One must confess Christ is YHWH !

[Matthias]

What we must confess is that Christ is adoni.

 

[civic]

The first, and easiest, place to start is with an Interlinear. Here is the Interlinear on Bible Hub.

Psalm 110:1 Interlinear: A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'

Click on the link.

The Interlinear correctly reports that the Hebrew word used in Psalm 110:1 for the person whom Yahweh is addressing is adoni.

who is also YHWH,

 

[civic]

What we must confess is that Christ is adoni.

YHWH- see Romans 10 thread on what it means to confess Jesus is YHWH- Lord- Kurios the Greek word for YHWH

 

[Matthias]

Let’s set the Hebrew side-by-side with a correct English translation of Psalm 110:1.

Psalms 110 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

Click on the link.

This confirms for us that what the Interlinear reported on the verse is correct. The Hebrew word is adoni, not the Hebrew word adonai.

 

[civic]

still avoiding the OP. maybe a unitarian will attempt to address the OP and stick to those passages instead of deflecting away from them.

 

[Matthias]

who is also YHWH,

The Hebrew word used for Yahweh is adonai, not adoni.

 

[civic]

Let’s set the Hebrew side-by-side with a correct English translation of Psalm 110:1.

Psalms 110 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

Click on the link.

This confirms for us that what the Interlinear reported on the verse is correct. The Hebrew word is adoni, not the Hebrew word adonai.

please start your own thread on Psalm 110. This thread is not about that passage. that is a different conversation.

 

[Matthias]

still avoiding the OP. maybe a unitarian will attempt to address the OP and stick to those passages instead of deflecting away from them.

I’m not avoiding the OP. I apply the Jewish Law of Agency to explain them in a way which harmonizes with the Messiah being adoni, not adonai.

 

[Matthias]

please start your own thread on Psalm 110. This thread is not about that passage. that is a different conversation.

I will do as you request, but you’re wrong about Psalm 110:1 not being germane to the conversation about the passages in the OP.

 

[Fred]

Psalm 110:1

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

Mark 14:62
And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

Daniel 7:13-14
(13) I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
(14) And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.


The Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of pelach in Daniel 7:14. One of the ways of offering pelach is by prayer (Daniel 6:10, 16).
This demonstrates the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer.

According to Jesus in Luke 4:8 God alone is the proper recipient of latreuō. As with the above, one of the ways of rendering latreuō is by prayer (Luke 2:37). Since the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer proves He is the proper recipient of latreuō. This demonstrates He is God.

Remember, Luke 4:8 is a quotation from Deuteronomy 6:13 in what it teaches about the ONE YHWH of Deuteronomy 6:4. One cannot biblically affirm Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer, but deny He is YHWH.

 

[civic]

I will do as you request, but you’re wrong about Psalm 110:1 not being germane to the conversation about the passages in the OP.

Start a thread and I will gladly disprove your premise.

 

[civic]

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

Mark 14:62
And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

Daniel 7:13-14
(13) I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
(14) And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.


The Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of pelach in Daniel 7:14. One of the ways of offering pelach is by prayer (Daniel 6:10, 16).
This demonstrates the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer.

According to Jesus in Luke 4:8 God alone is the proper recipient of latreuō. As with the above, one of the ways of rendering latreuō is by prayer (Luke 2:37). Since the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer proves He is the proper recipient of latreuō. This demonstrates He is God.

Remember, Luke 4:8 is a quotation from Deuteronomy 6:13 in what it teaches about the ONE YHWH of Deuteronomy 6:4. One cannot biblically affirm Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer, but deny He is YHWH.

Amen Fred well done. I'm looking forward to @Matthias starting his new thread on Psalm 110:1.

 

[Diserner]

I will provide the list of all 195 verses. If you would prefer that I not put the list in this thread then I can start a new thread for it.

There is a "rest of the story" you are failing to mention here.

The vowels are not in the earliest Hebrew, and are later interpretations. This is not debatable. The consonant letters are exactly the same for adoni and adonai. Out of a misguided reverence for God, clear indications of referring to him as "my Lord" such as in Psalm 35:22 were changed, as they did the vowels of God's name, so that no one even knows what it was now. "My Lord" is incredibly more contextually natural in this verse than the stilted "the Lord."

This is important information. A particularly brave English translation has opted for this choice (most use "O Lord"):

Thou hast seen, O Yahweh, do not keep silence! O My Lord! be not far from me: (Ps. 35:22 ROT)

Although it does not prove Psalm 110 references to YHWH in both instances, it does at least open the possibility. It is very debatable that the scribes have removed all instances of "my Lord" towards Yahweh on purpose.

The declaration of Yahweh to my Lord--Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. (Ps. 110:1 ROT)

We can definitively say—the grammar does not dictate this cannot be referring to God as "my Lord," for this has been an alteration of the scribes.

I would agree that it does not prove it is, but I urge some balance here.

 

[civic]

There is a "rest of the story" you are failing to mention here.

The vowels are not in the earliest Hebrew, and are later interpretations. This is not debatable. The consonant letters are exactly the same for adoni and adonai. Out of a misguided reverence for God, clear indications of referring to him as "my Lord" such as in Psalm 35:22 were changed, as they did the vowels of God's name, so that no one even knows what it was now. "My Lord" is incredibly more contextually natural in this verse than the stilted "the Lord."

This is important information. A particularly brave English translation has opted for this choice (most use "O Lord"):

Thou hast seen, O Yahweh, do not keep silence! O My Lord! be not far from me: (Ps. 35:22 ROT)

Although it does not prove Psalm 110 references to YHWH in both instances, it does at least open the possibility. It is very debatable that the scribes have removed all instances of "my Lord" towards Yahweh on purpose.

The declaration of Yahweh to my Lord--Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. (Ps. 110:1 ROT)

We can definitively say—the grammar does not dictate this cannot be referring to God as "my Lord," for this has been an alteration of the scribes.

I would agree that it does not prove it is, but I urge some balance here.

And there was no earthly king higher than David. He was the ruler and only God was the ruler above him- Davids Lord, His God- YHWH. David served God alone and no other- David was the highest ranking person on this earth as King. The uni's have no argument and as you mentioned many scriptures identify adonai as YHWH in the OT.

 

[Diserner]

Another English witness:

But you've seen it too, LORD. Don't keep quiet about it. Please don't be far from me, my Lord. - Common English Bible

The Aramaic uses “my Lord” here:

You have seen, oh, God, and do not be silent, my Lord, and do not be far from me. - Aramaic Bible in Plain English

I also just noticed Psa. 35:23 has an even stronger contextual adoni replaced by adonai, and many more translations use "my Lord."

And I think a very important witness I have that is not online, is the Judaica Press New Translation of the Tanach. Being written by Jews and for Jews you know there is no Christian bias here and they render:

Arouse Yourself and awaken to my judgment, my God and my Lord, to my cause.

And just for comparison Psalm 16:2 is another verse that even more translations opt for “my Lord” for adonai, as well as the LXX:

I said to the Lord, Thou art my Lord; for thou has no need of my goodness. (Ps. 16:2 LXE)

 

[APAK]

Joel 2:32
32 "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Will be delivered;
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
There will be those who escape,
As the Lord has said,
Even among the survivors whom the Lord calls.


Once again we see Paul quote another OT passage about YHWH and apply it to Jesus who is the one and only Lord according to the N.T.

Romans 10:9-13
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of C all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

hope this helps !!!

You are still taking advantage of the chaos caused by early translators, by the naming YHWH (or LORD) with the same title as his Son, Jesus the 'Lord' in the NT. If this is your text proof that you think God now is the Son of God (already a weird thought) then I would have kept this OP still on the drawing board.

Fortunately if we are honest when applying these 'same' titles as truth we can still easily differentiate between the Father God and his Son. And here's how.

Please provide a clear explanation of why you think YHWH means lord Jesus in the NT regardless whether written as Lord? And in so doing you can explain why Paul raised the OT verse in the first place. He was speaking to his audience.....and ....and ...and...

I do not want a non-answer such as Title A for YHWH referenced in the OT = Title B Lord in the NT and Title B Lord in the NT = Jesus, therefore Jesus = YHWH.

I'm not convince at all you know why in Paul's Romans and Peter in Acts recalled and presented the OT of Joel for salvation in Christ. And the answer does not revolve around what you simply deduced by literally viewing two verses with incorrect/inaccurate titles and concludes Jesus is YHWH either.....

Is the lord (Lord) for Jesus really the same LORD or YHWH in the OT civic?

Thanks

 

[Matthias]

There is a "rest of the story" you are failing to mention here.

The vowels are not in the earliest Hebrew, and are later interpretations. This is not debatable.

It’s part of the rest of the story. The vowels were added by the Masoretes. Do you read Hebrew without the vowels?

The consonant letters are exactly the same for adoni and adonai.

That’s right. What’s different are the vowels. Whether supplied or not supplied, every Hebrew word has vowels. Without vowels, words can’t be pronounced.

Out of a misguided reverence for God, clear indications of referring to him as "my Lord" such as in Psalm 35:22 were changed, as they did the vowels of God's name, so that no one even knows what it was now. "My Lord" is incredibly more contextually natural in this verse than the stilted "the Lord."

This is important information. A particularly brave English translation has opted for this choice (most use "O Lord"):

Thou hast seen, O Yahweh, do not keep silence! O My Lord! be not far from me: (Ps. 35:22 ROT)

Although it does not prove Psalm 110 references to YHWH in both instances, it does at least open the possibility. It is very debatable that the scribes have removed all instances of "my Lord" towards Yahweh on purpose.

The declaration of Yahweh to my Lord--Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. (Ps. 110:1 ROT)

We can definitively say—the grammar does not dictate this cannot be referring to God as "my Lord," for this has been an alteration of the scribes.

I would agree that it does not prove it is, but I urge some balance here.

I pointed out earlier that the LXX confirms that the vowels provided by the Masoretes are correct. It’s pretty apparent to me that you haven’t done that exercise. I recommend that everyone do it. It’s just a recommendation. Do what you think best.

 

[Matthias]

And there was no earthly king higher than David. He was the ruler and only God was the ruler above him- Davids Lord, His God- YHWH. David served God alone and no other- David was the highest ranking person on this earth as King. The uni's have no argument and as you mentioned many scriptures identify adonai as YHWH in the OT.

The Messiah was born a king and he will reign on the earth when he returns. The Messiah wasn’t David’s lord in David’s lifetime. David’s God is the Messiah’s God - Yahweh.

 

[Matthias]

Start a thread and I will gladly disprove your premise.

My premise is simple: Yahweh is the God and Father of the adoni.

 

[Diserner]

Do you read Hebrew without the vowels?

I would always consider cognates, variants and different word spacings, rather than just assume the vowels are correct. Most textual critics do not consider the vowels as written by the original authors and thus are subject to error and tampering. We have many clear examples of incorrect vowel pointing by the Masoretes and that alone is proof enough they are not inspired.

I pointed out earlier that the LXX confirms that the vowels provided by the Masoretes are correct. It’s pretty apparent to me that you haven’t done that exercise. I recommend that everyone do it. It’s just a recommendation. Do what you think best.

You will notice the LXX does NOT always agree with the Masoretes.

I posted a verse above as proof.