Now let's visit the second theory suggested regarding the cry of despair..
So, now one must ask whether or not the quotation by Matthew is in fact something Jesus uttered from the cross? I would think that the Islamic answer would be "No" based simply on the assertion by the Qur'an that Jesus was never on a cross to have uttered such a thing.:
the answer based not only on on the assertion by the Qur'an but also by objective analysis isolated from the Quran...
the same problem(s) the Quran criticizes the bible for,been used by other non-Muslims in past and present.....
So, then one must ask why does Matthew (or Mark or any other originator of this story line) include them? That they are part of the original telling of this story is indisputable given that when looking at any variant reading of the passage the statement is still made. By your theory, then, a later writer is putting this words in Jesus' mouth. What for?:
that is not my theory..... my theory is clear the writers used Pesher like technique to excess, and such passage is used by one of them ,been repeated by another as well....
just compare Mark and Mathew to see the stunning copy and paste ,one get from another...
If the redactor was just quoting scripture "to add as much quotation as possible to compose the final scene of such sad monopoly" then why this text? Why not another?
that question was answered by Luke who was a better composer ,and ignored such cry of despair ,putting another one of hope...
Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46)
so Jesus recalls this Psalm that focus on the assurance of a God who does not abandoned the oppressed and suffering to his mind by reciting it's opening line.
In the context of Jesus' own suffering on the cross it fits perfectly
Psalm's David and jesus at the cross won't fit :
1- David the sinful ,adulterer(according to the bible) etc... , should have been forsaken by God... That’s what sinners deserve!
that is why he complained , questioning God
yet Jesus (according to your understanding) wasn't complaining, wasn't questioning God because he was God in the flesh...
2- David felt forsaken,and was really forsaken (at least before uttering the words)... on the other hand Jesus never felt forsaken,neither been forsaken
3- according to psalm ,David’s enemies threatened to kill him, and so David had to flee for his life, he believed God would save him ,after all his prayers , God did eventually save David from his earthly enemies.
David seek not a the victory over death , he was just scared to die a shameful one, executed by his enemies... unlike Jesus who is said to been eager to be killed by his enemies…
4- If the victory of Jesus been resurrection,just where in the chapter whom you claim he quoted ,any mention of victory by resurrection?
Is that what you call ,perfectly fits !?
Acts 2 24God raised him [Jesus of Nazareth] from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25David said about him:
" 'I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
26Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will live in hope,
27because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
28You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.'
29"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
After checking that passage and the other Psalms(and the rest of the old testament) passages used by the writers ,I would say, that The psalm has been accommodated to contemporary fancies
what does the writer of Psalms says?
Psalms 16 :27 because you will not abandon me to the grave(sheh-ole'),
nor will you let your Holy One see decay (shakh'-ath).
sh'owl (sheh-ole')
Hades or the world of the dead
shachath (shakh'-ath)
a pit (especially as a trap); figuratively, destruction -- corruption, destruction, ditch, grave, pit.
the text opens the door for speculations
The text could be understood as:
first
"David was assured that the Lord would preserve his life in the face of death. He rejoiced because God enabled his body to rest securely even when confronted with death. The reason he could rest is that God would not abandon him to the grave, nor let His holy one see decay. This verse refers to David, who describes himself as God's "holy one," that is, one of God's saints (cf. v. 3). He took comfort in the fact that God would not, at that time, allow his body to die and decay in the grave. In fact, God had caused him to know the path of life so he anticipated experiencing further joy in God's presence (vs. 11)."
The Bible Knowledge Commentary
.........
the psalm in its original context “does not deal with resurrection, or even
immortality, but with the rescue from an acute mortal danger
the original meaning because the language of this psalm is no different from other psalms
where the psalmist asks for “protection and sheltering against the danger of death.”
Most scholars,understanding the reference being to not dying, assume that the psalmist is merely
referring to an immediate threat to his life and is not expecting to live forever
the psalm reflects the style and language of other deliverance psalms where the psalmist
is merely praying to be delivered from “an acute mortal danger” and that there is no
warrant for seeing anything more than that in the psalm....
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1-59: A Commentary.
Another understanding:
David’s body did not decay in the grave (read,Midr. Ps. 16:10)
Though the word( Pit) in verse 10 is a synonym of sheol (as the parallelism clearly demonstrates) ,the Septuagint and other translations render it (corruption) In psalm 16,this interpretation might be supported by the broader context, i.e., the statement (my body also rests secure)__this teaches that decomposition and larvae have no dominion over his (David) body ; “you don’t give me up to sheol”-__ his flesh will not decompose into dust in the grave “or let your faithful one see the pit”__he doesn’t even smell the scent of hell. The interpretation offered by Rabbi yetzhak suggests that David’s flesh didn’t decompose, as his flesh doesn’t turn to dust in the grave nor indeed does he smell the scent of hell…
Judaism of the Second Temple period, Volume 2
By David Flusser
that similar to:
the prophet peace be upon him said:
“Verily Allah has made forbidden for the earth the consumption of the bodies of the Prophets - may Allah’s prayer be upon them.”
[ narrated Abi Dawood]
well, we are asked to leave such two possible,solid understandings and resort to a vague ,desperate understanding by the writer of Acts......
now let's add more to the problem,exposing another problem of the same passage in acts:
Ex said:
I don't think that inerrantists can give any compelling reasons in support of Peter's view, but I can definitely give some compelling reasons to reject his view. First, there are the facts already noted: (1) the psalm was written in the first person and so the situations spoken about can best be understood as personal references to the writer's own condition, and (2) there is simply no language in the psalm that can be interpreted only as references to a resurrection from the dead. In addition to all this, there was a strategic error that Peter made in his zeal to prove that the 16th Psalm was speaking of the resurrection of Jesus. After saying that David was "both dead and buried" and that "his tomb is with us to this day," Peter went on to say, "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, *He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,* he foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ..." (vs:30-31).
To prove Peter's argument, inerrantists must show us where the Old Testament says that God swore with an oath to David that he would "raise up the Christ to sit on his throne." The clear implication of Peter's statement is that God had sworn with an oath to David that he would resurrect the Christ to sit on David's throne; otherwise, Peter made no sense when he said, "He [David] foreseeing this [that the Christ would be resurrected to sit on his throne], spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ." So just where in the Old Testament did Yahweh ever speak with an oath to David that a Messiah from "the fruit of his body" would be resurrected to sit on his throne"?
The best that reference Bibles can do in support of Peter's claim is list Psalm 89:3; 132:11; and 2 Samuel 7:12. If we examine them individually, however, we will see that they do not refer to the resurrection of any of David's descendants for the purpose of having them sit on David's throne. Psalm 89:3 says, "I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn to My servant David: your seed I will establish forever; your faithfulness you shall establish in the very heavens." Establishing David's seed forever is at best a promise to establish his throne through a process of having a natural descendant of David occupy it in each succeeding generation, so where is the oath in this statement that God would resurrect a descendant of David to sit on his throne? It isn't there, except in the minds of those who are desperate to prove an untenable position.
Admittedly, the prophets promised that David's throne would be established forever, but they clearly meant the literal throne of David that would be maintained by an endless line of David's descendants. In their fanatical ethnocentrism, the Hebrew prophets thought that their little nation was favored of Yahweh, who would always protect them and see that their kingdom lasted forever, but in no sense were the Jews looking for the establishment of some "spiritual kingdom." This was an idea that was hatched up by the New Testament writers as a way of presenting an allegedly resurrected Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah. This can clearly be seen by analyzing Psalm 132:11, the second reference-Bible proof text for Peter's claim. "Yahweh has sworn in truth to David; He will not run from it: `I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body.'" Again, there is nothing in this statement that even implies that the psalmist meant that a descendant of David would be resurrected from the dead to sit on David's throne. It was simply a promise that the throne of David would be established through his descendants. That this was the clear intention of the statement is shown by the very next verse: "If your sons will keep my covenant and my testimony which I shall teach them, their sons also shall sit upon your throne forever."
What could be clearer than this? Yahweh promised to establish the throne of David "from the fruit of [David's] body" and if these sons [plural] of David kept Yahweh's covenant and his testimony, their sons also would sit upon David's throne forever. Obviously, this was not a promise that just one person (Jesus) would be resurrected from the dead to sit on David's throne. It wasn't a promise of a resurrection (period); it was simply a promise that Yahweh would establish David's throne forever through his sons and then their sons if they kept Yahweh's covenant. So what is the compelling reason for us to believe that Peter was right when he said that God had sworn with an oath to David that he would resurrect one of David's descendants to sit on his throne?
Both of the quotations from the Psalms appear to refer to 2 Samuel 7:12- 14. Yahweh, speaking to David through the prophet Nathan, said, "When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men." It cannot be claimed that this "son" who would come from the seed of David was Jesus, because Yahweh said, "If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men," but Jesus was allegedly without iniquity. Whoever this "son" was, he was going to "build a house for My Name," and this sounds very suspiciously like a reference to Solomon. The first part of this chapter (as well as the part after the above quotation) discussed the building of a house for Yahweh so that he would not have to dwell in a tent (the tabernacle). It is simply a matter of Old Testament record that Solomon was the one who built this house or temple (1 Kings 6-8), so clearly this promise of a son who would sit on David's throne was a reference to Solomon and not some descendant who would be born a thousand years later.
There is simply no Old Testament support for Peter's claim that Yahweh had sworn with an oath to resurrect one of David's descendants to sit on his throne, but there is a New Testament statement attributed to the apostle Paul that makes it logically impossible for the Old Testament to contain any prophecy of the resurrection of Jesus. In a speech allegedly made in the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia, Paul said of the crucifixion of Jesus, "Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb" (Acts 13:29). Please notice what Luke attributed to Paul in this sermon. He said that all that had been written concerning Jesus had been fulfilled when they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. Now if all that had been written of Jesus was fulfilled when they took him down from the cross (tree), then the resurrection could not have been written about in the Old Testament, because the resurrection allegedly happened after Jesus was taken down and laid in a tomb.
Some may point to verses 33-37 and say, "That can't be right, because Paul went on to quote the same passage that Peter did from Psalm 16 as a prophecy of the resurrection." That's true, but Paul can't have it both ways. If everything that had been written of Jesus when they took him down from the cross had been fulfilled, then there could have been no prophecies of Jesus's resurrection, but if there were prophecies of Jesus's resurrection, then everything that had been written about him could not have been fulfilled when he was taken down from the cross. Either way, inerrantists have a problem, and I would be happy to see them satisfactorily explain away either one.
So all of the evidence points to misrepresentation or distortion of Old Testament scriptures by the New Testament writers who claimed that the prophets had foretold the resurrection of Jesus. There are simply no reasonable grounds for claiming that there had been prophecies in the Old Testament of the Messiah's resurrection...
Now back to the item (God's agent) before we go to other arenas non intended to be discussed right now.....
peace
Enlarge By Tiffani West-May, AP