Why couldn't a woman be the messiah? Perhaps one should consider the life of Pope Joan. Someone that the catholics deny, and yet she is found in their histories.

"Pope Joan (a.k.a. Pope John VIII):

Born in Mainz, proclaimed Pope in A.D. 855, stoned to death by cardinals in A.D. 858 (after giving birth on the way to the altar), and declared mythical by Pope Clement VIII in 1601, Pope Joan was a (none-too-feminine) woman who passed herself off as a monk and successfully invaded the patriarchal sanctum sanctorum of the Holy See. Although Catholic scholars now deny that there was ever a female Pope, even the Church accepted Joan’s pontificate as historical fact, up to the beginning of the 17th Century. Her portrait appeared in a row of papal busts in Siena Cathedral, labeled “Johannes VIII, femina ex Anglia” (“John VIII, an English woman”). Pope Joan was first mentioned by her contemporary, Anastasius the Librarian (died 886). Scotus’ Chronicle of the Popes listed her thus: “A.D. 854, Lotharii 14, Joanna, a woman, succeeded Leo, and reigned two years, five months, and four days.”

Pope Joan’s existence is given perhaps its most persuasive corroboration by Platina, a serious historian, secretary to a reigning Pope, and librarian to the Vatican, who felt bound to include Pope Joan in the Canon of the Popes. Presumably, the force of tradition, from many sources and for many years, must have dictated this distasteful inclusion into the Church records. De Gemblours’ chronicle stated “It is reported that this John was a female, and that she conceived by one of her servants. The Pope, becoming pregnant, gave birth to a child, wherefor some do not number her among the Pontiffs.” Thomas de Elmham’s official list of the Popes said: “A.D. 855, Joannes. This one doesn’t count; she was a woman.” It seems Pope Joan’s deception was revealed when her labor pains came upon her, and she died in a street between the Lateran and St. Clement’s Church. The cardinals must have become suspicious when they saw their Pope giving birth in the course of some religious procession, and so they dragged her in the street and stoned her to death, finally burying her in an unmarked grave. Martin Polonus related that the street was ever afterward avoided by Papal processions. Joan (or John) was the only Pope ever stricken from papal records, although her pontificate was better documented than many others, especially the Popes before the 4th or 5th Centuries, many of whom had no contemporary documentation at all but were merely names inserted into later chronicles to create an illusion of unbroken succession. The official story is that there was an “Antipope” named John, enthroned by popular demand against the will of the clergy, and soon overthrown. In 1886, Emmanuel Royidis published Joan’s biography, Papissa Joanna, which was immediately banned, and its author excommunicated. Although the historicity of the female Pope is vehemently denied by the Catholic Church today, nevertheless a curious custom has arisen in the wake of the Pope Joan legend. It seems that candidates for the papacy had to seat themselves naked on a bottomless stool, to be viewed by cardinals in the room below. Before a candidate might be declared Pope, this gynecological inspection committee had to cry out its official announcement: “Testiculos habet et bene pendentes!” (“He has testicles, and they dangle nicely!”) This requirement for testicles in a man of God seems to run strangely contrary to ascetic Christian dogma, for castration was a common practice in the early days of the Church, and eunuchs abounded not only in the soprano choirs, but in the priesthood as well. There is even reason to suspect that the architect of Christianity himself — Saint Paul of Tarsus — had castrated himself and would under this initiation custom fail to qualify as a Pope."


You will note that Paul of Tarsus is credited here with being the architect of christianity.

NIGHTSHADES POSTS # 577


Nightshades,

Please consider this:

"Astonishing and wonderful things have been done in the land. the prophets prophesied falsehood. and the priests clapped their hands and the people loved such things.
From the prophets of Jerusalem corruption is gone forth into all the land; they see a vain vision of their own heart, and speak a lying divination not out of the mouth of the Lord, they prophecy lies in my name, and cause My people to err and through their dreams they make My people forget My name, as their fathers forgot My name before Baal." Jeremias 5:13; 23; Ezek. 13; 3 Kings 18.

Yes, surely when Christ spoke these words of warning of St.Matthew 7, He must have been referring to the self appointed prophets who opposed and persecuted the Divinely inspired seers from whose lips had gone forth these stern admonistions and rebukes like those of Jeremias and Ezekiel.

More directly, Christ was preparing His disciples for that later warning of His, "Heed ye, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocricy." What was He saying? Beware of the false doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees which distorts the law and the prophets, diverts the minds of the people of God from the real spirit of the law of Moses and poisons their hearts against the Christ as He (not She) was indeed foretold and portrayed by the prophets (which btw, KFC has explained so very well).

Even during His public ministry, Jesus warned against those whom He Himself called hypocrites who were going about the land making their converts children of Hell. Jesus wanted to warn us today in the Christian centuries about the men and women who would fall under the spirit of the world, the flesh and the devil, and make it their business to take as many souls down with them robbing them of spiritual joy, peace and grace St.Matt.5.

You have come to the wrong conclusion about the greatest Jewish convert of them all, Saul (Shaul)of Tarsus, now Saint Paul.

Yes, it's true, at first as a zealous Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus wanted with all his might to destroy the Apostles. During his rabbinical studies in Jerusalem, probably shortly after the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we find he's a committed persecutor of Christians and the initiator of the spread of that persecution to the Jewish quarter of Damascus. The Book of Acts 7 bears this out.

I shall be glad to discuss this further with you only if you read and study carefully the Book of Acts starting with chapter 6 through 9:31 which explains Saul of Tarsus conversion Phil.3:12, which the Apostles themselves describe as radically changing his life. 1Tim.1:13. It was caused by his being directly called by Jesus. St.Paul was always convinced that this calling came directly from God, oh mystery of mysteries.

Please read to understand how St. Stephen's death figures in with Jesus calling St.Paul and you will have a clue how you have come to the wrong conclusion about St. Paul.

Now for the kicker question Ladies, if you truly believe in the words of Paul of Tarsus, tell me, why aren't you also following his admonishments about "women being silent"? You certainly are setting a good example of "women teaching the gospel" aren't you?

I've read the book of Acts concerning Paul of Tarsus. That's how I know that how he interprets the words of Jesus are a twisting of the truth of them. It's you who need to read the words of Jesus and compare them to the words of Paul and how he interprets them. I've given you several examples and you refuse to discuss them Lula, why?

A radical shift in the way that one attacks the word of Jesus is not indicative of a "change of heart". Jesus talked of the fruit of "good" trees and the fruit of "bad" trees. Why do you not heed to his words? Isn't it "he" (Jesus) that christians profess to follow?

NIGHTSHADES POSTS #627

Ahhh, another particularly nasty version of the fable of Pope Joan! My oh, my you are misguided.

It's 2008 and you can be sure that the chronological dates of each one the 265 pontificates since St.Peter have been well documented in secular history. If you don't believe me, get a copy of the Time or World Almanac and see for yourself. You'll not find "Pope Joan" listed.

This fable has been universally rejected as unhistorical and for good reason. Their is sound evidence of her never having existed. Chronology settles the question for the 2 dates assigned to her supposed pontificate are impossible. Pope Leo IV died July 17, 855 and was immediately succeeded by Pope Benedict III (855-858). We have coins with the images of Pope Benedict and the Emperor Lothair. The other date, 1100, is out of the question as Pope Paschal II reigned from 1099 to 1118.

So, sorry about that Nightshades, no...there never was and never will be a valid woman priest or Pope....why? Becasue that's the way Christ wants His Church.

Here's the ball back to you. Please go back a couple of hundred posts and re-read the actual biblical quotes and what that means in our practical lives.

You'll find that Christian women are not to teach in a place of public worship, for me that would be in the Church.



Okay.. how does St. Stephen's death figure in with Jesus calling St.Paul?

LEAUKI POSTS:

lEAUKI,

I'm not going to belabor this point any longer than to say that what KFC pointed out not only leads one to understand the OT prophets not only pointed to the Messias being a man, but also that Jesus Christ was indeed the fulfillment of the prophecy.


For example, the larger point about Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey is that it fulfills Zacharias prophecy to a "T". Fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy is no small deal at least to us Christians!


On this point, forget refuting KFC's statements, you can't, for they are unassailable.

What you need to do is give your support for making the dogmatic assertion that Jews don't believe the Messiah will be a man and could very well be a woman.

I am very much aware that the church denies Pope Joans existance. The church is in the nasty habit of denying much that it doesn't want to deal with, and they will do what ever is necessary to cover up those things that they wish to deny, just as christians deny that which they also wish to deny. They also denied "child molestation charges by the clergy" as well. But they have agreed to pay off the victims. One doesn't agree to such things that they are not guilty of. They preach the "poverty" of Jesus, and yet the vatican holds priceless art work, amongst other treasures as well. Trasures that could be sold to aid the poor and starving amongst their congregations, and yet they still "pass the plate" and have "alms boxes. The excuse they give.....They are "holding them in trust for mankind and for posterity" whatever that means. According to the church there will be an ending of the world, so where is this "posterity"?

Where is your proof that Jesus "wanted his church" to be this way, other than the word of Paul of Tarsus that is? Quote me something that Jesus himself said that leads you to this conclusion.

I've already given you the OT texts showing you it was predicted. What's not literal about it? Doctors have verified over the years that the description put forth in Psalm 22 is definitely speaking of a crucifixion...forget about the "piercing of hands and feet" written a thousand years or so before the actual event. I can actually give you a doctor's assessment of this passage if you'd like. The fact is, this prediction was made way before any even heard of crucifixion which was thought up by the Persians and perfected by the Romans centuries later. Remember back during the writings of the Psalms stoning was the perferred way of death.



well you can explain them away if you wish....that's what you're doing but everything written in the OT and the examples we have of all those Christ-like types were men. The Messiah according to OT scripture was to be a man. A King. It was first mentioned to Eve in Gen 3:15 and from thereonin a male was to be expected. I'm not so sure where this whole female idea came into play but it's not biblical.

The Messiah was to be a King...not a queen. The whole female argument is ridiculous. But then Satan was always into goddesses and queens is he not?

Read Psalm 2......"I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill."
"Kiss the Son lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way."

Psalm 2 is the first of the major Messianic psalms. It foreshadows Christ's victory in the final battle of Armageddon. Other Psalms speak of the male Messiah to come, 21,22,45,50,69,72,97,98,110.



not like this. Did you not read the passage I put forth about the clothing being put on the ground as the Messiah came into Jerusalem? It was a celebration of a King. Besides most could not afford animals like this.

A donkey was the animal that kings rode upon when they were at peace. It was a royal animal. In judges 10:3-4 we see a judge who had 30 sons and he got all of them donkeys to ride upon. Tody it would be like having a Jaguar sports car. The whole thought in Zechariah's prophecy (Chap 9) was that in spite of the fact that the coming Messiah would be riding in as a KIng He would still be meek and lowly.

Does everyone who rides into Jerusalem on a donkey fulfill the prophecy? Because there must have been thousands who did that!




Dogmatic assertions are the Christian method.

I just told you that Jews don't believe that the Messiah is necessarily a man and that the Hebrew Bible does not make it clear that the Messiah would be a man.

The donkey "argument" is laughable, it's like claiming that driving a car into Los Angeles is something special.

You think Psalm 22 was written a thousand years before Christ?

Why is it Lula that you ignored the subject of Bruno Giordano, executed for heresy by the church and then later the church erects a statue in his memory on the same spot that they executed him on? Shall I bring up other contradictions of the church as well? What about St. Joan, or Joan of Arc? Burned at the stake for heresy by the church and later declared a saint by the same church. Then there poor Jean Francois LaBarre, du Chevalier, convicted of heresy, because he "failed to remove his hat during a church procession through the streets" in Abbeville, tortured by having his legs crushed, then being beheaded, and burned at the stake with a copy of Voltaires Philosophy thrown on the fire for good measure, by the church. The churches history is bloody indeed, far bloodier than that of the muslims or the hebrews. Look to your own sins. And look to them honestly.

that's what I thought. See Leauki, you keep referring to all my scriptures I've given regarding the flood of the univese and substituting "land" for earth according to the Hebrew. I know you want this to be a local flood but even a first grade student reading this would see it's not local but universal. Context is very important. When the translators all thru the centuries looked at the Hebrew and translated into other languages they chose the right word according to the context of the passage. Earth fits. God didn't create the heavens and the land in Gen 1:1. He created the earth which is the best description according to the text.

I see the same in the Greek. There are many words that can be used to fit but one must look at the context carefully to choose the right word. This past week I was studying the Greek in Philippians 2. There are different words for "form"

For instance:

"Who, being in the FORM of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God." v6
"But made himself of no reputation and took upon him the FORM of a servant and was made in the likeness of men." v7

In our English we just see the word "form" but in the Greek the first "form" is "morphe" and means unchanging, very essence. The second "form" is "schema" and where we get our word "scheme" from. This is a form that changes.

A "form" of a man changes from a baby, to a boy to a man and is called schema. But our very essence, our spirit does not change and is called "morphe."

It's the same in the Hebrew. Land and earth. You see land in the Hebrew but when it was translated it was translated earth because it fit the context of the passage. There are many passages in our English OT translation that uses the word "land" because it fits. But it does not fit during the time of the flood because it wasn't just a local spot of land that was flooded. It's quite obvious by the quick reading of the text it's much more than that.

well many of the Psalms were written by David including this one. If you go to the story of David's life written in 1 and 2 Samuel you'd see that was written in about 930 BC. So it's pretty close. So approxomately yes.

Lula posts: #


Leauki posts: #576



First, would you agree that it is certainly within Almighty God's power to have caused a global flood to occur?

I'll admit that in spite of an overwhelming field evidence in evidence of a global, cataclysmic Flood, the extent of it is still very controversial.

I get the entire world was flooded by reading Scripture. The dimensions of the Flood are graphicalled recalled in Gen. 7:19-23, an account provided to the writer by God Who was the only global Eyewitness.

From the Douay Rheims Version which I believe is the most accurate of all translations Genesis 7: 19-24,

"19 And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth; and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The water was 15 cubits higher than the mountains which it covered. 21 And all flesh was destroyed that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beasts, and of all creeping things that creep upon the earth and all men. 22 And all things wherein there is the breath of life on the earth, died. 23 And he destroyed all the substance that was upon the earth, from man even to beast, and the creeping things and the fowl of the air; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noe only remained, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 and the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days."

Genesis 7:6 has it, "And he (Noe) was 600 years old when the waters of the flood overflowed the earth."

It's thought to be most likely that when the Flood occurred, vast quantities of underground water burst upwards which would explain that the whole earth was covered by water. We know from scientific discovery that many of the trees and other vegation were uprooted by a combination of volcanic activity and the action of flood waters and deposited in other areas of the earth. We know becasue of the fossils of them that have been found. They were subjected to rapid burial by sediment arising from rapid erosion of the earth's outer crust by immense forces of water bursting up from underground.

In the process huge numbers of fish, birds, and animals were engulfed. Fossil beds were laid down and coal and oil deposits were formed.

We have the folklore of many different cultures around the earth of the Great Flood and this points to 2 things....it wasn't a local event and it wasn't a myth. Evidently anthropologists have collected 59 Flood legends from the aborigines of North America 46 from Central and South America, 31 from Europe, 17 from the Middle East, 23 from Asia, and 37 from the South Seas Islands and Australia. All accounts hold 3 of the same features: a world wide flood killing man and animals, a vessel of safety was provided, and only a small number of people survived. Pretty interesting, huh?

From the "flood" you must be joking. Apparently scientists disagree on you with this one. Many of them state is was a mass destruction due to an asteroid striking the earth. There is no evidence of a "flood" at that time in the fossil records.

Ok, so I had a look at it.

Psalm 22:16.

I cannot find "piercing".

The word after "surround me" and before "my hands and my feet" is, transliterated as it stands, "K'RY" (Kaf Aleph Resh Yud). To me it reads like "k'ari" which means "like a lion". I looked up "pierce" in the dictionary and could not see any word for it that would match K'RY.

Dogs (klavim) are mentioned earlier in the text.

Yes, I have found lots of Web sites that explain that it can be read as "pierce" if the vowels were different and I can see that it is translated as "pierce" in Christian translations.

But that doesn't make sense, as it isn't obvious how K'RY could be a conjugated verb form unless it is first person Singular like the other two verbs in the sentence (that also end on Yud). (Either way, there is no "they".)

Perhaps it means "wounded". I looked that up but that also lead nowhere. If it did mean "wounded", I could see how that would derive from "lion".

So I searched Google for a Jewish translation and found:

"For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet."

The "encompassed me" and "inclosed me" are the two verbs ending on Yud. "Like a lion" is the K'RY which also ends on a Yud. "They are at" is not in the Hebrew text because Hebrew doesn't have a present tense for conjugated forms of "to be".

So unless your doctor can give me a paper that confirms that a lion is a crucifix, that sentence says nothing about a crucifixion.

I don't know. He gave up a lot of His power when He gave this world to us. But we can work with the assumption that He has such power.




I would assume that if G-d had flooded the entire earth AND told us about it in a book given to a prophet, He would have made it clear and not chosen a word for "earth" that usually means "land".




I don't. But I did notice that KFC's translation (and presumably others) use the word "earth" for "eretz" and "adama", as if they were the same, even though neigher means what "earth" means in English.

Don't you think that that is relevant?



Actually, no. I would be surprised if only one or two peoples had a legend of a flood, given how common floods are.

Incidentally, not all flood myths speak of a world-wide flood and most myths actually come from that particular region and would (obviously) be about the same flood, even if it was local.

The "whole world" back then was really Mesopotamia.

Do Australians have a flood myth?

"When Pope Joan was first declared mythical almost 750 years after her assassination, the list of the Popes needed to be subjected to a bit of creative book-keeping in order to erase this blot on the record of the Papacy. Although I make no claim to being an expert on the history of the medieval Church, here is one way in which Pope Joan might have been made to disappear from the List of the Popes: It may have been that, until 1601, Pope “Joan” was listed on the official list of the Popes as the 105th Pope, “Pope John VIII” (reigning 855-858). When, in 1601, Pope Clement VIII declared the female Pope a mere myth, the entry for “John VIII” was erased and the name of a fictitious Pope, “Benedict III” (reigning those same years, 855-858) was entered in place of the name which had been expunged. The problem with this was that the count of Popes named “John” was now off by one. The 86th Pope (reigning 705-707) was called “Pope John VII”, and the next Pope to call himself John after Pope Joan (who called herself Pope John VIII, the 105th Pope) was the 108th Pope who was entered in the List of the Popes as “Pope John IX”. In order to make Pope Joan disappear from the record, the entry for “Pope John IX” had to be changed to “Pope John VIII” (so that the name assumed by the female Pope would not be listed in a position which would jibe chronologically with the alleged years of her reign). Similarly, all of the other Popes named “John” that came after the female Pope would have to have their numbers reduced by one to fill the gap left by the female Pope who had been erased from the record. It must have irked some conscientious record-keeper of the Church to have the true count of the “Johns” off like that, for, after the 145th Pope, “John XIX” (who reigned 1024-1032) there was a lengthy hiatus in which no further Johns appeared until, inexplicably, the next John to appear was the 186th Pope, who was called “John XXI” (reigning 1276-1277). In other words, after “John the Nineteenth” came “John the Twenty-first” — there was no “John the Twentieth” ! By conveniently leaving a twentieth John out of the count, this clever bit of bookkeeping sleight-of-hand brought the count of Johns back into correspondence with reality, so that from Pope John XXI onwards, the number following the name really does accurately indicate the number of other papal predecessors which had been given that name before. Again, I do not claim to know with any certainty that this is how “Pope Joan” was removed from the List of the Popes, but this hypothesis seems at least plausible, and goes far in explaining why there is no “Pope John XX” in the meticulous List of the Popes, albeit there is a John XXI, a John XXII , and two Johns XXIII (one of them a former pirate and Pisan Antipope.)

Finally, before we leave the topic of the fabricated and edited history of the papacy, it must be pointed out that any “Pope” before circa A.D. 51 (most notably, Saint Peter) is fraudulent, since this was the year that Saint Paul is believed to have written the first book of the New Testament of the Bible, and in so doing, invented Christianity! As Barbara Walker put it in her highly-recommended compendium, The Women’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, “ The myth of Saint Peter was the slender thread from which hung the whole weighty structure of the Roman papacy. One solitary passage in the Gospel of Matthew said Jesus made a pun by giving Simon son of Jonah the new name of Peter, “Rock” (Latin petra), saying he would found his church on this rock (Matthew 16:18-19). Unfortunately for papal credibility, the so-called Petrine passage was a forgery. It was deliberately inserted into the scripture about the 3rd Century A.D. as a political ploy, to uphold the primacy of the Roman see against rival churches in the east. Various Christian bishoprics were engaged in a power struggle in which the chief weapons were bribery, forgery, and intrigue, with elaborate fictions and hoaxes written into sacred books, and ruthless competition between rival parties for the lucrative position of God’s elite.”

page 22, KFC POSTS: # 531



AMEN!

Leauki posts #634


KFC POSTS:

Exactly! Only for Kings did people lay their garments on the ground for the king to pass over. Read 4 Kings 9:13 (KJV would be 2Kings 9:13)

"Then they made great haste and taking every man his garment laid it under his feet, and after the manner of a judgment seat, and they sounded the trumpet, and said: Jehu is king."

My dear Nightshades, KNOCK, KNOCK, the Great Flood CAUSED the fossil record!   

lLULA POSTS:



Dogmatic assertions need to be backed up, Leauki, where's the beef? When I make them everyone expects me to back it up....now, it's your turn.


I don't know about the Hebrew Bible that you are referring to, but the OLd Testament as KFC has so ably shown, points to the Christ (a man) as the Messias.

A woman messias.....If one comes around, watch out, she'll be the antichrist. Flee as fast as you can!

KFC, the word "earth" did not usually mean "the planet earth", not even in English.

People 500 years ago did not think in terms of planets. For them "earth" was just that: the land they stood on.

We can go into a round of Germanic etymology, if you like, or look at whatever Latin word they used to translate "eretz". I assume it was "terra".

Let's look at the Germanic first:

Have you heard of the animal "aardvark"? The word is dutch and means "earth piglet". (The German equivalent would be "Erdferkel".) The word "earth" there does not refer to the piglet being particular to the planet earth, but to the piglet being particular to the ground. I think it digs a lot.

Now let's look at what "earth" means in English; not the word itself, which now refers to the planet as opposed to other planets, but words derived from "earth" earlier. What is an "earthy colour"? The (planet) earth is mostly blue. Does "earthy" mean blue? I don't think it does. And a "down to earth" personality is not the character of someone who is particularly suitable for this planet.

People did not understand the word "earth" (or German "Erde") as we do now. In fact in other Germanic languages the word for "earth" is not primarily understood to be representing the planet (and neither in British English where "earth" means what "ground" means in American English).

And let's look at Latin:

The word is "terra". It's the source of "territory" (a typical translation for "eretz", incidentally). What does "terra" mean? Let's look at examples of how it was used over a hundred years ago, before we started using "earth" for that planet of ours.

"Terra incognita" was _land_ (or territory but not another earth) as yet unmapped or undiscovered. Terra is also where we get "terrain" (via French). Nothing planety about it until astronomers required a Latin name for our planet.

The flood was local until people discovered more and more land and found themselves to be living on a planet. Whenever we found more land, we expanded the area the flood apparently covered, but the text does NOT dictate such expansion and uses a word that, in Hebrew, primarily means "land" and it was translated with Germanic and Latin words that, until a few hundred years ago, also referred to "land" rather than "the planet earth".

So when you speak of context being important, don't forget to include context in your interpretation. The flood became universal when the word "earth" changed its meaning from "land" to "this planet".

When you go to a shop in Germany to buy some "Erde" ("earth"), they will give you a sackful of sand-like material, not a small planet for your living room sun.

Hebrew has two words "eretz" and "adama", German (and English) has only one "earth". But not one of the three refers specifically to the "planet earth" rather than "land" or the material.

As soon as I make a dogmatic assertion, I will back it up.

And it would be nice if you started backing up your dogmatic assertions.

There is no scientific proof that shows that. There is no record of a world wide "flood" in the fossil layer record of that time.

Well it's translated pierced and has been for centuries and I believe that's the correct translation. Now remember the Jews aren't going to like that translation because it's too close to describing the crucifixion so I'm not surprised that the Modern Jewish sites wouldn't choose to use this. Isaiah 53's meaning was changed around too after the arrivial of Christ because it sounded to eerily like a prediction of Christ.

But read what David is saying. He's describing a death struggle in a language that is also appropriate to the suffering Messiah. This prophetically describes crucifixion.

I have many books written by Alfred Edersheim who was a Jew born in 1825 in Vienna. He became a Christian and wrote many books on the Jewish life and practices. He was one of the leading authorities of his time regarding the doctrines and practices of Judaism in the centuries preceding. He said this in "The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah":

"this Psalm (22) was Messianically applied by the ancient Synagogue. More especially was this verse (22:7) which precedes the mocking quotation of the Sanhedrists, expressly applied to the sufferings and the derision which Messiah was to undergo from his enemies. "All they that see Me laugh Me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head."

He also has a list containing passages in the OT applied to the Messiah or to Messianic times in the most ancient Jewish writings. They amount in all to 456 he says. 75 from the Pentateuch, 243 from the Prophets and 138 from the Hagiographa and supported by more than 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings. The rabbinic works from which quotations have been made are the Targumim, the two Talmuds, and the most ancient Midrashim but NOT the writings of later Rabbis. He also frequently quotes from the well known work Yalkut because it is really a collection and selection from more than 50 older and accredited writings and adduces passages now not otherwise accessible to us. He said he had been reluctantly forced to the conclusion that even the Midrashim preserved to us have occasionally been tampered with for controversial purposes.

Then he proceeds to give the list of all the OT passages Messianically applied in ancient Rabbinic writings including this one in Psalm 22.

On Psalm 22:15 (16 in Hebrew) he says: "There is a similarly remarkable application to the Messiah of this verse in Yalkut." On Psalm 22:7 (8 in Hebrew) he says "a remarkable comment appears in Yalkut on Isa 60 applying this passge to the Messiah and using almost the same words in which the Evangelists describe the mocking behaviour of the Jews at the Cross."

But of course, if you're using the more modern references as I suspect than we have a problem.