>HH; It is because of the figure who is identified
as such in the OT, and the importance he has for
all men, not just for the Jews.<
This also always remained a puzzle for me. The Tanakh devotes much more
space to dozens of other figures, yet so much importance is attached to
avdi.
And in every or so chapter mentioning the avdi, there is this talk of
smiting the foreigners, hardly of universal salvation.
Besides, a good case is made by many that the avdi references are inserted.
I mean, I certainly understand this is a matter of belief, and in no way try
to belittle yours. But since this belief is invoked as an additional axiom
in the Tanakhic interpretation, I'd like to know more about this assumption.
I may understand when the earliest Christians, not well-acquianted with theis of importance to you.
Tanakh, put much stock in the title messiah. But I'm puzzled why this title
>HH; It is because of the figure who is identifiedall men, not just for the Jews.<
as such in the OT, and the importance he has for
>I may understand when the earliest Christians, not well-acquianted with the
Tanakh, put much stock in the title messiah. But I'm puzzled why this title
is of importance to you.
This is exactly what I'm talking about: the title was not extraordinary,
being applied to many people - some of sufficiently low credentials. Why the
same title, implied for the avdi, is taken so seriously?
> You surely know that it was widely used; Isaiah
allowed even Chaldeans their own moshia (which, according to him, was not
forthcoming to save them).
HH: God called Cyrus His anointed one in the
sense that he was going to accomplish God's
purposes in a special way. While I don't agree
with Liz's theories that God took the kingship
away from the house of David and gave it to
Cyrus, she makes some good arguments in a
published paper that it would possible for Jews
to refer to Cyrus as their king. It would have
been possible for God to label Cyrus as
functioning in the role of His king.
So, you accept that wrong translation can serve as a basis for better
understanding of the original text?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.