Psalm 110, the Divinity of Christ With Hebrew!

[angellous_evangellous]

 

[jewscout]

we shall see...
i'm just throwing in what i see in the text and from commentary by folks far more read on the subject matter than I.

 

[jewscout]

ooooooooook lol lets get back on topic lol.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ok, now on to logical flaws in the OP.

Psalm 110 says nothing about the Messiah, the Son of David, nor Jesus. It does not say that Jesus is the Christ. It does not say anything about a Son of God, nor does it identify Jesus as anything.

Therefore, your conclusions do not match your evidence.

When conclusions don't match evidence, there is nothing to debate.

 

[Ronald]

A new slant on subject, let us look at Jesus as the Hebrew aleph tav(Bereshis bara Elohim et)and the NT (I am the Alpha and the Omega) and not the second part of the trinity, the NT says he(Jesus) is the "Word of God" and the seed of God via the Ruach Haqodesh/son of God. He is addressed as the "Word of God"/Torah/word made flesh.
As Jewscout is saying the Rabbi's are saying that it is God saying to David, the soldiers master would have nothing to do with the Messiah except he (the Messiah/Jesus) is to be a son of David.
No doubt Jesus is the Messiah/son of God/the word made flesh/son of David and by the will of God he is like his father, "divine", but not by Ps. 110.
My 2 sheckles.
Shalom

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Even if you believe Psalm 110 to be Messianic in nature, I still don't see any reference to Jesus. You only see this because of who you already believe him to be.

Matthew 22:43-45

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No doubt Jesus is the Messiah/son of God/the word made flesh/son of David and by the will of God he is like his father, "divine", but not by Ps. 110.
My 2 sheckles.
Shalom

It would be better worded:

We all know that the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus does not come from a non-bias reading of Psalm 110. Rather, it comes from other outside sources, like the New Testament and early church fathers.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Matthew 22:43-45

From the ESV

41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42"What do you think about the Christ[d]? Whose son is he?"
"The son of David," they replied.
43He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,
44" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." '[e] 45If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" 46No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

So it's not from Psalm 110 but from Jesus or the Gospel writer/compiler/editor.

 

[Ronald]

It would be better worded:

We all know that the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus does not come from a non-bias reading of Psalm 110. Rather, it comes from other outside sources, like the New Testament and early church fathers.

Certainly much is lost in your transliterating, the only change would be to not lump the Jews in that statement, only believers in the Messiah's advent.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Certainly much is lost in your transliterating, the only change would be to not lump the Jews in that statement, only believers in the Messiah's advent.

I'm not transliterating.

I have no clue what you mean here.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Verse one is saying that David should basically stand fast in his faith in HaShem and the Torah and continue to do righteous acts. Verse five is saying that when David goes into battle HaShem will be there to fight for him, to deliver his enemies because he is a tzadik (righteous person)

Let's back up to this post. How do you get to what you said in your quote from, "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

 

[Ronald]

Those were my words "EXactlly"????!!?? I would have sworn some changes were made.

 

[sushannah]

Let's back up to this post. How do you get to what you said in your quote from, "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

You must realize there are major differences in the way Jewish people read this Psalm and the way Christians read it. The KJV completely ignores the superscription "of David a Psalm." this gives the false impression that the Psalm is written by David instead written about David.

Verse 1 would be better translated something like this - HaShem said unto my lord/master.

 

[jewscout]

Let's back up to this post. How do you get to what you said in this quote from, "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

...the word in this context is better translated as "lord" or "master" meaning a person of higher status.

how do i get what i said from that verse lets look at it like this:
A Psalm of David. HaShem saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (JPS 1917)
first :
A Psalm of David. HaShem saith unto my lord
ok so G-d is speaking to David, if we take the view of Ibn Ezra who says this is a psalm composed by a soldier in his army...
Sit thou at My right hand
this, from a jewish perspective, can not be taken as literal, as G-d doesn't have hands in the physical sense nor a physical side at which one could sit at. Also this phrase could be interpreted to mean a closeness to HaShem, not actually sitting next to him in a physical sense. David, it is believed, was a righteous king and was a G-dly man, he is the ideal upon which the Moshiach is based upon, which is why he is referred to as the Moshiach ben David. For HaShem to say "sit at my right hand/side" is for Him to say, be close to me
until i make thine enemies thy footstool
this is understood, at least by me, that because David was a Tzaddik (righteous man) the israelites followed him into battle, and because he was a Tzaddik and because the Israelites followed such a man, G-d fought for them and made their enemies into footstools, meaning that G-d caused David and his army to be victorious.

that is my line of thinking on the matter.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

first off, the KJV is not an authoritative work,

By whose standards? I'm not a KJV loonie, but it is a very important accomplishment in the English language. While it's not final, it is authoritative.

the word in this context is better translated as "lord" or "master" meaning a person of higher status.

The interpretation that it is referring to Christ is not excluded by this statement.

 

[jewscout]

first off, the KJV is not an authoritative work,

By whose standards? I'm not a KJV loonie, but it is a very important accomplishment in the English language. While it's not final, it is authoritative.

point taken A_E
my apologies

 

[angellous_evangellous]

point taken A_E
my apologies

Accecpted and no worries.

I think I know what you meant.

 

[jewscout]

The interpretation that it is referring to Christ is not excluded by this statement.

but being a king or an aristocrat does not give one Divine qualities or nature, as the OP is suggesting

 

[angellous_evangellous]

but being a king or an aristocrat does not give one Divine qualities or nature, as the OP is suggesting

I completely agree. However, one with divine qualities would not be excluded from such an interpretation.

EDIT: That's where cultural and theological context is useful. I agree, the person writing this and later interpreters would exclude the interpretation that Lord is divine. However, weren't very similar characteristics attributed to Enoch by Jews around the time of Jesus?

 

[sushannah]

The interpretation that it is referring to Christ is not excluded by this statement.

Thats why the KJV leaves out the superscription "of David a Psalm" so you can make it be about whoever you want.