Whole heartedly agree.
I prefer to let obscure text remain obsure in light of the much stronger body of text. I also agree that mainstream "orthodoxy" doesnt mean to be eisegetical, often times, I believe that it depends on the text chosen to interpret from, such as the Septuagiant. I would strongly encourage the study the Jewish versions of the Bible and see how they render certain passages in question. I think that is a valuable thing, unless a person is inclined to think that the Jews lie about their own scriptures, (which I certrainly dont think you are).
"Well, then, what does Scripture say? Does what Scripture means actually depend on anything that it says?"
Well, IMHO, it just easier to start with the known and go from there. For example, " I am the L-rd your G-d, besides me the is no other". To me, that settles that question. G-d, in this passage, as well as others like it, establishes his absolute Oneness. His Singular Unity. So, in light of this very clear statement. I would say, that if G-d chose to reveal Himself at Sinai to Israel as a Triune entity, with one of the Triune unity a hybrid god-man, he would have done so directly and unambiguously. Something like, I am L-rd your G-d, besides be there is my Son, who is both god and man. You shall give the Son the same honor to him as Me. You shall pray in his name....etc.. But, instead, it is obscure Prophetic passages or Psalms that are used to establish the god-man. So, I have to go with the clear. I highly recommend.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/audio/anti-missionary-mp3s.htm
Listen, for free and understand that the audience is primarily Jewish, so he may occasionally make a reference that to the Chsitian may seem harsh but hang in there and here him out....I think you'll find it interesting at the least.... Shalom Shalom..
Touche'
You chose not to parry, but to side step, and then thrust. Your argument is non-sequitor; it exposes your neck to my rapier.
In my commmentary (#173), I stated that:
explicit literal specified occurance naming people, places and things unconcieved and inconcievable at the time have not been mentioned. When was Isaiah writen and when purportedly, reputedly and alledgedly [was Messiah] murdered? Can we, according to the method of reasoning that you present, discount and dismiss all prophecy if it is not absolutely clear with regard and respect to [a modern day] reference?First off: my reply in #173 was addressed to the specific issue raise to that which I replied.The reply being: "It doesnt say that, he is never described as perfect." (respecting Isa 53:9).
Secondly: the latter part of my commentary is hyperbole, in that the assumption being made as basis for refutation is so far over the top that it rates nothing less than just that; the nature of the hyperbole itself addresses precisely just what is over the top.
Anyways, I'm not so sure that all of this nitpicking is all that relevent, in that I detect some intimiation that whomever is advocating this whole Temple sacrife thing is actually a "fringe" group, and that when all is said and done, at the end of the day, and all the water and fluff boils away, the "Sanhedrin" per se, have not been reconstituted (because nobody acknowledges these "Sanhredren" as having any specific legal authority).
Perhaps this debate should be declared a draw, and just let the Spirit work in our hearts, and through the Torah, that our minds may be illuminated to His Truth?
That notwithstanding, and nevertheless, I will check out the link you sent me. This Gentile can take it as well as he gives it. And one thing beyond any doubt in my mind, I've a far way to go to learn how to give as well as I've been given. Eh? Your tag-line says all that needs to be said 'bout that.
Shalom.