The translation that supports the second coming was not added to support Christian doctrine-Christians quote the verse as they believe the Tanakh writers talk about the Messiah.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?
- Thread starter ayin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jesusisyhwh
The translation that supports the second coming was not added to support Christian doctrine-Christians quote the verse as they believe the Tanakh writers talk about the Messiah.
So is there anyway Moses could improve/add to the Torah?
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
Here's the JPS reading of Micah 5:2 (1).
'And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath,
Least among the clans of Judah,
From you one shall come forth
To rule Israel for Me-
One whose origin is from old,
From ancient times.'
The side note states that this is a reference to David, from Bethlehem in Judah. It is linked to the coming of the Messiah after the birth pangs, or 9 months of hardship shown to Israel.
Clearly the Messiah, David, will be born in Bethlehem.
Thank you for bringing your A game. That shows respect. Obviously if I tried to go further it would be proselyting.
rosends
Well-Known Member
But that "as they believe" is steeped in a second-coming doctrine and a misunderstanding of the text.
In fairness, it doesn't really seem consistent to have it both ways. If the passages about the Messiah being a king cannot be taken non-literally, then the Messiah needs to be a king, a monarch a la King David. Not a Prime Minister, President, Congressperson, or anything else.
The text itself that mentions when they look at me, on him whom they have pierced, existed before the second coming doctrine. It supports the Messiah being God, because it mentions God in both first and third person. God refers to Himself as him who they have pierced.
rosends
Well-Known Member
I figured that he would be someone who mnight have a ruling political position and then who eventually is crowned as a formal king when the nature of the government moves to a biblical theocracy.
If the Messiah was to have a second coming, as supported by Zechariah 12:10, then it would make sense that he would be a spiritual king before ruling over the nations from Jerusalem.
How do you envision that movement happening? So the Messiah is elected Prime Minister, for example, and then convinces the Israeli government to make him king? Or takes that power by force?
That passage says nothing about the Messiah coming a 2nd time.
rosends
Well-Known Member
That is certainly your interpretation. It flies in the face of the use of singular and plural, and there is nothing that says that it speaks of God in the third person. Nothing equates the third person to God except your need.
The Tanakh needs to speak the language people understand, though; so 'king' is employed to mean a ruler, as it would have been 2,000 years ago. It seems analogous to the general concept of 'national leader'; so if I say, 'Who's the national leader of Canada?' it's sensible to interpret that as who is their Prime Minister? I'm of the opinion that the Mashiach will be the King though, just not sure how he'll make it there.
rosends
Well-Known Member
I haven't really thought it through so much but I figure that someone who is a leader might already be leading as a political figure. No one will have to convince anyone of anything. The world will shift.
I mean, I think we all know what a king is. Canada doesn't have a king. (Technically it has a queen). So the term just doesn't apply to a non-monarchy.
It's implied. The Bible speaks in indirect language. Even when admitting he was the Messiah, Jesus subtly said I am he, and only in response to the woman saying that the coming Messiah would be explaining everything to them. Bible Gateway passage: John 4:1-42 - New International Version
It doesn't directly say that it speaks of God in the third person because its implied in the verse. The Tanakh also doesn't say that the Messiah would be born of a virgin and have a step-father, but because the Messiah would be the Everlasting Father, it makes sense that he would be born of a virgin to be decently and in order.
rosends
Well-Known Member
So it doesn't say, but you have decided that that's what it means. Got it.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
That has nothing to do with my question. And, as has been pointed out by some Jewish members, that lion tooth thing is a typo. It could also refer to many things. Saint Sebastian, for example, I figure probably understands that metaphorical "lions tooth" execution way better than Christ.
If the Messiah was to be God incarnate, it would only make sense that He would be born of a virgin, out of respect for God.