Let me ask you this. Does the letter to Yemen talk about Jesus and if so, what does it say about Jesus?
If you want to know his thoughts on the Jewish Messiah you should read the Mishnah Torah but, maybe you do not because his thoughts on the Jewish Messiah invalidate Jesus. I quoted the Mishnah Torah for you, ‘If he did not succeed to this extent or he was killed, then we know that he is certainly not the one promised by the Torah…’ Rambam (Maimonides) supports my side.
I also find it odd that you say I am wrong about the translation of the Hebrew in Isaiah 52, yet your buddy Rambam (Maimonides) supports my translation. In the letter to Yemen, ‘They will neither defame nor calumniate him, for the miracles he will perform will frighten them into complete silence. Isaiah refers to the submission of the kings to him in the verse: Kings shall be silenced because of him [Isa. 52:15]’
He doesn’t mention this ‘sprinkles’ you speak of nor does the context he writes about support ‘sprinkles.’
He supports the translation of astonished and startled into silence.
This is the problem when you don’t dig deeper.
It’s not about not having an open mind. Just because I do not agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t have an open mind.
The evidence supports my side. It’s plain and simple. You need more time.
The evidence supports your side in the same way that the NT supports the JW side about the Trinity or the NT supports RC belief in Papal Infallibility or the NT teaches Mormonism. But good luck persuading JWs, LDS, and RCs otherwise. They are all convinced, so why bother, unless they are open minded.
Sure, I don't expect Maimonides to think Messiah was Jesus.
And Maimonides didn't quote word by word the whole verse that says sprinkles.
I would expect you would realize that. But I think you are totally pre-convinced that your answer is correct before you even went to cite Maimonides verse where he doesn't mention "sprinkled" or "astonished".
ISAIAH 52: "As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
So shall he sprinkle many nations;
the kings shall shut their mouths at him"
MAIMONIDES:
" ‘They will neither defame nor calumniate him, for the miracles he will perform will frighten them into complete silence. Isaiah refers to the submission of the kings to him in the verse: Kings shall be silenced because of him [Isa. 52:15]’"
He never quotes the verse on sprinkling, so we can't tell here how he reads it.
And there are much easier ways to show what this word means. But like I said, it only matters if the person is open minded and hasn't reached a full conclusion. Once something 100% decided about something like this, discussion becomes pointless, unless someone wants to score debate points. At least for me at this moment it's not productive.
Also, maybe you feel more comfortable thinking you are open-minded. You have looked at basic arguments, and concluded that your side is definitely right and that you are an intelligent person. So at this point it's case closed. There is not much more point in you and I discussing it except to waste time or burn steam.
I don’t think we can find truth in religion especially when most of the tales from these religious books have no originality. They all ‘borrow’ from more ancient religious tales. They knew nothing of the natural world…for example; they thought natural weather events were the acts of God or gods.
I don’t think the Jews need to follow the rituals in the Torah. Jews might as well follow Hillel, ‘What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah…’
OK. What you are saying I understand, that religion in the ancient tales misconstrue nature. Yet since they attempted to find the deep Truths, can one still find Truth in them in some ways?
For example, you immediately followed your statement up by saying that Jews might as well follow a certain quoted teaching of a famous rabbi.