Originally posted by whodey
However, the fact still remains that the people who should have been experts in interpreting the prophesy were the rabbis who interpreted it as meaning that the Messiah should have come during the time of Christ. As painful as it is for those who are not of faith, it is an HISTORICAL FACT.
Well, the discussion of the coming of the Messiah lasted from the time of Daniel (2nd c. BCE) until
the fall of the Temple. The reason it stopped was because the central 'headquarters' of the Jewish
people was eradicated and did not permit the contemplative reflection on God's favoring of His chosen
people. So it's a product of convenience that Jesus (along with other would-be Messiahs) was in this
250-year period. There were some Jews who predicted the Messiah's coming when Jesus did,
but there were some who predicted it earlier, some who predicted it later. The Talmud's reflections
on the Messiah are at least as vague as the 'prophecy' of Daniel, not a confirmation.
Further, if the Talmud scholars were so wonderfully accurate, why then did the other stuff not come
true? You are the one turning to Jewish literature for reinforcement of your position; why did Jesus
not fulfill the role of Messiah and liberate the Jewish people if He was indeed the Messiah?
Clearly, it is because the Jews were wrong in their prediction (just like Daniel was wrong in his).
I am more impressed with sources with an unbiased origin than of biased origin.
Is that so? I find this statement to be ironically humorous.
Nemesio