I have a small wager on Toledo but, then again, I got really good odds.
-
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 most quoted psalm in the NT.
- Thread starter Redemptionsong
- Start date
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
The title 'Christ' is not used in this psalm, but one has to make some connections to see that there is no reasonable alternative.
In verse 4 the LORD calls the Lord 'a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek'. Who can possibly be an everlasting priest except God in Christ? Who was Melchizedek if not a priest and king of peace?
In verse 5 it's the Lord (Christ) who 'shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath'. This 'day of the Lord' is a reference to the return of the King of Kings from heaven.
Last edited:
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
The NT is the key to unlocking the truth of the OT. Christ came to bring light!
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
Yes, l believe the soul of Jesus was at one with the Spirit of the Father.
If the Son is also the Word of God, then l would say that the Word is Spirit as utterance.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
In other words, it is one's own making because of following Hellenist Paul. Right?
Else, it has got nothing to do with Jesus- the Jewish Messiah. Right?
Regards
74x12
Well-Known Member
God makes distinction in himself often enough in the OT like in Genesis 1:26 and Isaiah 6:8. So the idea that this is referring to Jesus (God manifest) should be taken seriously.
"Let us make man in our image ..." and "Who will go for us? ..."
Isaiah 41:4 is pertinent because he says he is the first and "with" the last. Yet in Isaiah 48:12 he says he is the first and also the last.
So he makes himself distinct to himself. This is just a sample. There are other passages as well.
John 1:1 uses similar language referring to Christ. The Word was with God and the Word was God.
I'm not trinitarian myself but I believe all these are intentionally obscure and were kind of mysteries pointing to the incarnation God: Jesus Christ the man. He's distinct from God in his human form but still one with God.
Philippians 2:5-11
For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross, wherefore, also, God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that [is] above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow -- of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth --
and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
rosends
Well-Known Member
In Isaiah 6, YHWH is surrounded by seraphim with whom Isaiah interacts. So the "us" in verse 8 quite naturally lends itself to be understood to include these angelic beings. That certainly makes more internal sense of the passage (and Jewish theology generally) than imagining a deity with multiple personality disorder.
I believe Jewish interpretation of Genesis 1 has traditionally understood the "us" in verse 26 to also refer to some sort of angelic beings who were present with God at the creation of the world. @rosends or @Harel13 or other knowledgeable Jewish folks could surely verify or lend their two cents.
That verse says:
"Who has wrought and achieved this?
He who announced the generations from the start—
I, the LORD, who was first
And will be with the last as well."
So the "with the last" there seems clearly to refer to the last generation - again, a far more natural reading of the text than imagining a God who is somehow "with" himself or an alternate personality of himself.
Right; as I recall you're a Modalist, which makes even less sense to me.
I see a bunch of Hebrew - is there commentary translated in English?
rosends
Well-Known Member
There is certainly, but my point was that someone making an argument about a Hebrew text (as the other poster was) should be able to understand the Hebrew.
Another of the classical commentators makes allusion to the same argument (though without the same specifics)
Psalms 110:1
firedragon
Veteran Member
What do you mean by "Jesus states"?
74x12
Well-Known Member
Yes he was surrounded by angels and it's really convenient to think that he must have been talking to the angels and I used to agree with that; until I realized that there had to be something more to it. Nothing in the Bible is really accidental or unimportant. Every little word is put there intentionally.
First of all God is sovereign so he doesn't really need the angel's approval on sending Isaiah. Secondly and more importantly I realized that no Old Testament prophet talked more about Jesus than Isaiah does. And that made me realize that Isaiah wasn't just commissioned to speak to the people of his own time about God; but he was also sent to prophesy about Jesus Christ and this is why God would say "Who will go for us?"
As for Genesis 1:26. I also used to believe that God was talking to angels as well. But, this is why it can't be true. We're not made by angels or in the image of angels. So God saying that to angels doesn't make much sense even from a Jewish perspective.
I think the only reason I ever believed that was because I had no better explanation. However it's not really a good explanation.
On the other hand what I believe now is revelatory. I first understood it on my own (with God's help) and then later I learned Ignatius wrote about it. So me and Ignatius came to the same conclusion. That was fine with me and for me it proved God showed me. And it makes so much sense.
It is God speaking prophetically to Jesus through the ages. Jesus would be the one who would remake us into the image of God again. Because we were made in the image of God but thanks to the fall in the garden we need to be "born again". That is why Jesus came. He came to remake us into the image of God again.
So it's not talking about one event. But two creation moments. The first creation of humans and the second moment of creation is when people are "born again" as in John 3:3-5. Thanks to Jesus Christ. Without Jesus there was no being born again.
In Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 48:12 Jehovah says he is the first and also the last. So there is something strange about Isaiah 41:4. If the rest of the book of Isaiah says God is the first and last ... why would Isaiah 41:4 be talking about the last generation all of a sudden? It doesn't make sense.
So the question is, how is he with the last if he is the last according to the rest of the book of Isaiah? It's definitely not about generations. It's a prophetic hint towards Jesus.
The Father is the "First" and the Son is "last" but they are one and the same. So of course God is the first and the last. So is the Son the first and the last like in Revelation 1:11.
Again we see the same kind of speech in John 1:1 the Word was both with God and was God. Not sure if I covered that yet. Sorry if I did. It's getting late and I'm tired.
That's as it should be. Even Jesus said no one knows the Son but the Father, and no one knows the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal him. (see Matthew 11:27)
People should pray for the understanding of all this. To me it's all obvious now.
Where he comes from? Why is that important?
It's not so much "convenient" as it is just the natural way any neutral person would read the passage. You have a character meeting multiple other characters who appear together, and so they use plural pronouns to refer to themselves as a group. It's only when one has become convinced of some idea or doctrine not contained in the story, that doesn't at all fit with the story, that one has to somehow read that interpretation weirdly back into a story where it has no place.
It's not a matter of needing it. In Jewish thought (so far as I understand it, though I'm by no means an expert) God works through his creation all the time. Not because he has to, but by choice.
I suspect our Jewish friends disagree.
How did you determine that? Again, have you consulted any Jewish opinions on the matter?
I suspect you know less about the Jewish perspective than you think. Here's Rashi:
"נעשה אדם WE WILL MAKE MAN — The meekness of the Holy One, blessed be He, they (the Rabbis) learned from here: because the man is in the likeness of the angels and they might envy him, therefore He took counsel with them (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 18 and see Genesis Rabbah 8). And when He judges the kings He likewise consults His heavenly council, for thus we find in the case of Ahab to whom Micha said, (1 Kings 22:19) “I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left.” Has God, then, a right hand and a left hand? But it means that some stood on the right side to plead in favour of the accused and others stood on the left side to accuse; and similarly we read (Daniel 4:14), “the matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones”, — here, also, He consulted His heavenly council and asked permission of them, saying to them: “There are in the heavens beings after My likeness; if there will not be on earth also beings after My likeness, there will be envy among the beings that I have created” (Sanhedrin 38b)."
Genesis 1:26 with Rashi (sefaria.org)
Ironically I suspect you and Ignatius would be at odds over a great many theological things.
I've prayed for understanding of the Bible many times. As have countless people through the ages. Yet I still don't agree with you.
Variety is the spice of life, eh?
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
To suggest that Psalm 110 has nothing to do with Christ is to ignore the testimony of the Gospels and epistles in the NT. Check out the OP, and you'll see that Psalm 110 is referred to by Jesus in the three synoptic Gospels as well as by Luke in Acts, and by Peter in his first epistle. Paul uses the Psalm in his teaching as well.
It is also my opinion that Paul's teaching is perfectly consistent with the teaching of Jesus. What one has to realise is that Paul takes the message beyond the Jewish territories with the authority to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. This involves making 'concessions' to people who had no prior knowledge of the Jewish scriptures.
Last edited:
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
It's important because it may make the difference between being deceived by a false Messiah and being saved by the true Messiah!
Micah 5:2 tells us where the Messiah will be born. Since that birth has now taken place, it has become a prophecy 'fulfilled'. We should now be looking forward to the return of the Messiah from heaven.
IMO.
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
Not in my opinion, but in the words of scripture! [John 1:7]Or it isn't.
In your opinion!
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
I have no reason to disbelieve the words of scripture, and in the three synoptic Gospels it is recorded that Jesus used Psalm 110, knowing that David was its author. It is also noteworthy that none of his Jewish audience question the authorship of the Psalm.
If you check out the OP, you'll see these passages quoted.
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
This is a scriptural debate.