• 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!

Moses said, Unto him ye shall hearken

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
To say that Messiah ben Joseph is not a requirement is the same as saying that David, the type of Christ, was not anointed as king prior to being made king.
Wait...let me get this straight. Messiah ben Yosef is a completely Jewish concept rooted in the Talmud, which is not a Christian text in any sort of way (except for the censorship). And now you're telling us what's correct and what's incorrect about that? :rolleyes:o_O
Great. Christians telling Jews they don't understand Judaism. What else is new?
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
The problem for Jews who don't accept the first coming is that they expect the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem, when, in reality, he will come again on the clouds from heaven.

To say that Messiah ben Joseph is not a requirement is the same as saying that David, the type of Christ, was not anointed as king prior to being made king.

The LORD said to Samuel, 'I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite; for I have provided me a king among his sons'.[1 Samuel 16:1]

1 Samuel 1:13.'Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him [David] in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward.'

This is the same servant that Isaiah speaks of in Isaiah chapter 11. 'And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of fear of the LORD;'

This is the same servant mentioned in Isaiah 42:1, 'Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighted; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles'.

This is the same servant as mentioned in Isaiah 42:6-8. 'I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.'

This is the same servant who reads Isaiah 61 as his own words. 'The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;'

This is the same servant as mentioned in Isaiah 52:13,14. 'Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astounded 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: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider'.

This is the same servant, and shepherd, the Prophet, who becomes king and brings in the covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31-34. As Ezekiel says, 'And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.
And I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the LORD have spoken it' [Ezekiel 34;23,24].

Just FYI, spot quoting English translations doesn't convince me.

If you want to prove something from the Tanakh you have to actually quote from a valid Hebrew text W/O translating it as I can read and understand Hebrew. Further, you would have to show me starting from chpater 1 until the end of each text, In Hebrew, and be able to defind the interpretation you come up from the Hebrew text to convince a Torath Mosheh - using the method that Hashem gave to Mosheh ben-Amram (Moses) at Mount Sinai. Just as the prophet Yeshayahu confirmed when he stated (לתורה, ולתעודה; אם-לא יאמרו כדבר הזה, אשר אין-לו שחר) "To the Torah and the Teudah; if a matter doesn't speak like this, there is no dawn in it. I.e. if someone comes to a Jew something and it can't be confirmed from the Torah and the Teudah (Jewish tradition,revelation/transmission identifying how to understand the Torah) there is no use in what said person is bringing up/selling/etc.

Again, everything you posted above is invalid from a Torath Mosheh perspective.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Wait...let me get this straight. Messiah ben Yosef is a completely Jewish concept rooted in the Talmud, which is not a Christian text in any sort of way (except for the censorship). And now you're telling us what's correct and what's incorrect about that? :rolleyes:o_O
Great. Christians telling Jews they don't understand Judaism. What else is new?

But wait Harel13 there's more!

If they accept that the rabbis of the Talmud were right about about mashiahh ben Yoseph then they also have to accept that those same rabbis were right about everything else in the Talmud.........hmmmm (For example that claim made by the same Talmudic rabbis that mashiahh ben Yoseph is parternally descended from the tribe of Ephrayim and not from the tribe of Yehudah (Judah)....)

Where exactly do they draw the line? Tune in next time! :rolleyes:o_O

I posted it once but I have to post again. Take it away Rabbi Schochet z"l

 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Actually, we Jews don't have any problems doing okay. ;)

There is no requirement, from the Hebrew Tanakh, for any future king who descends from David to be born in or come from Beith Lehhem. Someone misinformed you. Again, the standards you bringing up are specific to Christians and the Greek texts and translations you guys use and not from the Hebrew text of the Tanakh.

So Micah 5:2,3 is another prophecy that has no significance to Jews?

'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel'.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
So Micah 5:2,3 is another prophecy that has no significance to Jews?

'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel'.

Again, if you want to find out what is important to us Jews you start from Micha chpater 1, in Hebrew, and read al the way to the end, in Hebrew. That is how Hebrew texts are always understood.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Just FYI, spot quoting English translations doesn't convince me.

If you want to prove something from the Tanakh you have to actually quote from a valid Hebrew text W/O translating it as I can read and understand Hebrew. Further, you would have to show me starting from chpater 1 until the end of each text, In Hebrew, and be able to defind the interpretation you come up from the Hebrew text to convince a Torath Mosheh - using the method that Hashem gave to Mosheh ben-Amram (Moses) at Mount Sinai. Just as the prophet Yeshayahu confirmed when he stated (לתורה, ולתעודה; אם-לא יאמרו כדבר הזה, אשר אין-לו שחר) "To the Torah and the Teudah; if a matter doesn't speak like this, there is no dawn in it. I.e. if someone comes to a Jew something and it can't be confirmed from the Torah and the Teudah (Jewish tradition,revelation/transmission identifying how to understand the Torah) there is no use in what said person is bringing up/selling/etc.

Again, everything you posted above is invalid from a Torath Mosheh perspective.

This is the standard ruse used by those who don't wish to face the issues head on; claim that the translation is not accurate!

Which of the passages that I have quoted give an erroneous meaning to the Hebrew text? Maybe you could provide a translation of the passages I have quoted so that we can see the differences?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Wait...let me get this straight. Messiah ben Yosef is a completely Jewish concept rooted in the Talmud, which is not a Christian text in any sort of way (except for the censorship). And now you're telling us what's correct and what's incorrect about that? :rolleyes:o_O
Great. Christians telling Jews they don't understand Judaism. What else is new?

The point is that it is not a Jewish concept only. It is based on passages of scripture, such as Zechariah 9:9, which indicate that the Messiah comes as a suffering servant before becoming the King.

The fact is, many passages of scripture cannot be explained without the idea of a suffering servant. The whole notion of sin and sacrifice is bound up in the actions of the suffering servant.

A further point to note is that your greatest critic is Moses. It was God who said through Moses, 'To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste. For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left.'

Those that come through God's vengeance will be those God has saved. 'Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the LORD, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places'. [Deuteronomy.33:29]

Clearly you don't believe that you are in need of repentance, but it seems that God thinks otherwise! All Christians know the importance of repentance, and the need to place faith in the Messiah, He who is the righteousness of God.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
This is the standard ruse used by those who don't wish to face the issues head on; claim that the translation is not accurate!

Which of the passages that I have quoted give an erroneous meaning to the Hebrew text? Maybe you could provide a translation of the passages I have quoted so that we can see the differences?

In the Christian world it may sound like a ruse. I consider using translation and cherry picking verse w/o reading the entire text from start to finish to be a ruse. ;) If the JW missionaries who came by my place in Jerusalem earlier in the year can do this in Hebrew I expect everyone to raise the bar up a bit. You only have them to blame for this.

Yet, if a prophet of Israel meant for only those two verses to be read with no other context he would not have written the rest of it. His whole book could have been reduced down to:

הי חברי! המשיח של כל עם ישראל יוולד בבית לחם ושם שלו יהיה ישו ולא עמנואל. ואל תדאגו שלא יהיו לכם הוכחות שהוא באמת נולד בבית לחם, ואל תדאגו שהוא לא יעשה ולא ישלים את העבודת המשיח בן דוויד. ואל תדאגו שלא יהיו הוכחות שהוא באמת בן דויד ולא יהיו הוכחות שהבן אדם יהיה קיים בכלל. ואל תדאגו שהספר שייכתב עליו יהיה ביוונית ולא בעברית. ובחבל הזמן חברי, אל תדאגו שהתלמידים שלו לא ישמרו תורה והם ייעלמו תוך שני דורות אחרי הוא הפיץ את הדת חדש שלו. וחברי, תפסיקו עם השטויות! אל תדאגו שהכת שלו מהעמים יתנו לכם הרבה לחץ יכריחו לכם לזנוח את התורה ולברוח ממקום למקום להציל את חייכם. התורה והלכה מכריזות שהוא לא אבל אני אומר כן. חחחחח

If the prophet had written all of the above then we Jews would be less stubborn and have something to work with.

To me, what is errounous is not starting at verse 1 and going all the way through to the end in Hebrew. Jews have been doing that for thousands of years. If you were willing to try and find a mashiahh ben Yoseph reference in the Talmud why are you not willing to go through the Tanakh in the language that it was originally given in?

I again, please take this as me trying to be as respectful as possible, Yet, consider that if a Muslim doesn't know Greek, or in this case English, were to approach you and try interpreting your NT in a way that contradicts the way Christians have historically received it and understood it using the Koran as his basis for such you would not accept it. Right?
 
Last edited:

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
The point is that it is not a Jewish concept only. It is based on passages of scripture, such as Zechariah 9:9,

Given that Zecharya was a Jew anything coming from would also be a Jewish concept. It is to bad that Zecharya didn't just write:

משיח בן יוסף ומשיח בן דוויד הם אותו בן אדם ואני מתכוון שקוראים האב מאומץ שלו יוסף ולא שהשבט שלו זה יוסף אבל דוויד לא אבא שלו, לא בדיוק, אבל הוא באמת משבט יהודה כמו התורה אומרת. ח​
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
In the Christian world it may sound like a ruse. I consider using translation and cherry picking verse w/o reading the entire text from start to finish to be a ruse. ;) If the JW missionaries who came by my place in Jerusalem earlier in the year can do this in Hebrew I expect everyone to raise the bar up a bit. You only have them to blame for this.

Yet, if a prophet of Israel meant for only those two verses to be read with no other context he would not have written the rest of it. His whole book could have been reduced down to:

הי חברי! המשיח של כל עם ישראל יוולד בבית לחם ושם שלו יהיה ישו ולא עמנואל. ואל תדאגו שלא יהיו לכם הוכחות שהוא באמת נולד בבית לחם, ואל תדאגו שהוא לא יעשה ולא ישלים את העבודת המשיח בן דוויד. ואל תדאגו שלא יהיו הוכחות שהוא באמת בן דויד ולא יהיו הוכחות שהבן אדם יהיה קיים בכלל. ואל תדאגו שהספר שייכתב עליו יהיה ביוונית ולא בעברית. ובחבל הזמן חברי, אל תדאגו שהתלמידים שלו לא ישמרו תורה והם ייעלמו תוך שני דורות אחרי הוא הפיץ את הדת חדש שלו. וחברי, תפסיקו עם השטויות! אל תדאגו שהכת שלו מהעמים יתנו לכם הרבה לחץ יכריחו לכם לזנוח את התורה ולברוח ממקום למקום להציל את חייכם. התורה והלכה מכריזות שהוא לא אבל אני אומר כן. חחחחח

If the prophet had written all of the above then we Jews would be less stubborn and have something to work with.

To me, what is errounous is not starting at verse 1 and going all the way through to the end in Hebrew. Jews have been doing that for thousands of years. If you were willing to try and find a mashiahh ben Yoseph reference in the Talmud why are you not willing to go through the Tanakh in the language that it was originally given in?

I again, please take this as me trying to be as respectful as possible, Yet, consider that if a Muslim doesn't know Greek, or in this case English, were to approach you and try interpreting your NT in a way that contradicts the way Christians have historically received it and understood it using the Koran as his basis for such you would not accept it. Right?

I do not have to be a Hebraist to understand the words communicated by God. I have to be able to refer to reliable sources; I can read the English translations, concordances and dictionaries as well as any other. In my opinion, this is not a matter of having the original language but having the original meaning. I'm prepared to do the studying but I require honest and able scholars to provide me with the necessary materials. God is able to supply the more important constituent, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding!

The next point worth making is to do with what might be called 'the rules of exegesis'. Reading in a progressive and linear manner, taking in the whole context, is only one way to approach the scriptures. In the New Testament there is a passage in 2 Timothy 2:15 that says, 'Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing [Gk. 'orthotomeo'] the word of truth.'

Jesus proved the necessity of 'rightly dividing the word of truth' when he read from Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth [Luke 4:16-21]. Jesus stopped his reading in the middle of a passage, knowing that only the first section was to be fulfilled in his ministry as the suffering servant on earth. The 'vengeance' of God remains a future fulfilment.

When I read the Talmudic discussions in English, I find the same manner of reasoning is adopted. The scholars and teachers play one passage, usually just a line or phrase from scripture, off against other relevant passages until all the 'cards' have been openly displayed. Only then can the true meaning be discerned, and if the meaning is still unclear then the matter is left undecided, but with some helpful elucidations.

Now I do possess a JPS Tanakh 1985, and I'm more than happy to repost my scriptural quotations using this English version.

Ultimately, I am interested in what God means by His words, not what man's theology would have me believe. To reach a point of honest understanding I have to trust, first and foremost, that God is Truth, and His Word has been communicated effectively and accurately. One way to discover whether this has happened is to search the scriptures for consistency, and for inconsistency.

I have posted scriptures that demonstrate the consistency of God's Word.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I see nothing in the verse about a suffering servant, much less one who becomes a king.

Why then does the King [Messiah] come to Zion 'lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***'. Is this how you expect your King of Kings to arrive?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Why then does the King [Messiah] come to Zion 'lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***'. Is this how you expect your King of Kings to arrive?
An *** is a work animal; it's not designed for war. The *** is in contrast to the horses, which are animals ridden in warfare. It is signalling a peaceful entry as opposed to a warlike one.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Why then does the King [Messiah] come to Zion 'lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***'. Is this how you expect your King of Kings to arrive?
"Only he shall not multiply horses to himself..." (Deut. 17:16). Better to not risk having a horse, I guess. Also a sign of humility.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
And here's another scripture that I would like explained from your perspective.

Zechariah 12: 9-11.'And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourners for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for his firstborn.
In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon'.

What does the phrase 'in that day' refer to? Who do the inhabitants of Jerusalem look upon?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
An *** is a work animal; it's not designed for war. The *** is in contrast to the horses, which are animals ridden in warfare. It is signalling a peaceful entry as opposed to a warlike one.
And that's exactly how Jesus came to his people in Jerusalem. He came on a colt with peace and mercy [Luke 19:28-40]. The trouble is, you missed it!
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
What does the phrase 'in that day' refer to? Who do the inhabitants of Jerusalem look upon?
Well, it certainly can't be Jesus. "That day" is sometime in the future. The inhabitants of Jerusalem and the House of David are mourning over their fallen enemy - "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thy heart be glad when he stumbleth" (Prov. 24:17). That feeling of mourning comes from the prior "spirit of grace etc" that was just poured upon them.

Your problem is that you have to fit Jesus into the context, so you emphasize for some reason "his" and "son", when it's clearly supposed to be a metaphor, hence the prior word "as" - their mourning will be so great, it will be like a person who mourns over the death of their firstborn.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
And that's exactly how Jesus came to his people in Jerusalem. He came on a colt with peace and mercy [Luke 19:28-40]. The trouble is, you missed it!
Because he rode into Jerusalem along with the hundreds if not thousands of other people who used to ride donkeys into Jerusalem. Not hard to miss.
 
Top