dizerner wrote:Yea, but it's indirect not direct support, as I previously said is the case.
Yes, that's true. It is indirect (in your opinion) since there is no scripture that links psalm 110 with the trinity.
dizerner wrote:You seem to always want to make things direct support and only disprove them in that sense.
How can anything be disproven otherwise? Besides that, it seems to be a wise thing to do. 1 Acts 17:1, 1Thess 5:21.
dizerner wrote:We see from the NT that this means that whoever was "my Lord" ascended to the right hand of God. Also we see this often overlooked passage in Matthew:
43 He said to them, “How then does David, by the Spirit, call him ‘Lord,’ saying,
44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet”’?
55 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?” 46 And no one was able to answer him a word
We've got some serious implications in this verse. It says that David called this Messiah Lord by the Spirit, yet he would also be his descendant. So how could David writing hundreds of years before Christ say "The Lord said to my Lord," if, as the Jews response indicated, a future Messianic Lord wouldn't really be considered David's "Lord" under Jewish understanding? Jesus was David's "Lord" even at the time of the writing of the Psalms and David's Lord hundreds of years later. And why so often the Jews' response to Jesus' claim that he would ascend and sit at the right hand of the Power was considered blasphemy? (Blasphemy was directed against God.) And we can also show how the writer of Hebrews uses Psa. 110:4 to show Christ's eternality, having neither beginning of days nor end of life but made like the Son of God, a priest perpetually. We could also use the argument of having all things subdued to the Son as a quality that is only befitting the Divine, as Hebrews 1 clearly shows us.
All I have been trying to point out is that there is a distinction between the two words that are represented by the word "lord" in this verse. Have you noticed that the first LORD is in all caps, and the second lord is not? The second "lord" - adoni- is not a divine name or title. Anyone in authority (like David) can be called "adoni" without the implication that they are divine.
That is all I am saying.
I personally do not see how your references from Matthew and Hebrews help settle the meaning or use of the word "adoni", which is what we are talking about. Obviously, you disagree, and think that Jesus being called lord means that he's God. So far, your arguments, which you admit are indirect implications without direct scriptural support, are not enough to convince me that your interpretation is correct so I suppose we"ll just have to leave it at that.
dizerner wrote:Certainly Psalms 110 is an important theological verse that should be a part of any theistic Biblical paradigm.
Seeing how it's the most often quoted OT verse by the NT writers, I would agree with you on that point. The question then becomes - Why did they quote it so often? Was it to imply that Jesus is God, or to prove that he is the Messiah? I think the evidence heavily leans towards the latter.