Psalm 110: The most quoted psalm in the NT.

[Redemptionsong]

Vengeance is for emotionally immature animalistic beings.

If vengeance is for 'emotionally immature animalistic beings' why does lsaiah talk about 'the day of vengeance of our God'? [Isaiah 61:2]

Why does Paul quote from Deuteronomy when he writes, 'Vengeance is mine; l will repay, saith the Lord'? [Romans 12:19]

 

[Redemptionsong]

Next you'll quote from Harry Potter. Why should I check out verses from text that I dismiss as useless?

Instead of quoting from an irrelevant book, why not deal with the issues I raised specifically from the words of the Hebrew texts which you referenced?

What is demonstrated in the book of Hebrews is an interpretation of Genesis 14 that was acceptable to a Hebrew speaking congregation!

The NT tells us that Paul received his education under Gamaliel 1 in Jerusalem, and that he became a Pharisee. His understanding of scripture must have been influenced by a Jewish exegesis of such texts.

Your erasure of NT history is also an erasure of Jewish history!

 

[Colt]

If vengeance is for 'emotionally immature animalistic beings' why does lsaiah talk about 'the day of vengeance of our God'? [Isaiah 61:2]

Why does Paul quote from Deuteronomy when he writes, 'Vengeance is mine; l will repay, saith the Lord'? [Romans 12:19]

Its a valid point you have, the Bible does speak in those terms. I think its because in that age that's what men understood! Jesus didn't go around beating up nonbelievers. Jesus wasn't a resentful, angry person. The only time he got emotional is seeing how the Temple had been turned into a business enterprise!

 

[rosends]

What is demonstrated in the book of Hebrews is an interpretation of Genesis 14 that was acceptable to a Hebrew speaking congregation!

Yes, the non-Jews in Israel even today speak Hebrew. So?

The NT tells us that Paul received his education under Gamaliel 1 in Jerusalem, and that he became a Pharisee. His understanding of scripture must have been influenced by a Jewish exegesis of such texts.

So a fictional person in a fictional text is said to have studied with someone. So? The explanations I have quoted ARE the Jewish exegesis of the texts.

Your erasure of NT history is also an erasure of Jewish history!

No, Jewish history is doing just fine. You are talking about Christianity.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Its a valid point you have, the Bible does speak in those terms. I think its because in that age that's what men understood! Jesus didn't go around beating up nonbelievers. Jesus was a resentful, angry person. The only time he got emotional is seeing how the Temple had been turned into a business enterprise!

You might want to add the word 'not' before 'a resentful'!

 

[Colt]

You might want to add the word 'not' before 'a resentful'!

LoL! yea, right. Minor details! Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

" is to ignore the testimony of the Gospels and epistles in the NT."

Then ignore it please, the Gospels (as well as the epistles) in the NT:

1. are not written by Jesus
2. are not dictated by Jesus
3. are not recorded by any specially/expressly authorized person by Jesus and checked by Jesus after the recording.

The Gospels is at most a hearsay account in third person narrative by anonymous persons, none of them was an eyewitness of the event of crucifixion, one gathers, please. Right?

Regards
____________________
"Are the gospels written anonymously?
There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't.
Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels - NPR
https://www.npr.org › 2010/03/12 › jesus-and-the-hidden...
_________________
"The bible is nothing but a collection of hearsay and is not evidence.

The definition given for hearsay: -
Unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of of one's direct knowledge.
The gospels were written a minimum of 30 years after his supposed death. Paul, author of much of the New Testament and Christianity's architect, never met him and early non-biblical evidence is by the Jewish historian Josephus, who also never met Jesus. The authenticity of his writings on Jesus, specifically Testimonium Flavianum, has been continually challenged for centuries.
The authors of the various books in the bible, both new and old testament range from completely unidentified to maybe narrowed down to one person or a few people but whose identities and affiliation to any God or son of God is completely unverifiable, hearsay is almost always inadmissible in a court of law.
It's just claims backing up claims with no evidence."
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChr...bible_is_nothing_but_a_collection_of_hearsay/

 

[Colt]

" is to ignore the testimony of the Gospels and epistles in the NT."

Then ignore it please, the Gospels (as well as the epistles) in the NT:

1. are not written by Jesus
2. are not dictated by Jesus
3. are not recorded by any specially/expressly authorized person by Jesus and checked by Jesus after the recording.

The Gospels is at most a hearsay account in third person narrative by anonymous persons, none of them was an eyewitness of the event of crucifixion, one gathers, please. Right?

Regards
____________________
"Are the gospels written anonymously?
There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't.
Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels - NPR
https://www.npr.org › 2010/03/12 › jesus-and-the-hidden...

No wrong! The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or interviews with eyewitnesses.

BTW, go ahead and throw out everything in the Old Testament because Moses predated the current wittings by 1000 years and many of the OT narratives are about events thousands of years before written.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes, the non-Jews in Israel even today speak Hebrew. So?

So a fictional person in a fictional text is said to have studied with someone. So? The explanations I have quoted ARE the Jewish exegesis of the texts.

No, Jewish history is doing just fine. You are talking about Christianity.

According to the Midrash on Psalm 18:36 (35 in KJV), Ps CX, verse 1, 'Sit thou at My right hand' is specifically applied to the Messiah, while Abraham is said to be seated at the left. This confirms a widespread understanding that Psalm 110 is a Messianic psalm, and 'the Lord' referred to in the text is the Messiah.

 

[74x12]

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.

Well that's the thing. From your atheistic perspective that's what you think. But since I can find these things in there and this is just the tip of the iceberg. That proves me right and that there is more to the Bible. I'll put it this way. If I am right; then the Bible is really from God and there is more to it than people think.

It's not weird or out of place. It fits perfectly. You just have a problem with the idea that there can be mysteries in the scriptures only God can reveal.

Like in Psalm 119:18
Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

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.

Working through creation is not the same as needing creation's approval.

I suspect our Jewish friends disagree.

Well of course they do.

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)

First I disagree that God askes permission of the angels. Yes he does have a heavenly council but none of that means the angels helped create humans. We don't see that anywhere in the scriptures. Besides according to various scriptures such as (1 Kings 22:22) even evil spirits come to this council of God. So does God ask permission from evil spirits? I don't think he does.

So if you interpret Genesis 1:26 this way it would literally mean the angels helped to make Adam and Eve. "Let us make man in our image"

Consulting is different than doing. If it says "Let us make man in our image" it means what it says. There is a plurality of beings here that are making man in their image. They aren't just be consulted.

This is a mystery in the scripture pointing to the Messiah and there are many others. Nothing is an accident.

Ironically I suspect you and Ignatius would be at odds over a great many theological things.

Have you read Ignatius? I agree with him 99% of the time.

I may find some things he said questionable such as wanting to be a martyr and die by animals in the arena and he even says if they don't attack him then he'll get a stick and poke them. I think that is definitely questionable and possibly can be considered a bit suicidal. But most of what he says is right on.

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?

You're an atheist. Although I find your interest in the Bible commendable. Yet, I think people should start with the basics. You really need the holy Spirit to understand these things.

 

[Left Coast]

Well that's the thing. From your atheistic perspective that's what you think. But since I can find these things in there and this is just the tip of the iceberg. That proves me right and that there is more to the Bible. I'll put it this way. If I am right; then the Bible is really from God and there is more to it than people think.

It's not weird or out of place. It fits perfectly. You just have a problem with the idea that there can be mysteries in the scriptures only God can reveal.

Like in Psalm 119:18
Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

Working through creation is not the same as needing creation's approval.

Well of course they do.


First I disagree that God askes permission of the angels. Yes he does have a heavenly council but none of that means the angels helped create humans. We don't see that anywhere in the scriptures. Besides according to various scriptures such as (1 Kings 22:22) even evil spirits come to this council of God. So does God ask permission from evil spirits? I don't think he does.

So if you interpret Genesis 1:26 this way it would literally mean the angels helped to make Adam and Eve. "Let us make man in our image"

Consulting is different than doing. If it says "Let us make man in our image" it means what it says. There is a plurality of beings here that are making man in their image. They aren't just be consulted.

This is a mystery in the scripture pointing to the Messiah and there are many others. Nothing is an accident.

Have you read Ignatius? I agree with him 99% of the time.

I may find some things he said questionable such as wanting to be a martyr and die by animals in the arena and he even says if they don't attack him then he'll get a stick and poke them. I think that is definitely questionable and possibly can be considered a bit suicidal. But most of what he says is right on.

You're an atheist. Although I find your interest in the Bible commendable. Yet, I think people should start with the basics. You really need the holy Spirit to understand these things.

This whole reply basically boils down to "you're an atheist so you must be wrong."

Okay, ta ta then, you're not interested in a discussion of the merits of your position.

 

[rosends]

According to the Midrash on Psalm 18:36 (35 in KJV), Ps CX, verse 1, 'Sit thou at My right hand' is specifically applied to the Messiah, while Abraham is said to be seated at the left. This confirms a widespread understanding that Psalm 110 is a Messianic psalm, and 'the Lord' referred to in the text is the Messiah.

But the midrash on Tehillim 18:29 says explicitly that it is about Abraham (as does Midrash Tehillim on 110:1), confirming the widespread understanding that it is about Abraham. So you now have midrashim which appear to contradict each other. Or maybe you don't understand the use and value of a midrash.

What you are trying to reference is a statement, within the medrash that gives the opinion of someone named רבי יודן בשם רבי חמא (Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Chama). He doesn't actually say that 110 is about the messiah, but that the image of standing or sitting around God including the messiah is hinted to by 110. Rebbi Yudan imagines a conversation in the future between Abraham and God about how to reckon the right and left and who is at whose right (because the verse is about Abraham), the ancestor (Abe), the descendant (the future messianic king) or God.

 

[74x12]

This whole reply basically boils down to "you're an atheist so you must be wrong."

Okay, ta ta then, you're not interested in a discussion of the merits of your position.

Well that's what you're doing. You're saying I'm Christian so therefore I must be reading into some ancient text whatever I want to be there. Because let's face it. Christainity came centuries after Isaiah. So, you think the same thing about me. It's obvious you won't even consider the possibility I could be right.

However I'm not even saying that you're atheist and so must be wrong. All I'm saying is that your argument is based on this assumption. I'm just keeping your views in context. Is that okay? Apparently not.

 

[Redemptionsong]

" is to ignore the testimony of the Gospels and epistles in the NT."

Then ignore it please, the Gospels (as well as the epistles) in the NT:

1. are not written by Jesus
2. are not dictated by Jesus
3. are not recorded by any specially/expressly authorized person by Jesus and checked by Jesus after the recording.

The Gospels is at most a hearsay account in third person narrative by anonymous persons, none of them was an eyewitness of the event of crucifixion, one gathers, please. Right?

Regards
____________________
"Are the gospels written anonymously?
There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't.
Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels - NPR
https://www.npr.org › 2010/03/12 › jesus-and-the-hidden...
_________________
"The bible is nothing but a collection of hearsay and is not evidence.

The definition given for hearsay: -
Unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of of one's direct knowledge.
The gospels were written a minimum of 30 years after his supposed death. Paul, author of much of the New Testament and Christianity's architect, never met him and early non-biblical evidence is by the Jewish historian Josephus, who also never met Jesus. The authenticity of his writings on Jesus, specifically Testimonium Flavianum, has been continually challenged for centuries.
The authors of the various books in the bible, both new and old testament range from completely unidentified to maybe narrowed down to one person or a few people but whose identities and affiliation to any God or son of God is completely unverifiable, hearsay is almost always inadmissible in a court of law.
It's just claims backing up claims with no evidence."
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChr...bible_is_nothing_but_a_collection_of_hearsay/

IMO, the stuff you have searched up on the internet is complete rubbish. IMO, anyone interested in truth needs to start by reading a good translation of the Bible for themselves. The internal integrity of scripture will quickly dispel these unfounded claims about the Bible.

Jesus did not write the words of scripture because he is [IMO, and according to the NT scriptures] the Spirit of prophecy, the Word of God. For the Word of God to be believed, there need to be human intermediaries recording God's works and commandments. In the Bible (unlike the Qur'an) there are numerous prophets, each providing the SAME CONSISTENT MESSAGE. Forty or more prophets are said to have written the words of scripture, and each book is quoted by other prophets. This makes the Bible a tapestry which, in the words of Jesus, 'cannot be broken'.

Another little thing worth noting is the evidence of the early Church. When the apostles were first preaching the 'good news' there was no need for the written Gospel. The evidence that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead came in the form of Holy Spirit baptism. All the early Christians expected to experience this baptism, and it was a promise from Jesus that they would. Hence, the Holy Spirit becomes evidence of the risen Lord, and a fulfilment of his promise to the Church. It is only as the work of the apostles comes to an end that the need for a complete scripture becomes apparent. I believe, and am happy to make the case, that many of these written records were in existence much earlier than some scholars think. For a start, the evidence points to the death of Paul in about 64 CE, and he already knew things that were recorded in the Gospels (such as events of the Last Supper - 1 Corinthians 11).

'But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.' [John 15:26,27]

 

[Redemptionsong]

But the midrash on Tehillim 18:29 says explicitly that it is about Abraham (as does Midrash Tehillim on 110:1), confirming the widespread understanding that it is about Abraham. So you now have midrashim which appear to contradict each other. Or maybe you don't understand the use and value of a midrash.

What you are trying to reference is a statement, within the medrash that gives the opinion of someone named רבי יודן בשם רבי חמא (Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Chama). He doesn't actually say that 110 is about the messiah, but that the image of standing or sitting around God including the messiah is hinted to by 110. Rebbi Yudan imagines a conversation in the future between Abraham and God about how to reckon the right and left and who is at whose right (because the verse is about Abraham), the ancestor (Abe), the descendant (the future messianic king) or God.

So, let's get this clear. Psalm 110, although stated to be 'A Psalm of David' is, according to your understanding (which is invariably based on Rashi?) not a psalm of David about the Messiah. Instead, it's about Abraham, who is now placed above Melchizedek, and the Messiah, for he takes prominence of place at the right hand of God.

In verse 4 the LORD says to the Lord (now assumed to be Abraham) 'Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek'. Was Abraham ever a priest after the order of Melchizedek? Where in scripture do we find that recorded?

 

[Left Coast]

Well that's what you're doing. You're saying I'm Christian so therefore I must be reading into some ancient text whatever I want to be there. Because let's face it. Christainity came centuries after Isaiah. So, you think the same thing about me. It's obvious you won't even consider the possibility I could be right.

I really don't think that's what I did at all. I did consider the possibility you're right. I consider it vastly less probable than that you're wrong and reading your theology into the text. My theological beliefs don't really have a stake in the game, but yours do. Judaism is not atheistic, obviously. These are Jewish texts. And Jewish folks disagree with your interpretations.

However I'm not even saying that you're atheist and so must be wrong. All I'm saying is that your argument is based on this assumption. I'm just keeping your views in context. Is that okay? Apparently not.

I was comparing your view to the Jewish view. The Jewish view isn't atheistic.

 

[rosends]

So, let's get this clear. Psalm 110, although stated to be 'A Psalm of David' is, according to your understanding (which is invariably based on Rashi?) not a psalm of David about the Messiah.

Actually, I presented two different interpretations in post 8 - one that it is written about David by an unnamed author, or by David about Abraham. Rashi only presents one of those options so clearly what I presented is not based only on Rashi.

Instead, it's about Abraham, who is now placed above Melchizedek, and the Messiah, for he takes prominence of place at the right hand of God.

No, I never said he was above Malkitzedek -- you tried to make the claim that his giving a tenth of what he got in war to Malkitzedek means that Malkitzedek is above HIM. I simply pointed out that "above" is not part of the equation.

I also never said that Abraham takes prominence or is above the messiah. I explained that the medrash you cited has an imagined discussion about who should be at whose right.

In verse 4 the LORD says to the Lord (now assumed to be Abraham) 'Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek'. Was Abraham ever a priest after the order of Melchizedek? Where in scripture do we find that recorded?

Now you are mixing up a different verse and mistranslating it. In fact, many of the commentators point out (as does the talmud) that because of what Malkitzedek said, the priesthood was transferred from him to Abraham's line so the text says "you [Abraham] are a priest forever due to the words of Malkitzedek." Of course, to understand that, you would have to know that the word "dibrati" refers to speech but since you can't read the Hebrew you are unable to see this. Since the priesthood came from Abraham's descendants, it is shown to be the case. Of course, much of what I explained is explained the talmud and the medrash. Since you respect medrash enough to quote it when it suits you, well then, here you go... Psalms 110:1

 

[Redemptionsong]

Actually, I presented two different interpretations in post 8 - one that it is written about David by an unnamed author, or by David about Abraham. Rashi only presents one of those options so clearly what I presented is not based only on Rashi.


No, I never said he was above Malkitzedek -- you tried to make the claim that his giving a tenth of what he got in war to Malkitzedek means that Malkitzedek is above HIM. I simply pointed out that "above" is not part of the equation.

I also never said that Abraham takes prominence or is above the messiah. I explained that the medrash you cited has an imagined discussion about who should be at whose right.

Now you are mixing up a different verse and mistranslating it. In fact, many of the commentators point out (as does the talmud) that because of what Malkitzedek said, the priesthood was transferred from him to Abraham's line so the text says "you [Abraham] are a priest forever due to the words of Malkitzedek." Of course, to understand that, you would have to know that the word "dibrati" refers to speech but since you can't read the Hebrew you are unable to see this. Since the priesthood came from Abraham's descendants, it is shown to be the case. Of course, much of what I explained is explained the talmud and the medrash. Since you respect medrash enough to quote it when it suits you, well then, here you go... Psalms 110:1

What you have failed to offer as an alternative, yet it appears in rabbinic writings, is the case for Psalm 110 being about the Messiah, as Christians believe.

Psalm 110 cannot be about Abraham, unless you believe that Abraham was resurrected from the dead. Yet, in Genesis 25:10 we read that Abraham was buried in a field near Mamre alongside Sarah his wife. Maybe if somone dug up his bones the case could be proved that Abraham remains in the grave and has not been exalted to the right hand of God!

Do Torah Jews believe that the resurrection of the dead has already occurred?

 

[rosends]

What you have failed to offer as an alternative, yet it appears in rabbinic writings, is the case for Psalm 110 being about the Messiah, as Christians believe.

Psalm 110 cannot be about Abraham, unless you believe that Abraham was resurrected from the dead. Yet, in Genesis 25:10 we read that Abraham was buried in a field near Mamre alongside Sarah his wife. Maybe if somone dug up his bones the case could be proved that Abraham remains in the grave and has not been exalted to the right hand of God!

Do Torah Jews believe that the resurrection of the dead has already occurred?

Why would a psalm about events in heaven require resurrection? Unless you are saying that God is human and on earth sitting in an actual chair and sending out invites to live people...

Why would a retelling of an historical event require that the characters in that event be alive when the story is retold?

Or maybe you mean that an inspired song of praise is an actual current events news story.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Why would a psalm about events in heaven require resurrection? Unless you are saying that God is human and on earth sitting in an actual chair and sending out invites to live people...

Why would a retelling of an historical event require that the characters in that event be alive when the story is retold?

Or maybe you mean that an inspired song of praise is an actual current events news story.

So we can begin by agreeing that these events are set in heaven, at the throne of God.

If Abraham is seen at the right hand of God in heaven, how would he have arrived there? We know from scripture that he died and was buried. Does a dead man sit at the right hand of God?

It takes resurrection (or translation) to make the transition from earth to heaven. When, therefore, was Abraham resurrected?