HH: I don't have to show you anything. And really, the impulse to find
the truth must come from you. Seek and you will find. But if you insist
on others proving everything for you, you may not find much.
Well, perhaps my impulse to not find out the truth of the books that make up
the Christian bible can be forgiven. What appears unexcusable is the fine
line that separates the above statement of yours regarding the Christian
Bible from proselytizing.
HH: You could look at things that way, but there is a strong current of
such prophecies throughout the Bible, and particularly in the
contemporaneous Book of Zechariah. They point forward to a Davidic ruler
in the future.
Bringing in the book of Zechariah is actually good. It contrasts with
your policy so far of attempting to bring in late second temple period
evidence (including the example from Hebrews which you claim to be from this
period) with its much more advanced eschatology and messianic concepts.
The book of Zechariah shows that symbolism in prophecies does not go
unnoticed, without explicitly pointing it out and then an interpretation
provided.
What is unclear is whether Zechariah's mention of David in Zechariah 12-13
is commonly accepted or if it is an innovation -- the first step towards the
Davidic Messiah of late second Temple period times.
After the Davidic kings of the First Temple period were
interrupted, who was to continue the kingship in the reconstruction? Was it
necessarily the Davidic kings?
How do we know? If Cyrus counted as an
"Anointed", maybe other lineages were acceptable. So the mention of David by
Zechariah is good, but its occurence in one particular prophecy only
of Zechariah might suggest that it is indeed an innovation, one not
necessarily shared by Haggai.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.