The Lord Says to My Lord...What Lord?

[newton3005]

Psalms 110:1, which is a Psalm of David, says “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’” Who is David’s Lord in this Verse? Some commentators say that David is referring to the Messiah. Where is the proof of that?

There seems to be no mention of a Messiah in the Psalms, nor does there seem to be a mention of the Messiah in Second Samuel, where David’s exploits are discussed. Some commentators say that the person David is referring to in Psalms 110:1 is a king. But what king? Saul, maybe?

Commentators justify David’s Lord being the Messiah by referring to what it says in Isaiah. Did David know what was written in Isaiah when the Psalms were created in his name? Unlike Jesus, who knew the Book of Isaiah and every other Book in the OT, no such Book was available to David.

Seems the only possibility is that David was referring to Saul. David was devoted to Saul, to the point where when an Amalekite killed Saul, David in 2 Samuel 1:15 has the killer executed. In Verse 16, David says to the Amalekite’s body, “Your blood be on your head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the LORD’s ANOINTED.’” Seems to put a twist in things, as, when combined with Psalms 110:1, David considered Saul to be the Lord’s anointed, furthering the notion that in that Verse, David was referring perhaps to Saul. So, conceivably, the Verse could be interpreted as “The Lord says to SAUL, ‘Sit at my right hand...”

The point is, notwithstanding anything else, there seem to be unexplained mysteries in the Bible, figurative black holes that, based on reading the rest of the Bible, are at least hard to explain.

 

[Josheb]

Psalms 110:1, which is a Psalm of David, says “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’” Who is David’s Lord in this Verse? Some commentators say that David is referring to the Messiah. Where is the proof of that?

There seems to be no mention of a Messiah in the Psalms, nor does there seem to be a mention of the Messiah in Second Samuel, where David’s exploits are discussed. Some commentators say that the person David is referring to in Psalms 110:1 is a king. But what king? Saul, maybe?

Commentators justify David’s Lord being the Messiah by referring to what it says in Isaiah. Did David know what was written in Isaiah when the Psalms were created in his name? Unlike Jesus, who knew the Book of Isaiah and every other Book in the OT, no such Book was available to David.

Seems the only possibility is that David was referring to Saul. David was devoted to Saul, to the point where when an Amalekite killed Saul, David in 2 Samuel 1:15 has the killer executed. In Verse 16, David says to the Amalekite’s body, “Your blood be on your head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the LORD’s ANOINTED.’” Seems to put a twist in things, as, when combined with Psalms 110:1, David considered Saul to be the Lord’s anointed, furthering the notion that in that Verse, David was referring perhaps to Saul. So, conceivably, the Verse could be interpreted as “The Lord says to SAUL, ‘Sit at my right hand...”

The point is, notwithstanding anything else, there seem to be unexplained mysteries in the Bible, figurative black holes that, based on reading the rest of the Bible, are at least hard to explain.

Why weren't the MANY places Psalm 110:1 was used in the NT mentioned?

...nor does there seem to be a mention of the Messiah in Second Samuel...

That is incorrect. When God spoke to David in 2 Samuel 7 God explicitly stated three people would build His temple: 1) God, 2) a son of David, and 3) a son of God. There is a single person in the Bible that fulfills all three criteria. That person is the Lord of David. He is, in fact Lord of all lords.

 

[newton3005]

That is incorrect. When God spoke to David in 2 Samuel 7 God explicitly stated three people would build His temple: 1) God, 2) a son of David, and 3) a son of God. There is a single person in the Bible that fulfills all three criteria. That person is the Lord of David. He is, in fact Lord of all lords.

If you're referring to Verses 13 and 14, the person God refers to is Solomon who built God's Temple. Read on about Solomon. Would Solomon be David's Lord, considering he's David's son? God helped Solomon build His Temple. Saul was David's Lord. In Verse 14, God says "I will be to him a father and he shall be to me A SON. God in that Verse also says he will discipline his son. It's unlikely that his son in that Verse is Jesus, since Jesus is perfect, therefore he needs no discipline.

 

[Josheb]

If you're referring to Verses 13 and 14, the person God refers to is Solomon who built God's Temple.

No!

At the beginning of His words God asks,

2 Samuel 7:5-7
"Are you the one who should build Me a house to dwell in? "For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle. "Wherever I have gone with all the sons of Israel, did I speak a word with one of the tribes of Israel, which I commanded to shepherd My people Israel, saying, 'Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?'"'

The answer to those questions is... God does not dwell in houses built by human hands (Acts 7:48, 17:24)! What David was planning to do was disobedience! God told David, "The Lord will build a house for you" (vs. 11). In other words, God told David the Lord would build David a house, not the other way around. The one who would build the temple would be a man of peace, so David went out and named his next son "Peace" (Solomon means peace). God told David to name the boy Jedidiah (2 Sam. 12:14-25), but David, again, ignored God and tried to accomplish God's plan in his own flesh. Solomon eventually ruled over a land without war but he waged war in the beginning of his reign AND the man who said life is vanity is NOT a man of peace. Furthermore, Solomon was not next in line for the throne. Solomon had eight or nine brothers ahead of him in line for the throne and Solomon was the progeny of an illicit marriage. Too many hoops have to be jumped through to make Solomon the one of whom God was speaking.

On top of all of that (remember: God does NOT dwell in houses built by human hands), when Solomon built the temple, he hewed the stones. So what? Well, there were multiple commands by God that prohibited the shaping of stones in His altars (see Ex. 20:25, Dt. 27:5, and Jsh. 8:31), the precedent being Abraham's building altars to God of undressed stones, stone God had made that did not have the work of sinful men added to them. Solomon did not use (manmade) tools to dress the stones but every single stone in the entire temple was shaped so well that mortar was not needed to secure them. In other words, every single stone in that temple, especially the ones used to build the altar was an act of disobedience! That is NOT the temple of which God spoke and it is NOT the temple in which God does not dwell. Solomon did NOT build God's temple.

Solomon built a temple, but He did not build God's temple. Jesus is the one who built God's temple. We are that temple. We are the temple God intended God to build, the temple God intended a son of David to build, the temple God's son built.

John 2:18-22
The Jews then said to him, "What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking of the temple of his body. So when He was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

1 Corinthians 3:16
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

The temple God was communicating to David was a temple not built by human hands..... God does not dwell in houses built by human hands! This does not come with neon signs announcing the disobedience. A person has to read the entire Bible and put together all that is stated. There was a lot of sin going on that was not labelled.

Read on about Solomon. Would Solomon be David's Lord, considering he's David's son?

No.

Solomon was a womanizing adulterous king who thought life was vanity, and he disobeyed God with every single stone he used building the temple made by human hands i which God does not dwell. The temple, like the monarchy before it, was not just an act of fleshly works and disobedience, it became an idol in Judaic theology. They worshiped the stone temple more than they did the true temple when the true temple stood right in front of them commanding creation.

God helped Solomon build His Temple.

No, he did not.

Saul was David's Lord.

Yes, Saul was, for a time, briefly Lord over Saul, but that is not who Daivid is speaking about in Psalm 110 and that should be obvious because the Lord in question is the LORD's right hand, seated at the right of the LORD. Solomon does not sit at God's right hand. Jesus does. Furthermore, Jesus is seated on his Father's throne. That means the Lord is seated ON the LORD's throne as the LORD's right hand (it's a role, not just a position of geography).

In Verse 14, God says "I will be to him a father and he shall be to me A SON.

Yes, and Jesus was a son of David. Jesus is, in fact THE Son of David, not just one of many sons.

God in that Verse also says he will discipline his son. It's unlikely that his son in that Verse is Jesus, since Jesus is perfect, therefore he needs no discipline.

Whole scripture. Verse 14 states the son will be disciplined when he commits iniquity. Jesus would not and did not commit iniquity, so no discipline was necessary. Although he was God's Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered (Heb. 5:8). All God was saying was God would discipline the guy AND remain faithful to him. You've used a portion of one verse and ignored the rest to make a claim not supported by the whole of 2 Samuel 7 or the whole of scripture.


God never wanted an earthly monarchy. He did not want Israel to have a king like all the other nations and He took the request to be a rejection of Him. He allowed it, but He never wanted it for them, it was an act of willful unfaithfulness (sin) in which they were rejecting God. This is all stated in 1 Samuel 8, so whenever you read ANY mention of ANY king in Israel it should ALL be understood in the context of 1 Samuel 8's rejection of God. David was a murderous, adulterous, idolatrous man. He was also a man after God's own heart. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions. In and of himself there's nothing particularly special about David.

No king like the other nations.

Then there's the mess pertaining to the temple(s) of stone. God existed among the people and one of the conditions that separated Israel from ALL the other surrounding pagan cultures was the lack of a temple. God never asked for one and God does not dwell in those made by human hands. David was thinking temporally and earthily, not eternally and divinely. The temple, like the monarchy was an act of disobedience.

No temple of stone.

Both institutions ended up adversely influencing Jewish theology to the point they lost understanding of what God meant and intended. All of it was messianic (Christological) but it's very difficult for a people who think Sheol is the end and there is no life after death (the prevailing religious view in old-line Judaism) to imagine God Himself would come down and live among sinful humans and be a temple by which all might also be. That is be. not belong. God hadn't yet fully revealed the entirety of His plan.

David, however, being also a prophet of God, did, apparently, understand some of the bigger picture. We know this because Peter tells us David understood the resurrection, and David understood the promise of a descendant whose reign would be eternal was a reference to the resurrection of the Messiah, not a man-made wooden chair clad in gold.

Acts 2:29-35
Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'"


When God promised to set one of David's descendants on his throne He was speaking of the resurrection of Christ, that His Son would not see decay in the grave. That is the Lord of whom David spoke. Peter, speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost ties 2 Samuel 7 to Psalm 110. That is not my doing; that is God in His word tying the two together explicitly.

Which is why I asked why none of the New Testament uses of Psalm 110 were used in the opening post. The first verse alone is used more than a half-dozen times in the NT. It's a huge mistake to ignore that content. The reason this is important is because thinking about Christianity the way Old Testament-only Jews thought about these things unduly Judaizes Christianity.

Tanakh is always correct.

Judaism is often incorrect.

 

[Dan Perez]

No!

At the beginning of His words God asks,

2 Samuel 7:5-7
"Are you the one who should build Me a house to dwell in? "For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle. "Wherever I have gone with all the sons of Israel, did I speak a word with one of the tribes of Israel, which I commanded to shepherd My people Israel, saying, 'Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?'"'

The answer to those questions is... God does not dwell in houses built by human hands (Acts 7:48, 17:24)! What David was planning to do was disobedience! God told David, "The Lord will build a house for you" (vs. 11). In other words, God told David the Lord would build David a house, not the other way around. The one who would build the temple would be a man of peace, so David went out and named his next son "Peace" (Solomon means peace). God told David to name the boy Jedidiah (2 Sam. 12:14-25), but David, again, ignored God and tried to accomplish God's plan in his own flesh. Solomon eventually ruled over a land without war but he waged war in the beginning of his reign AND the man who said life is vanity is NOT a man of peace. Furthermore, Solomon was not next in line for the throne. Solomon had eight or nine brothers ahead of him in line for the throne and Solomon was the progeny of an illicit marriage. Too many hoops have to be jumped through to make Solomon the one of whom God was speaking.

On top of all of that (remember: God does NOT dwell in houses built by human hands), when Solomon built the temple, he hewed the stones. So what? Well, there were multiple commands by God that prohibited the shaping of stones in His altars (see Ex. 20:25, Dt. 27:5, and Jsh. 8:31), the precedent being Abraham's building altars to God of undressed stones, stone God had made that did not have the work of sinful men added to them. Solomon did not use (manmade) tools to dress the stones but every single stone in the entire temple was shaped so well that mortar was not needed to secure them. In other words, every single stone in that temple, especially the ones used to build the altar was an act of disobedience! That is NOT the temple of which God spoke and it is NOT the temple in which God does not dwell. Solomon did NOT build God's temple.

Solomon built a temple, but He did not build God's temple. Jesus is the one who built God's temple. We are that temple. We are the temple God intended God to build, the temple God intended a son of David to build, the temple God's son built.

John 2:18-22
The Jews then said to him, "What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking of the temple of his body. So when He was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

1 Corinthians 3:16
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

The temple God was communicating to David was a temple not built by human hands..... God does not dwell in houses built by human hands! This does not come with neon signs announcing the disobedience. A person has to read the entire Bible and put together all that is stated. There was a lot of sin going on that was not labelled.

No.

Solomon was a womanizing adulterous king who thought life was vanity, and he disobeyed God with every single stone he used building the temple made by human hands i which God does not dwell. The temple, like the monarchy before it, was not just an act of fleshly works and disobedience, it became an idol in Judaic theology. They worshiped the stone temple more than they did the true temple when the true temple stood right in front of them commanding creation.

No, he did not.

Yes, Saul was, for a time, briefly Lord over Saul, but that is not who Daivid is speaking about in Psalm 110 and that should be obvious because the Lord in question is the LORD's right hand, seated at the right of the LORD. Solomon does not sit at God's right hand. Jesus does. Furthermore, Jesus is seated on his Father's throne. That means the Lord is seated ON the LORD's throne as the LORD's right hand (it's a role, not just a position of geography).

Yes, and Jesus was a son of David. Jesus is, in fact THE Son of David, not just one of many sons.

Whole scripture. Verse 14 states the son will be disciplined when he commits iniquity. Jesus would not and did not commit iniquity, so no discipline was necessary. Although he was God's Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered (Heb. 5:8). All God was saying was God would discipline the guy AND remain faithful to him. You've used a portion of one verse and ignored the rest to make a claim not supported by the whole of 2 Samuel 7 or the whole of scripture.


God never wanted an earthly monarchy. He did not want Israel to have a king like all the other nations and He took the request to be a rejection of Him. He allowed it, but He never wanted it for them, it was an act of willful unfaithfulness (sin) in which they were rejecting God. This is all stated in 1 Samuel 8, so whenever you read ANY mention of ANY king in Israel it should ALL be understood in the context of 1 Samuel 8's rejection of God. David was a murderous, adulterous, idolatrous man. He was also a man after God's own heart. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions. In and of himself there's nothing particularly special about David.

No king like the other nations.

Then there's the mess pertaining to the temple(s) of stone. God existed among the people and one of the conditions that separated Israel from ALL the other surrounding pagan cultures was the lack of a temple. God never asked for one and God does not dwell in those made by human hands. David was thinking temporally and earthily, not eternally and divinely. The temple, like the monarchy was an act of disobedience.

No temple of stone.

Both institutions ended up adversely influencing Jewish theology to the point they lost understanding of what God meant and intended. All of it was messianic (Christological) but it's very difficult for a people who think Sheol is the end and there is no life after death (the prevailing religious view in old-line Judaism) to imagine God Himself would come down and live among sinful humans and be a temple by which all might also be. That is be. not belong. God hadn't yet fully revealed the entirety of His plan.

David, however, being also a prophet of God, did, apparently, understand some of the bigger picture. We know this because Peter tells us David understood the resurrection, and David understood the promise of a descendant whose reign would be eternal was a reference to the resurrection of the Messiah, not a man-made wooden chair clad in gold.

Acts 2:29-35
Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'"


When God promised to set one of David's descendants on his throne He was speaking of the resurrection of Christ, that His Son would not see decay in the grave. That is the Lord of whom David spoke. Peter, speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost ties 2 Samuel 7 to Psalm 110. That is not my doing; that is God in His word tying the two together explicitly.

Which is why I asked why none of the New Testament uses of Psalm 110 were used in the opening post. The first verse alone is used more than a half-dozen times in the NT. It's a huge mistake to ignore that content. The reason this is important is because thinking about Christianity the way Old Testament-only Jews thought about these things unduly Judaizes Christianity.

Tanakh is always correct.

Judaism is often incorrect.

And we have TWO JEHOVAHS in Gen 19:24 !!

Your thoughts ??

Robert C Brock has written a small article , and I type to slow .

dan p

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Psalms 110:1, which is a Psalm of David, says “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’” Who is David’s Lord in this Verse? Some commentators say that David is referring to the Messiah. Where is the proof of that?

There seems to be no mention of a Messiah in the Psalms, nor does there seem to be a mention of the Messiah in Second Samuel, where David’s exploits are discussed. Some commentators say that the person David is referring to in Psalms 110:1 is a king. But what king? Saul, maybe?

Commentators justify David’s Lord being the Messiah by referring to what it says in Isaiah. Did David know what was written in Isaiah when the Psalms were created in his name? Unlike Jesus, who knew the Book of Isaiah and every other Book in the OT, no such Book was available to David.

Seems the only possibility is that David was referring to Saul. David was devoted to Saul, to the point where when an Amalekite killed Saul, David in 2 Samuel 1:15 has the killer executed. In Verse 16, David says to the Amalekite’s body, “Your blood be on your head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the LORD’s ANOINTED.’” Seems to put a twist in things, as, when combined with Psalms 110:1, David considered Saul to be the Lord’s anointed, furthering the notion that in that Verse, David was referring perhaps to Saul. So, conceivably, the Verse could be interpreted as “The Lord says to SAUL, ‘Sit at my right hand...”

The point is, notwithstanding anything else, there seem to be unexplained mysteries in the Bible, figurative black holes that, based on reading the rest of the Bible, are at least hard to explain.

The first promise of a Messiah is Genesis 3:15. The Old Testament builds the picture of the Messiah throughout the ages...Job and Isaiah give vivid pictures as for instances.

 

[Josheb]

And we have TWO JEHOVAHS in Gen 19:24 !!

Your thoughts ??

?????

Genesis 19:24 does not state two Jehovah's exist.

Robert C Brock has written a small article , and I type to slow .

dan p

I am inclined to say Brock should be avoided if he claims there are two Jehovah's in Genesis 19:24

 

[newton3005]

At the beginning of His words God asks,

2 Samuel 7:5-7
"Are you the one who should build Me a house to dwell in? "For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle. "Wherever I have gone with all the sons of Israel, did I speak a word with one of the tribes of Israel, which I commanded to shepherd My people Israel, saying, 'Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?'"'

The answer to those questions is... God does not dwell in houses built by human hands (Acts 7:48, 17:24)!

Apples and oranges.

Each Verse stands on its own. What does 2 Samuel 7:7 have to do with 2 Samuel 7:13? In Verse 7 he merely has Nathan ask David why He didn’t command His judges to build Him a house of cedar? Perhaps He had a house of Gold in mind, as He commanded Moses to build in Exodus 25:8, directing that the people make Him a sanctuary that He may dwell in their midst, with the Tabernacle described in Exodus 26:6 to contain “clasps of gold.” Cedar is not mentioned as a material for the Tabernacle. To this day, there are houses of worship where the Lord can dwell within the midst of the congregation. No house for God? Poppycock!

As for Acts 7:48, commentators say that God indeed dwelt in Solomon’s temple, and that the Verse means that no human hands can build a dwelling that God would be confined to. Acts 17:24? Same explanation. Again, considering the thousands of structures build for God to dwell in and not be confined, it makes sense that no temples and other houses of worship that were made by human hands was meant to confine God.

Was it a sin to build those structures? Apparently not, since Judaism and Christianity thrive to this day.

 

[newton3005]

John 2:18-22
The Jews then said to him, "What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking of the temple of his body. So when He was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

As far as we being the temples that Jesus built, well, we have the same status as the temples built by Solomon and others...that is, God is not confined to any one place.

Where in the bible does it say that the Jews worshipped a stone temple for the sake of the temple? That would be contrary to the Second Commandment, “thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

As for the rest of what you said, without quoting Passages from the Bible, be mindful of possibly adding to or subtracting from what is said in the Bible, as we all should be.

 

[Josheb]

Apples and oranges.

No, it is not. Scripture speaks cohesively with one voice from beginning to end.

Each Verse stands on its own.

Let me encourage you to study exegesis and hermeneutics more because that statement should never come out of the mouth or fingertips of any Christian.

Was it a sin to build those structures?

Yes! That's the entire point!

Apparently not, since Judaism and Christianity thrive to this day.

Aside from the fact that is a false cause fallacy ("thriving" is not proof of correctness, otherwise JWs and LDSes would both be correct ), Judaism does not thrive, and it does not teach others to thrive. If what Christians believe is true and correct, then dying a Jew leads to eternal destruction. When God says, "Don't shape the stones," and then later reports someone shaped the stones, scripture does not then need to declare what should be obvious: the person shaping the stones has disobeyed God and thereby sinned. There are literally scores of examples of this. Scripture does NOT announce or label every single sin someone committed in the Bible. We're supposed to know that someone dishonoring his/her father or mother has broken the Decalogue - and we're not supposed to need a neon sign or flag announcing "Look there! Look there! Sin! Sin!" We're supposed to understand those events in light of what the whole of scripture tells us. God explicitly stated, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them" (1 Sam. 8:7). We do not need an additional, stand-alone verse stating, "Oh, look, they just sinned," because we're supposed to know rejecting God is a sin! God never wanted Israel to have a king like all the other nations. EVERY single king was a king like all the other nations and therefore NOT something God wanted. Every single one of them was an example of Israel's rejection of God as their King. The exact same thing is true when God rhetorically asks, "When have I ever asked anyone to build me a temple?" and still later bluntly states, "The God who made the world and everything that is in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made by hands," (Acts. 17:24). We're supposed to use the brain God gave us and automatically understand calling a man-made building of stone "the house of God" is contradictory.

 

[Josheb]

As far as we being the temples that Jesus built, well, we have the same status as the temples built by Solomon and others...

Prove it.

that is, God is not confined to any one place.

Where'd you get the idea the temple was about God not being confined? Is the prima facie self-contradictory nature of a confined God understood??

Where in the bible does it say that the Jews worshipped a stone temple for the sake of the temple?

Like the examples of the divided priesthood, the human monarchy, and the temple of stone, those occasions do not come with separate announcements. Idolatry is simply placing anything above or in the place of God in our lives. Every single example where the temple was elevated above Jesus, for example, would be an example of idol worship. Failing to understand Jesus is the temple, and NOT the building of stone, is an example of temple worship (see John 2:20). Admiring the majesty of the gold-clad temple while not understanding its necessary inevitable destruction is another (see Mt. 24:2).

That would be contrary to the Second Commandment, “thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Yes, it would. That's the whole point. You do understand the OT Jews broke every single command of the Decalogue, yes? You do understand breaking just one law of the Law meant they broke the whole Law, yes?

As for the rest of what you said, without quoting Passages from the Bible, be mindful of possibly adding to or subtracting from what is said in the Bible, as we all should be.

I've quoted, referenced, and alluded to more scripture in this thread then anyone else, including you. That means if you do not want me to turn your criticism on you and call you a hypocrite you'd do yourself a service and put down your prejudices and let the scriptures and the posts speak for themselves. Everything I posted was backed up with scripture, and if it wasn't all you have to do is ask. Not only did I quote and reference scripture to prove my post(s) but I read it exactly as written and did not add to or subtract from any of it.

As for Acts 7:48, commentators say....

Any commentator who contradicts what is explicitly stated in scripture is wrong. Any Christian who believes a commentator over what is explicitly stated in God's word is wrong. When God said, "...they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them," He meant exactly what He explicitly stated = Israel rejected God as their King. When God said, "...they have forsaken Me and served other gods..." He meant exactly what He explicitly stated. They had forsaken God. Their request for a king like all the other nations was a rejection of God as their King, a forsaking Him. I did not add a single word of additional interpretation to any of it. Any commentator who reads the passage ignoring what is plainly, explicitly stated is the one adding to or subtracting from what is stated (and likely adding a man-made doctrinally informed bias to the text) is the one erring.


And you are still avoiding the very valid inquiries I have asked, like, why doesn't this op include ANY of the New Testament uses of Psalm 110? Should I expect an answer to that question, or not?

 

[newton3005]

Judaism does not thrive

I guess Islam doesn't thrive either. Neither does Hinduism or Buddhism. If Judaism didn't thrive, there wouldn't be anti-Semitism. More to the point, if Judaism didn't thrive, why is the OT included in most Christian Bibles? To say that Judaism doesn't thrive is like saying Abraham's descendants don't thrive. If Judaism doesn't thrive, then what's the point of Galatians 3:29 ?

 

[newton3005]

God rhetorically asks, "When have I ever asked anyone to build me a temple?"

Read Ezra 1:2-3 . Seems the only 'rhetorical' question is coming from you in your quote above...

 

[Josheb]

I guess Islam doesn't thrive either. Neither does Hinduism or Buddhism. If Judaism didn't thrive, there wouldn't be anti-Semitism. More to the point, if Judaism didn't thrive, why is the OT included in most Christian Bibles? To say that Judaism doesn't thrive is like saying Abraham's descendants don't thrive. If Judaism doesn't thrive, then what's the point of Galatians 3:29 ?

All end in death.

John 3:18-19
He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

Anyone not believing in God's resurrected Son has already been condemned and his/her fate is decided.

2 Corinthians 11:4
For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

Galatians 1:6-9
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


All of the religions listed in Post 12 teach a different gospel.

Do not confuse or conflate "thrive" with "proliferate." Sinners have been proliferating since Genesis 3:7. They do not thrive.

And you still have not answered my question,

Why weren't the MANY places Psalm 110:1 was used in the NT mentioned?

Read Ezra 1:2-3 . Seems the only 'rhetorical' question is coming from you in your quote above...

Hogwash. I addressed the Ezra text. Ezra does not get read on its own. All scripture speaks with one cohesive voice as a whole and ignoring what is stated in the New Testament about the Old Testament is wrong.

So I will ask you again,

Why weren't the many places Psalm 110:1 was used in the New Testament included in the op?

The newer revelation reveals what was previously hidden and/or veiled in the older revelation. Their inclusion will answer the question asked in this op.... but for some unstated reason I cannot get you to answer one single, very valid and relevant question. It's quite evident selective use of scripture, false equivalence, red herring, and appeals to ambiguity are preferred to sound exegesis of whole scripture. Just answer the question asked. It won't matter what the answer is because, whatever it is, that can be discussed once it's posted. What we have now is a claim made in answer to a rhetorically asked question (you already knew the answer you wanted) using selected portions of scripture read through a Judaizing filter that ignores the NT and an open refusal to answer what is a very simple, very valid question that could and should readily, easily, and directly be answered. The avoidance is informative. Just answer the question asked.

Why weren't the many places Psalm 110:1 was used in the New Testament included in the op?

.

 

[newton3005]

Why weren't the many places Psalm 110:1 was used in the New Testament included in the op?

What 'use' are those places in the NT? Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 he came to uphold the Law and the Prophets. The 'places' you refer to in Psalm 110 only matter to the extent they justify the Law and the Prophets. And as you inadvertently alluded to, God is not confined to one place. The 'places' of God include ourselves; WE are his Temples according to 1 Corinthians 3:16.

Why did God want buildings to be made in His Name? It's the optics. For many, it's easier to focus on the majesty of a building than it is to focus on themselves. And inasmuch as God is everywhere at once, He is in every structure in His Name at once. He is in every place at once.

Why weren't the many places in Psalm 110 listed? Do we have to mention every name of a place the sun, or son for that matter, shines, to confirm their existence everywhere? Do we need to confirm every place that God exists in order to say that He exists in the world?

 

[Josheb]

What 'use' are those places in the NT?

I have already answered that question.

This is now the second time I have been asked a question I have already, preemptively answered. Why am I being asked already-answered questions? Why aren't my questions being answered?

Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 he came to uphold the Law and the Prophets. The 'places' you refer to in Psalm 110 only matter to the extent they justify the Law and the Prophets. And as you inadvertently alluded to, God is not confined to one place. The 'places' of God include ourselves; WE are his Temples according to 1 Corinthians 3:16.

It was not inadvertent.

Most of what Jesus said can be found in Tanakh. That point is not in dispute. Matthew 5:17 does not state Jesus came to "uphold" the Law and prophets. It states he came to fulfill them.... and that is one of the reasons explaining the use of the NT. Your own observation (mistaken as it was) answers the question about the NT's validity and veracity. Most of what Jesus taught can be found in the OT, but most of it is Jesus teaching Tanakh correctly, not as old-line Judaism understood it.

Tanakh is always correct.

Judaism is often incorrect.

And that is another reason why it is important to consult the newer revelation to correctly understand the older revelation.

Why did God want buildings to be made in His Name?

Off-topic.

I'll gladly answer any other questions you may have once 1) you've answered the questions I first asked and 2) we finish with the question pertaining to Psalm 110's Lord of the LORD.

Why weren't the many places in Psalm 110 listed?

Because the onus is on you to consider whole scripture, not me. This is your op, not mine. It's yours to assert, yours to clarify, yours to defend, yours to amend as needed, and if circumstance of this discussion warrants it, then the op is yours to recant. It takes less than to look these NT uses up. I just timed it; it took less than 12 seconds to get HERE.. Seven examples are provided in the right-side margin, and others will be found clicking on each of those.

So my question stands...

Why weren't the many places Psalm 110:1 was used in the New Testament included in the op?

.

Do we have to mention every name of a place the sun, or son for that matter, shines, to confirm their existence everywhere?

Yes, we do if we want to have a whole scripture understanding of what is said and not prejudicially use scripture selectively to propagate already existing biases.

Do we need to confirm every place that God exists in order to say that He exists in the world?

Yes, and you're arguing a red herring NOT answering the question asked. If you'd answered the question when first asked we'd be long past that point and moved on to other salient content. You are the one holding up this conversation with obfuscation and fallacy, and doing so when it would be much easir and much more efficient for all to just answer the question asked.


Why weren't the many places Psalm 110:1 was used in the New Testament included in the op?


.

 

[newton3005]

Why weren't the many places Psalm 110:1 was used in the New Testament included in the op?

Only ONE place is mentioned in that passage. that's the footstool wherever that is. You're begging the question.

As far as Jesus fulfilling the Law, as opposed to upholding it, keepin mind Romans 3:31 which says, "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we UPHOLD the law." These are Jesus' followers. If his followers uphold the Law, it is the result of Jesus' fulfilling the Law.

If you want to be a "footstool," there is nothing more to discuss.

 

[Josheb]

Only ONE place is mentioned in that passage. that's the footstool wherever that is.

That statement is telling. You do not know where his footstool is (even though elsewhere scripture tells us).

You're begging the question.

No, I am asking you a question that you repeatedly refuse to answer and overtly resist despite the fact the NT explains the OT. The selective use of scripture, especially to support an already-existing point of view is unscriptural and irrational. The question asked is op-relevant, and very valid and veracious. Had it been answered when asked we'd be much further along in this discussion and possibly have uniform agreement with whole scripture and not just with each other. As it is, after 17 posts this op has neither. I shouldn't have to ask the question asked more than once but patience, kindness, forbearance, hope and trust were extended because it is important to have agreement with whole scripture.

Titus 3:9-11 ESV
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

I can find verses in the Bible where David is called "Lord," but not Solomon . A simple examination of Psalm 110:1's Hebrew would have answered the question asked in this op and precluded Solomon from being the answer. It was posted in the op and then ignored. Solomon is not the LORD's Lord, and neither is he David's Lord. The fact there is only one Lord, and he is Lord over all, and Lord of all other lords should have been sufficient to identify the Lord of Psalm 110:1.

But the NT would have to be used to understand those facts.

I've said my piece and see no need to belabor any of the points further given the fact I can't get a single very op-relevant and valid inquiry answered. 17 posts is enough. I'm unfollowing the thread and moving on.