Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I asked whether he was talking about verses and quotes that were "Messianically applied" or verses and quotes that were "Jesusianically applied". You replied with a quote that has nothing to do with answering that question. So which is it? What was Edersheim looking for?
Clearly ''Messianically applied'. The way to tell is to look at an example from his list.
Great, except that it was presented in response to the statement that "Yeshua is on every "page" of Tanakh. My non-saved Jewish brethren have to eliminate most prophecies about Yeshua until they have perhaps three prophecies of Him left in all of Hebrew scripture!" in post 130.
The starting point in any dabate between Christians and Jews, as Edersheim was not slow to realise, is to establish a pool of prophecies that both recognise as having a messianic association.
actually, the starting point would be well before that. It would be establishing what a "prophecy" is and how it operates and agreeing on hermeneutic rules for understanding, and a textual canon and theological schema in which to understand. Without a common lens, one will no doubt come to a different conclusion. For example, the discussion of the suffering servant IS a prophecy and part of any pool of prophecies. The fact that you see it reasonable to exclude it from such a pool bespeaks the lack of common ground as a starting point.
As you will notice if you check the list of Messianic prophecies in Judaism 101, all the prophecies relate to the King Messiah.
It seems we have stumbled upon mighty Jesus's one flaw: The utter inability to convince his brethren that he's the messiah. Turns out god does have a weakness, after all. So much for omnipotence.
Great. That isn't relevant to Judaism. The ASV isn't, the Greek texts aren't and your understanding isn't.
Disagree about the former statement and the question of a translation is problematic.
He likely meant that not all of the books were written by prophets.
What you have (both) proudly argued is that Judaism has remained unchanged in its attitudes and beliefs for the last two thousand years.
I'm not sure if the word is "unchanged" as Judaism is rife with change. But it is more of "remained cohesive" in that the changes manifested through consistent application of ancient principles have crafted a dynamic religion which is part of a chain traced back to antiquity.
That was after a long period which included other destructions, another exile and the understanding of Jewish practice as able to exist sans temple.
God is responsible for everything. God is responsible for illness yet God has given doctor's the ability to "undo" illness and heal people.
The understanding in Judaism is that when the temple is rebuilt (speedily and in our days) what will change is the nature of people so that the extant relationship can be more properly understood and adhered to.
At the time there were about 16 million Jews just in the Roman Empire, and that's besides those in the Parthian Empire and who knows where else. So that's not that much. How many of these 100k knew Jesus himself and how many were simply convinced by the strong missionary tactics of yahoos like Paul?
Is there really a correlation between the rebuilding of the temple and the nature of people? Surely, when the temple did stand, people had the opportunity to walk obediently with God, but chose otherwise. Why should it be any different if a new temple is built?
Because that's the essence of the promise of the true messianic Era.
Mine as well. What's your point?
Didn't you just say "I'm Jesus's brethren and He convinced me"? Regardless, we would most certainly have to know, because you are arguing against the following post that I wrote: