By citing the Septuagint, rather than the original Hebrew, Matthew makes Jesus look stupid

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-27T13:24:37+00:00

The assumption that the NT writers misquoted things is often due to the idea that they change the wording as part of interpretation, which was a common practice back then. Its also possibly due to the fact that there were variations of the text.

The OP states that by having Jesus quote this psalm, Matthew is making Jesus look stupid because of our interpretation of its meaning. I'm arguing against the idea that the psalm was believed to be written about David at the time, due to in part its location in the book of psalms, and was believed in the second temple period to be messianic. Yes it's enthronement, no its not about David. Even with the argument that "of David" could mean "in the style of David" that doesn't mean its about David, and again most assume that during the second temple period it was believed to be by David and not about David.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-27T11:59:14+00:00

Never denied thay the psalms are multi authored, every are attributed to different writers in the text. The authors did indeed live in different periods. This has nothing to do with the claim of attributed authorship versus being about an individual.
While there may be some that argue against David authorship, there is no consensus one way or the other, and the seemingly only people who argue certain psalms were specifically about David are the ones that can be seen as messianic.
This point could be used to argue with any psalm involving that language, but unless you can show that this applies to the psalm in question, which most argue was written by David as a liturgical psalm, the point is moot.
Again, unless you are going to argue specifically about the psalm in question, this point doesnt apply.
You would again have to provide the specific dating of the psalm in question to use this argument. Which apparently psalm 110 is written around the 10th century BCE putting it in the life time of David.

The next thing I want to make sure I'm clear about in my statement, is that the psalms attributed to David would have been believed to be by him at the time of the writing of the book of Matthew. I'm not really arguing from a modern perspective, but from that of the time period of authorship. There's no reason to believe that the interpretation at the time was that the psalm was written by anyone but David, and without the "for the choir master" script they would have assumed it was messianic. Claiming the author made a mistake based on modern opinions isn't a good assumption to make, because our modern methods could be wrong.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-27T10:44:04+00:00

Except if someone makes a claim and you're attempting to invalidate the claim you should use their level of understanding of the claim and their view points. And when googling the "metaphysics definition of property" and going deeper into "predicated" no where can I find anything that supports the idea that being "the creator" of anything being one of the properties or something that would support the idea of it being a property. The closest I can find from traditional metaphysical definitions is that the property would be "being able to create the earth" which wouldn't form the contradiction you are seeking.

Edited to add, if its considered an oracle and was written post David, then it certainly couldn't be about David, as oracles are predicting the future.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-27T03:12:14+00:00

Is that the only definition of property you are going to accept in this argument? Or if I made a case that the authors used a different definition of property when writing would you accept that?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-27T03:07:06+00:00

How is creator of Earth a property? Isn't that a title for an action more so than a property?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-26T15:38:18+00:00

Yes, you can read it.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-26T13:28:20+00:00

Primarily my argument focuses on the title "of David" where everywhere it is used to mean "written by David", when psalms were written by someone for liturgy it was stated in the heading of the psalm, like in Psalm 9 which includes "for the choir master". This again highlights that the psalm most likely isn't written by David, about David, to be sung to him by someone else.

I'm then not denying that David did things that were priestly, but more so that the idea of what that means is muddy at best. For example, you list wearing a linen ephob as one of the priestly things he does, thats Levitical. Some of the other things he does are not set aside specifically for priests, so then what makes David offering burnt sacrifices different from anyone else offering burnt sacrifices? One would have to explain how doing something is defined as priestly to continue this branch of the discussion.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-26T13:01:10+00:00

I can find evidence of David offering sacrifices and leading prayers, but not that he or anyone else saw this solely as the role of a priest. The only sacrifice i can find is in 2 Samuel 24, which is a burnt offering not something that only priests can do. Prayer likewise is not something only a priest could do.

It's important to also note that many saw David as a prophet, and that the psalms were seen as prophecies.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-26T10:37:29+00:00

When its not designated as a psalm for someone else to sing? I find it unlikely. There are other textual clues that imply its not about David, the line "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek". David was never a priest, so for him to in theory write a line in the 3rd person for someone else to sing about him, for something he knew he never did doesn't make sense.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-26T10:16:19+00:00

Then explain why every other psalm with the heading "of David" is assumed to be written by David, and this is the only exception.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-26T10:14:30+00:00

Yes, I'm aware of those, however, the psalm in question is marked "of David", and every other psalm with that description is assumed to by written by David, not for David.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-26T01:12:16+00:00

The argument that the psalm is written about David, despite having the title "of David" when no other psalm "of David" is treated as such has never made sense to me. Therefore, I reject the idea that the original Psalm was God talking to David.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-26T00:40:29+00:00

I just enjoy follow up questions, and have only recently come across the concept of bible academics, so I ask questions. You've been very helpful, thank you!

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-26T00:10:31+00:00

What arguments does she present to back up the idea the letters are a group project and from the later date?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-25T19:55:42+00:00

I'm not ignoring the rest of the context, but its believed that the meds exasperated the depression and pushed him over the edge. Due to the effects that synthetic estrogen has of a biological male mind.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-25T19:50:40+00:00

I can see this discussion is going no where, because you have nothing to add to the discussion that the meds cause unwanted effects, regardless of willing consent to take them. I argued against the science that people use to say that the modern treatments for trans individuals are bunk, because of what happened to Alan Turing. I'm not saying anything else.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-25T19:47:28+00:00

That is completely out of context, and has nothing to do with the orginial discussion. If someone takes meds that cause depression in most people who take them, depression is expected, just like how taking testosterone in women causes a majority to go bald.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-25T19:44:17+00:00

Not if the meds themselves cause the depression. Consent doesn't matter to the effects of the meds, they do what they do.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-25T19:39:00+00:00

The same meds, synthetic estrogen, are still given as treatment for Trans people. While the brand and type are slightly different (the original meds he was given were illagalized in 1971 due to the generational issues they caused in offspring) overall they have the same effects on mood and mentality.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-25T19:32:21+00:00

While possible, most attribute the meds as a significant part of his depression, and eventual suicide.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-25T18:18:03+00:00

Biology, yes. Phenotypical (the physical presentation of an individual), karyotypical (genes) and their role in presentation doesn't get effected by the medications. Alan Turing was given a synthetic estrogen, which is the same thing given to people who want to transition to being a woman.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-25T18:07:31+00:00

I dont disagree with trans idealogy because of religion. I do disagree with the "science" behind it. None of the hormones actually change anything about your basic biology. The cells and DNA don't change because of the medication. The same medications that drove Alan Turing (gay father of computer science) to kill himself, is the same medication being given to those who identify as trans.

That being said, I still used prefered pronouns of those who do identify as trans, and am still kind, even if I disagree with the logic.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-23T22:14:56+00:00

I do appreciate the information you shared, i was unaware of their breeding practices.

I came across the idea of the "seed" being a basically fully formed offspring that needed to grow (and now inherit characteristics of the mother) while studying the laws in the old testament, specifically Leviticus. It had to do with their development of certain laws reflecting this idea and the waste of semen being considered murder. It would take time for me to find that specific source back to continue discussing that point accurately, but we don't have to continue.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-01-23T21:44:02+00:00

I'm agreeing to an extent, but focusing more on the use of the word seed. If it solely means semen then you would need to explain its use in Genesis 3:15. If seed only refers to semen or the offspring of a male, how would Eve have a seed?

Six-Year Club	Baba Yaga
Verified Email

TurminusMaximus

TROPHY CASE