You just denied what I said and affirmed it at the same time lol.
I said messiah is used in different contexts then you said no
Then brought up numerous ways it's used in different contexts
If we are going to limit this to the Old Testament context alone, then (responding again to that post of yours) there are only two types of Messiah in the Old Testament.
In Leviticus there is the priest in the Tabernacle, which is also an 'initiatic' chain of priests initially governed by Moses.
Then there is the second form in the rest of the Old Testament after the Torah, which consists of God's appointed kings (both Davidic and also Gentiles like Cyrus) who have both authority and salvific roles (in relation to the Israelites).
The concept of Messiah we are familiar with in the New Testament emerges in extra-canonical 2nd Temple Jewish literature. To a sola scriptura person, this is completely shocking and offensive to here but it is the fact of the matter. Things being like this does not make Jesus a fraud or anything, that is not what I am saying.
When prophecies were given such as Daniels, and many others. Joseph's dream. Although they had a strict meaning they were allegorical in nature.
it seems to me there is a conflation between hyper-allegory and hyper-literalism that people in both camps can't seem to reconcile the two presented concepts in the Bible.
What you do not get is that unless you suggest fowl play with the scriptures, then the principle of non-contradiction must apply. Things that are evident and strictly doctrinal cannot be contradicted and overridden by things that are vague, symbolic and esoteric. Doing so is not scripturally logical and ultimately means that you have no standard for exegesis (making everything you state purely subjective).
As I've noticed from your posts before (and Bubba above too) you like to pigeonhold and strawman my positions because you don't like dealing with contradictions I show in problematic theologies and eschatologies. I would advise against that, it is not Christ-like.
One of the dangers in this on the extreme end is that you end like how some of the early Christians (some of them even Church Fathers and not only heretics) who interpreted the entire Old Testament as metaphor, taking none of it literally, but taking the New Testament as literal.
The very existence of such things, as well as groups like the Marcionites and the Cathars are very evident in the nature of contradictions that arise from these views.
Again, don't strawman me, my position is very vehemently that all things in exegesis must have a firm foundation in evident, clear and unambiguous passages. Passages that are more symbolic in content must not contradict firm, unambitious foundational doctrine. This is how we tell orthodoxy from heresy in the scriptural sense.
You don't
like that I say this, but that doesn't make me wrong, and doesn't mean that I know the scripture less than you.
Jesus spoke in parables to convey his objective truth. To deny this theme of the Bible is to deny the very nature of God.
Yes this is true, and for Jesus' parables you may in for a rude awakening to learn that most of them aren't that ambiguous and have much historical precedent. Most of Jesus' parables are directed at, and are often very sharp and eloquent criticisms, of different issues in the Judaisms (Pharisees, Sadducees etc) of his day, as well as theological, legalistic, moral/ethical and ritualistic criticisms. Because they are parables, like the genre broadly you can apply one parable to many things, but it renders Jesus incoherent to claim that he meant things he obviously didn't.
What you have done is called "shifting the goalposts". You've seen something that profoundly contradicts you, so you've just defined it in your own terms (after the fact) rather than the fact that you have to first appeal to it.
