Peter Kirby

Atheists never click on a link? :banghead: :rolling:

Toto

Meta - anyone who won't click on a link will probably just skip over your posts anyway.

The link at least has some formatting, giving the poor reader a better chance to figure out where you are quoting another web site and where you are writing on your own.

Anat

Metacrock, I don't think you understand what people are telling you. Those rabbinical opinions are all centuries removed from the author of Isaiah 53. What did the original author mean? What did his choice of words mean to people living in his times?

Obviously after the destruction of the second temple people interpreted earlier texts differently. When was the first time that Isaiah 53 was interpreted as refering to the Messiah?

Diogenes the Cynic

It's only one Rabbi in the Talmud who makes that suggestion anyway. It's not like it was any sort of real tradition in Judaism. I would challenge Metacrock to find anything BCE which identifies the SS as the Messiah.

Metacrock

It's empirical Pete. I just happened. the gay asserts Isiah doesnt' speak of Messiah, when the three are right there linked. Did he look at them? You tell me. If he did he coudln't say that.

Metacrock

are you nuts? Did you not see the three pages before they were zapped? The material is there in the link, you are proving my point about atheists and links.

Because it certainly is more than one, more 145 Rabbis.

"not like it was any sort of real tradition!" it was three pages of quotes! that's no sort of tradition, just three long pages worth! spaning the centuries form Daneil and Qurmran to modern preisdent of NY Yeshiva. NO kind of tradition at all!

Diogenes the Cynic

I read your page, Meta, I just wan't impressed. It relies heavily on a single post CE Talmudic reference and frankly, a lot of specious exegesis.

I'm not gay, by the way....not that there's anything wrong with that

Metacrock

I don't know what the gay comment is about. But it's nuts to say that. How can you assert that it all rests on one guy? That's so obviously false. and he I wasnt' impressed." Well you kow was? Two rabbis. so who cares what you think You are the shelmozel I'm arguing with. I don't care if you're impressed or not. (yes, shlemazel, I spill the soup on you--that makes me the Shlemiel).


let's take just two little short quotes.They can't object to that.



Abrabanel (1437-1508) said earlier:

"This is also the opinion of our own learned men in the majority of their Midrashim."

it's taken to be their actual opinion not merely figurative. He's speaking of the interp of Suffering Servant as Messiah.

Rabbi MOSES Alschech(1508-1600) says:

"Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion ..that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view."

-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 258.

Notice he says our leanred men, and that it was the majority opinion.

Yellum Notnef

Metacrock doesn't care much for the gays.

Metacrock

NONONONONl.you dont' understand my arguement.

(1) I am not arguing for fulfillment of prophecy. In my view that is pedestrian. I don't care about that. that's for Josh and Billy to worry about (McDowell and Craig).


(2) you cannot argue that Jesus didn't have Messianich credentials because he had credentials that the people at the time sought. That's all that matters.

(3) what you think Rabbis understand or dont' understand is irrelivant. Its' not an empirical propostion or a scientific experinment. It's a matter of a religious tradition. Jesus was within his rights as a memeber of that tradition and met all the tests that could have been put to him at the time, so he cann't be called false in any meaningful sense, no more than Bar Cochba or Lubovictch can be called that. He's just as valid a Jew with a Messianich claim as anyone.