The Bible gives true truth, but not exhaustive truth. The context is that the dreams were true predictions, the interpretations given to Joseph from God, indicating that the dreams were given by God without having to make an explicit statement to that effect.PakoBckuu wrote:One reason I don't agree that the Tanakh lacked the concept of mystical inner meanings is because of the issue of dreams. You wrote:First of all, the dreams of pharaoh's servants were not explicitly said to be given by God.In the examples of both Joseph and Daniel, the dreams involved were specifically sent by God to give a message, and the interpretations were specifically given to Joseph and Daniel (in the case of Daniel 2, the description of the dream too). In these cases, the events were supernatural, not mystical.
We don’t know how much God told people then. We know, for example, that Noah took seven pairs of the clean animals into the ark, but nowhere in the surviving antediluvian literature does it say when and where God told people which were the clean and unclean animals. Much history has been lost.PakoBckuu wrote:On another note, I liked how you gave the Two examples from Torah as referring to Messiah directly. It's an interesting issue.
Genesis 3 says God puts enmity between "the woman's" "seed" (maybe a virgin birth?) and the snake's "seed", and the snake's seed bites the woman's seed's heel. First you would have to prove that a woman's seed could never refer to a woman bearing a child naturally in the Tanakh. Then you would need to show that no other child could be born from a virgin besides Messiah. Otherwise, the link is not clear in the text and can only be read tentatively, circumstantially, or indirectly.
Aesop’s fables are parables. We’re not talking about hidden meanings, rather the type of literature tells us what to expect.PakoBckuu wrote:In any case, the New Testament for one has plenty of usages of this style of literature with inner meanings. A good example is Jesus' parables. The images in them referred often to something else symbolically.
Jesus was understood as being from Nazaret. Look at the meaning of “Nazaret” so that being known as from Nazaret gave also the pun as being a consecrated one. Messiah was recognized as being one who is consecrated.PakoBckuu wrote:You also mentioned the part in Matthew "He shall be called a Nazarene". The thing is, it nowhere says in the Tanakh actually that Messiah would be called a Nazarene. It's said about someone else, and Matthew therefore must be taking it as having an inner mystical reference to Jesus in that Tanakh verse.
Since when is Wikipedia a trustworthy source?PakoBckuu wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_2:23
How does Isaiah 55 fit in here?PakoBckuu wrote:Another example is when David says:Is that an explicit prediction by David that Messiah will get to drink actual vinegar?Psalm 69:21
Instead, they gave me gall for my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink
The connection would be that David describes himself that way, and then other verses use David as a prophecy of Messiah in the Tanakh, like Isaiah 55, and so by extension this applies to Messiah.
Some of the psalms of David clearly were not talking about David himself. Since it’s recognized that David was also a prophet, i.e. telling about future events, the understanding is that those things which David wrote not about himself referred to someone else. It’s understood that that someone else is Messiah. And it was God who gave David the messages.PakoBckuu wrote:Compare withwhereupon he was given vinegar to drink.John 19:28
After this, knowing that everything had now been accomplished, and to fulfill the Scripture, Jesus said, "I am thirsty."
If Psalm 69 and some other Davidic verses about David are spoken of Messiah directly, then this still could require an added step of linkage (that Isaiah 55 provides).
So far you have failed to make the case for a mystical reading of the text.
One problem I have with mysticism and mystical readings is that they make it much harder to analyze and understand the language. Almost anything goes with mysticism. Proper understanding of the language takes into account literary styles, puns and figures of speech. But mysticism is too subjective, casting aside the anchors of demonstrable analysis. I know of no place where such mystical readings are necessary, or even make sense.
In closing, I’ll stick to what can be demonstrated.
Just my 2¢.
Karl W. Randolph.