• 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!

Psalm 110, the Divinity of Christ With Hebrew!

jewscout

Religious Zionist
in looking up your question about the term "lord" used elsewhere in Tanach i came across something that might shed some light.

in prayers, in Judaism, we say "Adonay" when we read the YHVH in siddurs.
this is how it is pronounced when reading from the Torah.
but...in certain books of the prophets (in the Artscroll Stone edition) you will find the phrase "Lord HaShem/Elohim" which in the hebrew is "YHVH" then a line and then the hebrew word "Adonay" (root being Aleph-Dalet-Nun-Yud)
in the psalm in the opening post in and the verse in Joshua i found the word is not pronounced "Adonay" in hebrew (at least not in the stone edition)
the word is "Adonee"
i'm not very good w/ my grammer in hebrew but this leads me to believe that the way it is conjugated (?) and where vowels are placed signify something different. Still a term to be used for someone of a high level but not that of a Divine one.
just a thought...i could be wrong.
 

sushannah

Member
sandy whitelinger said:
Does the reference to Melchizedek in verse four refer to David then?

Yes, this reference to Melchizedek is a reference to David. Two reasons are possible. One reason is that there are examples of David and his sons performing priestly functions even though they are not Levi.

The other reason is that Melchizedek may actually be from two Hebrew words, Melech and Zaddik, which would mean a righteous king. Anyway, you can find a full discussion on this Psalm at
http://www.messiahtruth.com/ps110.html
 

alexander garcia

Active Member
Hi, I would ask, I understand your referance Psa 110 but I would ask was this forfilled ? I understand the point and I don't disagree that this verse was used as a question to show as today how wrong man can be. This (110) is a future referance of Messiyah
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
alexander garcia said:
Hi, I would ask, I understand your referance Psa 110 but I would ask was this forfilled ? I understand the point and I don't disagree that this verse was used as a question to show as today how wrong man can be. This (110) is a future referance of Messiyah

and you base this on what, exactly?:sarcastic
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
alexander garcia said:
Hi, In asking jewscout do you believe that there was a person about 2000 years ago exicuted by the Romans in Jerusalem?

there were LOTS of people 2000 years ago executed by the romans in Jerusalem, especially jews. I fail to see what that has to do w/ the OP or Psalm 110.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jewscout said:
personal choice IMPO :)

This answer seems to reject interpretation governed by reason. We're supposed to think when we read the texts, aren't we?

If it is simply personal choice that governs our interpretative method, then we can come to any conclusion, no matter how unrelated to the text, and affirm one another simply with the mutual comfort that all of our silliness comes from personal choice.

Reason should govern our reading!:149:

BTW, I think that I can argue that it's not personal choice that either of you arrive at your conclusions. Both of you have claimed to be part of different communities.

Sandy, from my observation, identifies herself with mindless Christian fundamentalists who think that the English Bible is God's direct word to humanity, and a plain reading of the text guides theology and mission of the church today.

Jewscout, from my observation, identifies himself with Judaism, and relies on a traditional interpretaion of the Tanach while paying attention to the Hebrew and how it has been interperted traditionally by his group.

I find it extremely hard to believe that both of your interpretations are rooted in personal choices concerning the text itself, but rather are the result of commitment to a larger theology that is ultimately based on the critical review of multiple texts by several people.

Unfortunately for Sandy, her interpetation incorporates so many foriegn elements to the text that she is unable to demonstrate that her conclusions match her evidence.
 

sushannah

Member
alexander garcia said:
Hi, I would ask, I understand your referance Psa 110 but I would ask was this forfilled ? I understand the point and I don't disagree that this verse was used as a question to show as today how wrong man can be. This (110) is a future referance of Messiyah

I think you are asking if this Psalm can be viewed as Messianic, and if it has been fulfilled. If I am wrong, please correct me.

If this is your question, I would say, yes, it can be viewed as Messianic in nature. If it is viewed as Messianic, it certainly has not been fulfilled, in my point of view. If you want to know if there is any reference to Jesus here, the answer is NO.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
A_E said:
BTW, I think that I can argue that it's not personal choice that either of you arrive at your conclusions. Both of you have claimed to be part of different communities.

Sandy, from my observation, identifies herself with mindless Christian fundamentalists who think that the English Bible is God's direct word to humanity, and a plain reading of the text guides theology and mission of the church today.

Jewscout, from my observation, identifies himself with Judaism, and relies on a traditional interpretaion of the Tanach while paying attention to the Hebrew and how it has been interperted traditionally by his group.

I find it extremely hard to believe that both of your interpretations are rooted in personal choices concerning the text itself, but rather are the result of commitment to a larger theology that is ultimately based on the critical review of multiple texts by several people.

a good assessment A_E, but i think this then goes to a larger question of free will vs. cultural disposition and influence.
but that's for another time.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jewscout said:
a good assessment A_E, but i think this then goes to a larger question of free will vs. cultural disposition and influence.
but that's for another time.

Perhaps. I was not trying to go that far with my observation. I certainly think that people are capable of actually evaluating their situation.

In this case, however, I think that it's quite clear that the interpretation of this verse if not simply a personal choice on how to interpret "Lord." On one hand, Sandy, being a part of the group that she's in, imports a foreign meaning that's not even actually a viable, logical choice for the interpretation of the text. For both of you to reduce your interpretative process to "personal choice" I think is intellectually dishonest without presenting where one gets the substance of the choices.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
angellous_evangellous said:
Perhaps. I was not trying to go that far with my observation. I certainly think that people are capable of actually evaluating their situation.

In this case, however, I think that it's quite clear that the interpretation of this verse if not simply a personal choice on how to interpret "Lord." On one hand, Sandy, being a part of the group that she's in, imports a foreign meaning that's not even actually a viable, logical choice for the interpretation of the text. For both of you to reduce your interpretative process to "personal choice" I think is intellectually dishonest without presenting where one gets the substance of the choices.

well given the context of the question presented to me:
Is this a personal choice or are there guidelines for when to take a verse literally or not?
this goes to a greater question of reading anything from scripture as being a literal thing, IMPO, not simply in the context of this Psalm.
And even w/in Traditional Judaism there are some differing opinions on how literal to take things, all based on personal choice and interpretation.

it was a general question asked, not, IMPO, specific to the Psalm and topic at hand.
 

may

Well-Known Member
The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord​

"To my Lord (Master)." Heb., lA’·dho·n.
is:
"Sit at my right hand​
Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet psalm 110;1
(Romans 8:34) Who is he that will condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, rather the one who was raised up from the dead, who is on the right hand of God, who also pleads for us
(Acts 2:34) Actually David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand,
(Ephesians 1:20) with which he has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places
(Colossians 3:1) If, however, YOU were raised up with the Christ, go on seeking the things above, where the Christ is seated at the right hand of God.
(Hebrews 1:3) He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places.
(Hebrews 8:1) Now as to the things being discussed this is the main point: We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
(Hebrews 12:2) as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus. For the joy that was set before him he endured a torture stake, despising shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
(1 Peter 3:22) He is at God’s right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.

 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jewscout said:
well given the context of the question presented to me:
Is this a personal choice or are there guidelines for when to take a verse literally or not?
this goes to a greater question of reading anything from scripture as being a literal thing, IMPO, not simply in the context of this Psalm.
And even w/in Traditional Judaism there are some differing opinions on how literal to take things, all based on personal choice and interpretation.

it was a general question asked, not, IMPO, specific to the Psalm and topic at hand.

It's the second half of her question that makes it specific to the Psalm. Such a question can be used as a trap because there are specific guidelines by which interpreters use to take a verse literally or not.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
angellous_evangellous said:
It's the second half of her question that makes it specific to the Psalm. Such a question can be used as a trap because there are specific guidelines by which interpreters use to take a verse literally or not.

hmmm i guess i just didn't read it that way:slap:
 

sushannah

Member
may said:
The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord​


"To my Lord (Master)." Heb., lA’·dho·n.


is:​


"Sit at my right hand​
Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet psalm 110;1
(Romans 8:34) Who is he that will condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, rather the one who was raised up from the dead, who is on the right hand of God, who also pleads for us
(Acts 2:34) Actually David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand,
(Ephesians 1:20) with which he has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places
(Colossians 3:1) If, however, YOU were raised up with the Christ, go on seeking the things above, where the Christ is seated at the right hand of God.
(Hebrews 1:3) He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places.
(Hebrews 8:1) Now as to the things being discussed this is the main point: We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
(Hebrews 12:2) as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus. For the joy that was set before him he endured a torture stake, despising shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
(1 Peter 3:22) He is at God’s right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.


Is this from the New world translation? If so does this translation have the superscription "of David a Psalm" at the start of Psalm 110?

Obviously, the writers of the NT attribute Psalm 110 to Jesus, hence the reason for this thread. IMO that proves nothing. Jesus did not fulfill the requirements of the Messiah. He did not bring peace and restoration to Israel, he is not the Messiah. Even if he would have been the Messiah, Jewish people could not pray to or worship him. This would include praying in his name.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
jewscout said:
in looking up your question about the term "lord" used elsewhere in Tanach i came across something that might shed some light.

in prayers, in Judaism, we say "Adonay" when we read the YHVH in siddurs.
this is how it is pronounced when reading from the Torah.
but...in certain books of the prophets (in the Artscroll Stone edition) you will find the phrase "Lord HaShem/Elohim" which in the hebrew is " then a line and then the hebrew word "Adonay" (root being Aleph-Dalet-Nun-Yud)
in the psalm in the opening post in and the verse in Joshua i found the word is not pronounced "Adonay" in hebrew (at least not in the stone edition)
the word is "Adonee"
i'm not very good w/ my grammer in hebrew but this leads me to believe that the way it is conjugated (?) and where vowels are placed signify something different. Still a term to be used for someone of a high level but not that of a Divine one.
just a thought...i could be wrong.

I also came across a reference recently but don't have it handy that said the word YHVH was replaced with 'adonay by the masoritic translators. Something about not wanting to use YHVH.

Either way we are back at verse 1 with the use of a Hebrew term for God.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
sushannah said:
Yes, this reference to Melchizedek is a reference to David. Two reasons are possible. One reason is that there are examples of David and his sons performing priestly functions even though they are not Levi.

The other reason is that Melchizedek may actually be from two Hebrew words, Melech and Zaddik, which would mean a righteous king. Anyway, you can find a full discussion on this Psalm at
http://www.messiahtruth.com/ps110.html

As I stated earlier the reference to Melchizedek in this psalm is looked at as applying to either Abraham, David or the prophetic king who was to come. It may be possible that it applies to all three.
 
Top