspired or logically derived, mean the text is "red letter"? Of course not. But it it fun? You betcha. You get to "Enjoy Christ" in spades. And "out of the local church life", even.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Here's a list. Are there more?

1. Ps 8.2 > Mt 21.16
2. Ps 110.1 > Mt 22.44
3. Ps 118.26 > Mt 23.39
4. Ps 82.6 > John 10.34
5. Ps 41.9 > John 13.18
6. Ps 35.19, 69.4 > John 15.25

Silly Palmist. He should have known to get his red ink out ...

But isn't this thread considering all of Psalms are red letter?

What is a Palmist?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What is a Palmist?

A typo silly ... I'll edit that ... thanks ...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Here's a list. Are there more?


1. Ps 8.2 > Mt 21.16
2. Ps 110.1 > Mt 22.44
3. Ps 118.26 > Mt 23.39
4. Ps 82.6 > John 10.34
5. Ps 41.9 > John 13.18
6. Ps 35.19, 69.4 > John 15.25

Silly Psalmsist. He should have known to get his red ink out ...

But isn't this thread considering all of Psalms are red letter?

Here is my list

Matt 4:6 -- Psa 91:11-12
Matt 5:5 -- Psa 37:11
Matt 7:23 -- Psa 6:8
Matt 13:35 -- Psa 78:2
Matt 21:9 -- Psa 118:26
Matt 21:16 -- Psa 8:2
Matt 21:42 Psa 118:22-23
Matt 22:44 110:1
Matt 23:38 69:25
Matt 23:39 118:26
Matt 25:41 6:8
Matt 26:24 22:1-31
Matt 26:60 35:11
Matt 27:35 22:18
Matt 27:43 22:7-9
Matt 27:46 22:1

(Mark quotes and refers to the same psalms so I'll ignore that)

Luke
1:32 132:11
4:10-11 91:11-12
23:46 31:5

(I tried to skip those that were similar to quotes in Matthew)

John
2:17 69:9
6:31 78:24
7:42 89:4
7:42 132:11
9:31 82:6
10:34 82:6
12:34 89:30, 89:37
12:34 110:4
13:18 41:9
15:25 69:4
15:25 109:3
15:25 35:19
17:12 41:10
17:12 109:8,17
19:24 22:19
19:28 69:21
19:36 34:20
20:9 16:10
20:17 22:22

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Silly Psalmist. He should have known to get his red ink out ...

But isn't this thread considering all of Psalms are red letter?

Not really. Rather, it is that Psalms, like the rest of scripture, reveals God/Christ in the midst of the fractured life after man's fall.

The whole of each passage reveals something about God. Surely the red-letter parts reveal God because he said them directly. But so do the rest. The words may include statements about other things, including evil, the heathen, etc., but when placed in its context, the whole reveals God.

Surely Satan's rebellion does not reveal God. But His response to it does. And his response is context-less without the story of the rebellion.

Funny. It's a little like my rants about ignoring grace, mercy, love, righteousness, etc., and just saying "it is just Christ." Saying Christ is righteousness without some evidence of actual righteousness makes the statement pointless. Saying Christ is grace without evidence of receiving some actual grace makes the statement pointless.

Saying Christ will take care of the widow and orphan without his hands and feet (us) actually doing it makes the statement hollow. And it makes the claim of care into a lie. I would rather not be among those who make the word of God into a lie.