Comma Johanneum/Changing of the Bible.

[Qoheleth]

You are not a Christian. Why would you believe anything the Bible has to say?

If you want to present the argument, that the nature of the Spirit of God in the old testament differs from that in the New, then the burden of proof is on you to show why and how.

I Believe in the "Old" Testament, just not the new one; also, wasn't my question asked first ?

It seems fair that you provide your scriptual evidence and I counter with mine.

 

[handy]

Hi Qoheleth,

I've read through the thread, but sometimes in reading a long line of posts, I miss things, so if I repeat something that has already been gone over, forgive me.

In response to your original question, "The parts of the text in bold are the Comma Johanneum, and are the basis of the 3 in 1 doctrine. Yet since it was not in the original texts is it right not to question the 3 in 1 doctrine and believe it wholeheartedly?"

I don't think that God minds us questioning anything...as long as we are questioning with the idea of truly arriving at His truth and not questioning in order to promote our own ideas and agendas.

As for the Comma Johanneum, I don't know of very many Christians that point to this text as the "basis" of the 3 in 1 doctrine. More often, people look to the Gospel of John, the way that Father, Son and Holy Spirit refer to each other and the eternal nature of Jesus as the basis of the Trinity. I know you've looked at Psalm 2, which is a very clear text regarding the Divine nature of the Son who is separate of the Father...but only for those who believe that the New Testament is every bit as inspired and infallible as the Old Testament, which you do not. Yet I do wonder how you explain “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You" as being about Israel?

I'm assuming from your user name and the respect with which you hold the Old Testament that you are a believing Jew (please correct me if I'm wrong)...so I'll try to point out the various texts in the Old Testament that shows that the Son is both distinct from the Father and divine Himself.

But, as theLords pointed out... we really haven't come to a basic understanding of the actual teaching of the Trinity. Something that should be done. For now, suffice it to say that the Trinity is not a doctrine that teaches a plurality of Gods...as a matter of fact, this is what sets Christians apart...the fact that we believe wholeheartedly that God is indeed One...there is only One God...but that He has revealed Himself to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three distinct persons, but One God.

Yes, it is confusing...however as the Old Testament prophet said, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD." Both Christians and Jews need to be satisfied at times that God certainly doesn't always reveal things about Himself, nor about how He operates...and we all should certainly be able to admit that there are going to be truths about God that we, in our finite minds, are never going to be able to fully comprehend about God, even when He does reveal them to us.

Now, as for Old Testament texts that point to the Trinity.... Here is the thing...these texts were, for ages, understood in one way only. However, with the coming of the Son and His pouring His Spirit out on all of His people, there is a newer understanding of what these texts mean.

For instance, with Psalm 45, the psalm can be looked at as merely a song of praise, possibly to Solomon, or perhaps to God. But then, the psalmist writes:

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of joy above Your fellows.

What does this mean, to be referring to God, then say "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You..."

For us Christians, who have the Spirit, we understand that this is a text in which the Father is speaking of the Son. This is one of the instances in the Old Testament where the nature of the Son is revealed, even though not yet fully understood at the time of the writing.

Other such passages include Genesis 1 itself in which God says, "Let Us make man according to our image..." I know many non Christians who believe that this is referring to God speaking to the angels...but the angels are not capable of creating and therefore God would not have been speaking to them. Only God is the creator, so it stands to reason that God is speaking to a creator...Yet, if God is One there is only one creator...none of it makes any sense whatsoever, unless and until one sees that the Father, Son and Spirit all worked to create...All One God, yet the Father says to the Son and Spirit, "Let Us..."

Micah 5 is yet another text which Christians look to that reveals the Divine nature of Jesus the Son...

“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.â€

The only way one can be "going forth...from the days of eternity" is if one is God or one is an angel. Certainly human beings are not capable of going forth from the days of eternity, for we all were born and all die.

Christians see this passage as one that describes the Divine nature of the Son and view this as a prophesy of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

This post is getting pretty long... if you're truly interested in learning about the Trinity and why the Comma Johanneum is not the basis of the doctrine, I'll spend more time looking at the various OT passages.

 

[theLords]

I Believe in the "Old" Testament, just not the new one; also, wasn't my question asked first ?

It seems fair that you provide your scriptual evidence and I counter with mine.

If you give no authority to the NT, then this discussion is a fruitless waste of time. Which is why I will bow out of this thread.

Ps: in proper debate, you made the statement that the Spirit of God, is not the same in the Old and New Testament, meaning the burden of proof is on you.

I for one, do not do the grunt work for those who have already made up their minds. You quote from the ot and NT, but only give authority to the Old. Your actions then prove, that you only seek to argue against the doctrine of the trinity. You appeal to the NT to make your case, and although you do not find its message of worth, why do you think it fair to interpret the NT and explain it to a Christian? You're showing your hand again ;)

 

[Qoheleth]

Hi Qoheleth,

I've read through the thread, but sometimes in reading a long line of posts, I miss things, so if I repeat something that has already been gone over, forgive me.

In response to your original question, "The parts of the text in bold are the Comma Johanneum, and are the basis of the 3 in 1 doctrine. Yet since it was not in the original texts is it right not to question the 3 in 1 doctrine and believe it wholeheartedly?"

I don't think that God minds us questioning anything...as long as we are questioning with the idea of truly arriving at His truth and not questioning in order to promote our own ideas and agendas.

As for the Comma Johanneum, I don't know of very many Christians that point to this text as the "basis" of the 3 in 1 doctrine. More often, people look to the Gospel of John, the way that Father, Son and Holy Spirit refer to each other and the eternal nature of Jesus as the basis of the Trinity. I know you've looked at Psalm 2, which is a very clear text regarding the Divine nature of the Son who is separate of the Father...but only for those who believe that the New Testament is every bit as inspired and infallible as the Old Testament, which you do not. Yet I do wonder how you explain “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You" as being about Israel?

I'm assuming from your user name and the respect with which you hold the Old Testament that you are a believing Jew (please correct me if I'm wrong)...so I'll try to point out the various texts in the Old Testament that shows that the Son is both distinct from the Father and divine Himself.

But, as theLords pointed out... we really haven't come to a basic understanding of the actual teaching of the Trinity. Something that should be done. For now, suffice it to say that the Trinity is not a doctrine that teaches a plurality of Gods...as a matter of fact, this is what sets Christians apart...the fact that we believe wholeheartedly that God is indeed One...there is only One God...but that He has revealed Himself to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three distinct persons, but One God.

Yes, it is confusing...however as the Old Testament prophet said, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD." Both Christians and Jews need to be satisfied at times that God certainly doesn't always reveal things about Himself, nor about how He operates...and we all should certainly be able to admit that there are going to be truths about God that we, in our finite minds, are never going to be able to fully comprehend about God, even when He does reveal them to us.

Now, as for Old Testament texts that point to the Trinity.... Here is the thing...these texts were, for ages, understood in one way only. However, with the coming of the Son and His pouring His Spirit out on all of His people, there is a newer understanding of what these texts mean.

For instance, with Psalm 45, the psalm can be looked at as merely a song of praise, possibly to Solomon, or perhaps to God. But then, the psalmist writes:

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of joy above Your fellows.

What does this mean, to be referring to God, then say "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You..."

For us Christians, who have the Spirit, we understand that this is a text in which the Father is speaking of the Son. This is one of the instances in the Old Testament where the nature of the Son is revealed, even though not yet fully understood at the time of the writing.

Other such passages include Genesis 1 itself in which God says, "Let Us make man according to our image..." I know many non Christians who believe that this is referring to God speaking to the angels...but the angels are not capable of creating and therefore God would not have been speaking to them. Only God is the creator, so it stands to reason that God is speaking to a creator...Yet, if God is One there is only one creator...none of it makes any sense whatsoever, unless and until one sees that the Father, Son and Spirit all worked to create...All One God, yet the Father says to the Son and Spirit, "Let Us..."

Micah 5 is yet another text which Christians look to that reveals the Divine nature of Jesus the Son...

“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.”

The only way one can be "going forth...from the days of eternity" is if one is God or one is an angel. Certainly human beings are not capable of going forth from the days of eternity, for we all were born and all die.

Christians see this passage as one that describes the Divine nature of the Son and view this as a prophesy of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

This post is getting pretty long... if you're truly interested in learning about the Trinity and why the Comma Johanneum is not the basis of the doctrine, I'll spend more time looking at the various OT passages.

Thank you for your post!

Right Now I have to get myself off of the PC and go enjoy some dinner. I'll definately read through your post and reply to it in detail (especially in regards to Psalm 2), probably Tomorrow.

Thanks again.

 

[Free]

Qoheleth,

What is your understanding of Gen 1:26-27:

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

Verse 26 clearly has God using first-person plural personal pronouns--'us' and 'our'--when speaking of purposing to create man. But verse 27 then uses third-person singular personal pronouns--'his' and 'he'--when speaking of that very act of the creation of man.

Who are the 'us' and 'our' that are equated with 'his' and 'he'?

 

[Qoheleth]

If you give no authority to the NT, then this discussion is a fruitless waste of time. Which is why I will bow out of this thread.

Ps: in proper debate, you made the statement that the Spirit of God, is not the same in the Old and New Testament, meaning the burden of proof is on you.

I for one, do not do the grunt work for those who have already made up their minds. You quote from the ot and NT, but only give authority to the Old. Your actions then prove, that you only seek to argue against the doctrine of the trinity. You appeal to the NT to make your case, and although you do not find its message of worth, why do you think it fair to interpret the NT and explain it to a Christian? You're showing your hand again ;)

When did I quote from the NT? That was only to shoow the scripture in question

 

[theLords]

When did I quote from the NT? That was only to shoow the scripture in question

If you'd refrain from putting words in my mouth, you'd notice I said appeal, not quote.

You appeal to the NT, though you find it of no use, yet tell someone who sees it with authority how to interpret its message. That the Holy Spirit of the NT is not the Holy Spirit of the Old.

Can I ask you if you were born into the Jewish faith or if you are a convert? What branch of Judaism do you practice? I'm asking to gauge you're background, and to see how you interpret the Old Testament only (don't worry we do not allow for any semblance of anti-semitism here).

 

[Qoheleth]

Hi Qoheleth,



As for the Comma Johanneum, I don't know of very many Christians that point to this text as the "basis" of the 3 in 1 doctrine. More often, people look to the Gospel of John, the way that Father, Son and Holy Spirit refer to each other and the eternal nature of Jesus as the basis of the Trinity. I know you've looked at Psalm 2, which is a very clear text regarding the Divine nature of the Son who is separate of the Father...but only for those who believe that the New Testament is every bit as inspired and infallible as the Old Testament, which you do not. Yet I do wonder how you explain “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You" as being about Israel?

But, as theLords pointed out... we really haven't come to a basic understanding of the actual teaching of the Trinity. Something that should be done. For now, suffice it to say that the Trinity is not a doctrine that teaches a plurality of Gods...as a matter of fact, this is what sets Christians apart...the fact that we believe wholeheartedly that God is indeed One...there is only One God...but that He has revealed Himself to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three distinct persons.......

Okay, I was itching to answer this: thanks for the post again, you put forth a good point.

Now, regarding Psalm 2: The Psalm begins by telling us that the nations are plotting against Israel. Yet how all their efforts are futile, as the Most High has appointed his King in Zion.

Now this is key as it is the main point of the psalm. YHWH is telling the appointed King of Israel, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." He then goes on to tell this King that he can ask for anything and it will be given (i.e millitary strength, territory, and victory over the Heathen)

And then Finally the psalm goes on to warn the Kings of the earth to "Kiss the Son", or the King over Israel and the whole nation, meaning to "be kind" to Israel unless that powerful nation bring their wrath. Finally it goes on to state "Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

As we know from previous scripture Israel are the ambassadors to the nations. The whole Psalm is basically YHWH reaffirming his already stated metaphor of Israel being his "Son" (Especially whomever the current King may be) and warning the nations to "keep them sweet" so to speak.

Secondly, regarding Psalm 45. It is really quite simple. Say for instance you are a King and I am a prophet, and I sing you this Psalm. I will say to you in that instance, "Therefore God, YOUR GOD, has annointed you...". He is reminding you of which God has annointed you. The wording is just a bit tricky.

Thirdly, Regarding Genesis 1, there are several answers. Firstly it could be argued that the Hebrew to English translation is at fault here, to try an incorporate the Royal "We". That's the most simple argument. We could also say, as you stated, he was speaking to the angels. Not asking them to aid in the process of Creation but asking to hear their "feedback". As we Know YHWH inquires the adversary in Job on his creation and often communes with the angels in regards to Earthly matters.

So I might be baking a cake and say to you let's "let us" make a cake. Even though I'm the one making it, I just wanted to involve and inform you.

Fourth, Regarding Micah 5, this scripture depicts a new Military leader who will spring out from Bethlehem (home to the Davidic Monarchy), as Judah has been Invaded by Sennacherib (701 BC). Assyria will fall and Israel's punishment will also lead to the punishment of the nations. Micah 5 is usally dated to the exile.

The whole of Micah is about Judah being Judged (Who broke the covenant in similar fashion to the northern kingdom of Israel) and other nations being Judged and eventually the rebuilding of Jerusalem under a righteous King.

This King was destined, so his "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting..."

Thanks for your post again I hope I answered your points well enough
Interested to see your next post.

 

[westtexas]

Qoheleth,

What is your understanding of Gen 1:26-27:

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

Verse 26 clearly has God using first-person plural personal pronouns--'us' and 'our'--when speaking of purposing to create man. But verse 27 then uses third-person singular personal pronouns--'his' and 'he'--when speaking of that very act of the creation of man.

Who are the 'us' and 'our' that are equated with 'his' and 'he'?

Qoheleth, I didn't see an answer to Free's question but let me add a little more to it please. In Gen. 1:1 "Elohim bara-God created". Elohim is the plural of the Hebrew word Eloah. What is your explanation for ANY of these plural words?

Edited to add:I see your answer to Free's question in your post to Handy but this answer doesn't address the plurality of Elohim-in your opinion, who are these plural Gods?

Westtexas

 

[Qoheleth]

Qoheleth, I didn't see an answer to Free's question but let me add a little more to it please. In Gen. 1:1 "Elohim bara-God created". Elohim is the plural of the Hebrew word Eloah. What is your explanation for ANY of these plural words?

Edited to add:I see your answer to Free's question in your post to Handy but this answer doesn't address the plurality of Elohim-in your opinion, who are these plural Gods?

Westtexas

The term elohim in both ancient and modern Hebrew refers to either "god" or "gods", however, elohim is entirely situational. When referring to the God of Israel it is singular and when referring to pagan gods or powers it is a plural.

Also you have to remember that elohim is just a title, much like adonai. The true name of the God of Israel is expressed in the tetragrammaton YHWH.

 

[stovebolts]

Hello,
You say that you are not a Christian, yet you don't act like a Jew. I'm not sure what your perspective is. I suppose I'll figure it out.

Anyway,
Instead of commenting on existing discussions you've already got going, I thought about this.

Matthew 22:41-46 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

We know that Jesus is quoting Psalm 110.

Can you answer Jesus question? And if so, do you have the basic qualifications to rightfully answer the question? Please remember that the Pharisees had the whole TANAK memorized along with Oral Tradition (commentary).

 

[stovebolts]

Also you have to remember that elohim is just a title, much like adonai. The true name of the God of Israel is expressed in the tetragrammaton YHWH.

This is incorrect. Elohim is plural in the sense that Elohim is El above the pantheon. (Psalm 95:3) Both El and Elohim are not Hebraic words, although they were adopted into the language.

Adonai and Hasheem are alternates for God's name as not to break the commandment in Shemot 20:7. We won't even bother to look at a Jewish perspective of the Tetragrammation, let alone a true jewish view of Genesis 1:26-27.

 

[Qoheleth]

Hello,
You say that you are not a Christian, yet you don't act like a Jew. I'm not sure what your perspective is. I suppose I'll figure it out.

Anyway,
Instead of commenting on existing discussions you've already got going, I thought about this.

Matthew 22:41-46 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

We know that Jesus is quoting Psalm 110.

Can you answer Jesus question? And if so, do you have the basic qualifications to rightfully answer the question? Please remember that the Pharisees had the whole TANAK memorized along with Oral Tradition (commentary).

Well it's quite simply explained, the Greek to English translation does a job of capatilizing the L in lord to make it appear that the LORD (YHWH) is speaking to someone of divine stature. Kind of like shooting an arrow and drawing a bullseye around it-that's the most common way of putting it.

In the Hebrew we know the first LORD is YHWH (yud-hai-vav-hai), yet the second lord is an entirely different word, (aleph-dalet-nun-yud).

Those letter combinations for the second lord can spell a name of God but there isn't an example anywhere in the Tanach where this particular form (prefixed by the Hebrew letter “lamed- ל†which mean “to,â€) is used to mean “to my God.â€

I won't go into all the details of the language but the second lord is simply used to mean, "master" or "sir". The letter L was intentionally capitalized in the NT to give a divine perspective.

Next we must understand that often King David would write Psalms in the 3rd person as they were to be sung by the Levites. The Psalm begins in the Hebrew “L’David Mizmor†which means “A psalm of David.†L'David means "to David"/concerning him. So you can see why it says, "The LORD said to my lord." As it was what the Levites would sing.

This Psalm was composed early in David's reign when the Phillistines had heard that he had been annointed King. David speaks of the reassurence that the Most High would defend Israel against their enemies.

To Summarize: the Matthew 22 drew the bullseye around the arrow in this case. It claims the Pharisees could not answer, but based on the blatant "twisting" of Psalm 110, can that outlook be reliable?

 

[Qoheleth]

This is incorrect. Elohim is plural in the sense that Elohim is El above the pantheon. (Psalm 95:3) Both El and Elohim are not Hebraic words, although they were adopted into the language.

Adonai and Hasheem are alternates for God's name as not to break the commandment in Shemot 20:7. We won't even bother to look at a Jewish perspective of the Tetragrammation, let alone a true jewish view of Genesis 1:26-27.

Indeed. The Tetragrammaton is not to be spoken nor written as it is believed to be sacred.

But elohim is only a plural when not referring to the God of Israel.

 

[stovebolts]

Indeed. The Tetragrammaton is not to be spoken nor written as it is believed to be sacred.

But elohim is only a plural when not referring to the God of Israel.

The primary driving force for not saying the name of God is due to Exodus 20:7. What you write on the matter is secondary.

Psalms 95:3 For YHVH is a great El, and a great King above all Elohim.

This verse shows that YHVH, is the great El and is above all other Elohim. YHVH is supreme deity. There is non greater than YHVH.

Deut 6:4 Hear O Israel, YHVH our Elohim is one.
YHVH is not part of the greater Pantheon. He rules with sovereignty.

You cannot redefine what is singular and what is plural. Regardless of what pantheon YHVH encounters, he still rules over them. As you know, the various pantheon's in the ancient near east ruled specific geographical areas and Deut 6:4 couldn't have come at a better time!

 

[Qoheleth]

The primary driving force for not saying the name of God is due to Exodus 20:7. What you write on the matter is secondary.

Psalms 95:3 For YHVH is a great El, and a great King above all Elohim.

This verse shows that YHVH, is the great El and is above all other Elohim. YHVH is supreme deity. There is non greater than YHVH.

Deut 6:4 Hear O Israel, YHVH our Elohim is one.
YHVH is not part of the greater Pantheon. He rules with sovereignty.

You cannot redefine what is singular and what is plural. Regardless of what pantheon YHVH encounters, he still rules over them. As you know, the various pantheon's in the ancient near east ruled specific geographical areas and Deut 6:4 couldn't have come at a better time!

okay...so what is your response to the answers I gave you concerning Psalm 110?

 

[stovebolts]

Interesting take on Psalms 110. I know a little Hebrew, but not as much as you. Lets see how this pans out.

Psalms 110:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> YHVH said unto my adown, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

So you can see why it says, "The LORD said to my lord." As it was what the Levites would sing.

Rashi says that David is referring adown as Abraham (Genesis 23:6). This would have been typical Jewish thought on the matter. Just as you have stated 'Son' in the psalms refer to Israel (Exodus 4:23).

Now then, why do the Pharisees believe the Christ will be the son of David and why can't the Pharisees answer Jesus?

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
Psalms 110
If David then call him (Abraham) Lord, how is he (Abraham) his son?

Think about this...

 

[Qoheleth]

Interesting take on Psalms 110. I know a little Hebrew, but not as much as you. Lets see how this pans out.

Psalms 110:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> YHVH said unto my adown, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.



Rashi says that David is referring adown as Abraham (Genesis 23:6). This would have been typical Jewish thought on the matter. Just as you have stated 'Son' in the psalms refer to Israel (Exodus 4:23).

Now then, why do the Pharisees believe the Christ will be the son of David and why can't the Pharisees answer Jesus?

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
Psalms 110
If David then call him (Abraham) Lord, how is he (Abraham) his son?

Think about this...

They can't answer Jesus because the New Testament says they can't, it's really that simple. As I stated in a previous post a while back, I could write a "New new Testament" and claim whatever I want, then 2000 years, and several violent crusades later, people would take it as truth.

and David is not talking about Abraham in Psalm 110, I already explained it...

 

[stovebolts]

and David is not talking about Abraham in Psalm 110, I already explained it...

and I find this odd... I will find you the midrash that states Lord is referring to Abraham and post for you tomorrow (time bearing).

While you state that you've already explained "it", I would say that you have not explained "it" within it's original context. Thus, you've explained nothing at all from a proper exegetical stance.

Let's try this again.

Rashi says that David is referring adown as Abraham (Genesis 23:6). This would have been typical Jewish thought on the matter. Just as you have stated 'Son' in the psalms refer to Israel (Exodus 4:23).

Now then, why do the Pharisees believe the Christ will be the son of David and why can't the Pharisees answer Jesus?

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
Psalms 110
If David then call him (Abraham) Lord, how is he (Abraham) his son?

Think about this...

And while your at it, who do YOU say the Christ is, or will be? Until you answer this question, our conversation will come to an end.

 

[theLords]

They can't answer Jesus because the New Testament says they can't, it's really that simple. As I stated in a previous post a while back, I could write a "New new Testament" and claim whatever I want, then 2000 years, and several violent crusades later, people would take it as truth.

and David is not talking about Abraham in Psalm 110, I already explained it...

Are you willing to give your background credentials? Why keep dodging the question? From what I've observed, you're not Jewish, and if you are you sound like a convert to the Reconstructionist branch. But, more than anything you sound like you were raised Christian, went to cemetary, I mean seminary school and are now an ex-Christian. I may be wrong, but am I right?

What are your credentials that we should take your word over a middle ages Jewish scholar's?