Bishadi said:
it is the old texts that i am seeking, not the additions, nor interpretations as you can see above, the opinions are imperfect
if you're a bible scholar, it's all additions based on interpretations and, furthermore it's all opinion as well! look, bishadi, this is pretty much judaism 101 that dauer is giving you - and, before you object, he and i are, theologically speaking, poles apart.
biblical texts on the messiah are notoriously difficult to interpret. christians can make a case for seeing jesus in practically every verse in the pentateuch. jews argue ferociously about what the different interpretations of verses that may relate to the messiah might be, because it's not at all obvious. we don't have a "gazillion" sects, but we do have a "gazillion" interpretations. when dauer said "Judaism is, by its very nature, a religion of interpretation" he was not giving you an opinion. you will not, as far as i know, find a single jewish person who is likely to disagree with that. you will only find people disagreeing about what the interpretation is likely to be based on which traditional or personal sources of interpretation they are taking into account. there is nothing "biased" about pointing that out - he's not telling you a particular interpretation is correct or not.
Strange as it may seem, the torah is the monolithic 'foundation' not the talmut, especially when concerning messiah.
it's talmuD with a "D", bishadi, that can't be hard to get right, can it? and although the Torah is indeed the "monolithic" foundation, the talmud is simply commentary on the Torah. as such it has plenty to say about the messiah and, as it was accepted by the entire jewish people as being authoritative (at least from its sealing up till modern times) it is considered very much part of the foundation.
Talmut is similar to adjudicated laws; opinions of the oral and written laws.
this sentence would suggest you don't actually know very much about the talmuD-with-a-D. it contains far more than law and, more to the point, doesn't always rule decisively on points of law. even more to the point, on aggadic (non-halakhic) matters, ie those which do not involve legal points of correct action, it allows for a wide variety of personal opinion. in fact it establishes that aggadic variety is in fact a halakhic requirement! what the messiah may or not turn out to be is not a matter of halakhah; what happens when he turns up *is* albeit it is covered under the regular "laws of kings". either way you're either talking future prediction (in which case it's speculative and therefore aggadic) or actual jurisprudence (in which case it's precise legal argumentation. even the idea that to believe in the messiah is a theological dogma is a comparatively late idea.
The thread is about writtings on Messiah which are from prophecies, not opinions of prophecies.
but a prophecy on its own is of no value whatsoever (other than literary and poetic) without an *application*. and for there to be an application, there must be an interpretation, which means someone's opinion is going to be given - even yours.
as usual, you seem to be arguing at cross-purposes and giving the english language a serious run for its money.
b'shalom
bananabrain