Sunday, August 9, 2015

Censoring the Face of the Messiah: Why the Jewish Publication Society Purposefully Blurred Out the Messiah in Zechariah 12:10




"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 mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn," Zechariah 12:10

Non-Messianic Jews, when they read Zechariah 12:10, are faced with a problem:  here is a passage where G-d is the speaker and He seems to be saying that He was rejected and pierced by His own People.

So here's how Jews have historically censored this passage.

ATTEMPT #1: REINTERPRET THE PASSAGE AS REFERRING TO MOSHIACH BEN YOSEPH

The Talmud says that the "mourning" refers to the Messiah (Sukkah 52a).  Rashi said the "mourning" referred to a Messiah, specifically the Moshiach ben Yoseph.  Rabbi Moses Alshech explains:
"‘They shall look unto Me, for they shall lift up their eyes unto Me in perfect repentance, when they see Him whom they have pierced, that is Messiah, the Son of Joseph; for our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have said that He will take upon Himself all the guilt of Israel, and shall then be slain in the war to make atonement in such manner that it shall be accounted as if Israel had pierced Him, for on account of their sin He has died; and, therefore, in order that it may be reckoned to them as perfect atonement, they will repent and look to the blessed One, saying that there is none beside Him to forgive those that mourn on account of Him who died for their sin; this is the meaning of ‘They shall look upon Me.'"
Notice that the Rabbis understood the grammar "look unto Me".  They couldn't get around the Hebrew grammar!  So they used an interpretation that ignores the problematic grammar suggesting a Divine Messiah--ignored it altogether--and they proposed that there are 2 Messiahs, a Messiah ben Yoseph who came to die for our sins, and a Messiah ben David who came to bring peace.

Only one problem with that though...the passage doesn't seem to be talking about 2 different people.  It indicates that "they" (i.e. Israel) pierced the Messiah and now they are accepting the one they previously had rejected.  And this context matches the rejected Messiah of Isaiah 53:
"...we held him in low esteem.  Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by Him, and afflicted.  But He was crushed for our iniquities...He was oppressed and afflicted..."

Furthermore, Zech. 12:10 says that they will look unto "me"---the one who was [previously, at some other time] slain.  The passage literally says they will accept the Messiah that they had previously rejected!  It's talking not about 2 different Messiahs but about a single Messiah!


ATTEMPT #2:  DISTORT THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION EVEN IF IT MEANS IMPERMISSIBLY VIOLATING HEBREW GRAMMAR

 As we previously mentioned, the Rabbis never even attempted to get around the Hebrew grammar of Zechariah 12:10.  But the guys at the Jewish Publication Society didn't have any problem with violating Hebrew grammar when they wrote their new English translation.  Now, you might say, Peter, you poor fool, of course the Christians will claim that the JPS translation is wrong.  But what do they know anyway?  Jews are the only ones who know how to translate this passage correctly.

Actually, Jewish authors admit that the JPS translation is wrong (more on that in a moment).

So here's the JPS version:
"But I will fill the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of pity and compassion;  and they shall lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first-born," Zech 12:10, JPS (1988)
And here's Gerald Sigal admitting that this translation is completely in error:
"...the translation 'look to Me whom they have pierced' is correct.  The relative clause 'whom they have pierced' in in apposition to 'Me,' the spokesman of the passage.  'Et, the Hebrew word introducing the clause marks it as the object of the verb 'look to'; the Hebrew word 'asher is always a relative pronoun in that context, and never the conjunction 'because.'  It should also be noted that in the Hebrew clause 'they have pierced' lacks the pronominal suffix 'him,'" Gerald Sigal, Trinity Doctrine Error:  A Jewish Analysis.
CONCLUSION

It is inescapable.  The Messiah had to be rejected and killed.  But now--and I'm speaking especially to my Jewish brothers and sisters--NOW is the time to accept Yeshua, the Divine Messiah who came to take away your sins!  If you read this far then it's because G-d is working in your heart.  Now you must consult Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12 for yourself and allow G-d to continue to speak to you!  You must make the choice while it is still today.  You are not guaranteed another day on this earth.  Tomorrow you may have to go before the Throne of the Living G-d and give an account for your life!

Choose salvation!

Choose Yeshua!



87 comments:

  1. Interesting you don't quote Targum Yonatan which says the people of Israel will look to HaShem over those who were pierced/stabbed, during Israel's exile, and they will mourn over it (עליו means both over him and over it) as the mourning over a firstborn. They will mourn over the Jews who were killed and if you want to read it as over him, it refers to the Messiah son of Joseph who will die in battle, as the Sages of the Talmud stated.

    Jews never mourned over the death of Jesus, nor will they. Why would we? What reason would we have for mourning over a man who we hardly know anything about because the gospels conflict, only a few of many varying gospels were chosen as canon, and only destruction to the people of Israel has happened as a result of senseless idolaters worshiping him as a god.

    Your whole post assumes a lot of things to even arrive at the conclusions you arrive at. You assume Jesus was a descendant of David, wrong becuase if you believe he had no human father, he couldn't have been a paternal descendant of David. Tribal status is derived paternally, an "orthodox" should know that. You should also know if a kohen adopts a son, his son is not a kohen. The genealogies of the gospels don't even match! That doesn't take any blinders off your eyes?

    Then you assume Jesus is the messiah, not just a son of David. Why is he the messiah? There is no comprehensive literature of his teachings. Nothing at all and the sermon in the mount only exists in Matthew and it is nothing more than a couple of statements. Nothing is hardly known about Jesus and nothing at all is known to indicate him as the Messiah. Like I said in your other post, if you read Samuel, Kings, and Isaiah through, you will see that the promise of the Messiah is for a Davidic king to restore his father David's throne over Israel. Jesus not only did that, he did nothing to the Romans besides letting them kill him. As I said before, a more likely candidate was Bar Kokhba who almost overthrew Roman rule entirely off of the people of Israel, restoring Jewish kingdom and empire which is what the "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" are. As in the second paragraph of Shema, "as the days of heaven on earth" if we obey HaShem's Torah. Not if we believe Jesus was the messiah, lol. Can you not see how illogical this is?

    Before you understand everything, you have to understand that the whole purpose of the Jewish people on this earth is to serve HaShem in Torah, mitzvot, and tefilla with complete faith in HaShem. As soon as someone says "God isn't one" or plays games with the simple statement of Shema that God is One - they've already made a breach in faith in HaShem and that is exactly what idolatry is, even if it doesn't involve actively going out and worshiping other gods. It is so simple but you cannot see it. You must take a step back and remove the preconceived bias from your mind to even begin to grasp the basics of what real avodat HaShem is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I forgot to add: after Bar Kokhba died after not having removed Rome's control off entirely, the Sages who regarded him as a potential Messiah no longer thought of him as such. Nobody hoped Bar Kokhba would come back to keep beating the Romans and finish the job, he died and that was that. How much less should someone view Jesus as any sort of Messiah when he did nothing of the sort, the gospels can't even get straight what he said and did, and we have no book of his teachings beyond a few vague statements - nothing really explained whatsoever and hardly any aspects of avodat HaShem mentioned. Some rebbe, eh? The only reason you and those like you who [kind of] believe in the oral Torah still believe this Yeshu stuff is because it is a huge klipa to break, and there is huge emotional and spiritual attachment to this entity. I know, I remember.

    Rebbe Nahman taught about the "rav diklipa", the rebbe of the forces of impurity, who is "ravravei Esav", who is compared to a storm wind which has lots of power for a little while only to fade out and be returned to nothing. This applies to the yetzer hara, to the Satan, s"m who is the Sar of Esav, who is Yeshu. Edom is losing steam, so it is trying to feed off the power of Yaakov to sustain it. That's why Hebrew roots xtianity became popular and that's why the Vatican is trying to get hold of David's kever. Only it won't succeed and the messianic movement has just been a big stepping stone for people out of xtianity and into Torah. Xtianity along with the Messianic movement are on their way down and out, as predicted and prophesied.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Real Breslov,

    Such a long response and yet nothing about Zechariah 12:10.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ah, so you didn't read my comments because I quoted the Targum to the verse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So not only did I mention the verse you quoted, I also explained why your idea about who it's talking about is wrong. You can't go and say I didn't mention the verse. Anybody can read the points I made above. Like usually when arguing with Messianics, I get no answer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Real Breslov,

    Oh, you just proved my point beautifully! You completely ignored the original Hebrew text of Zechariah 12:10 in favor of the Targum---the Targum which systematically removes corroborating evidence for Yeshua! Observe:

    *Targum of Hosea 11:1 "Out of Egypt I have called them sons"
    *Targum of Zechariah omits the reference to thirty pieces of silver at 11:12, the reference to 'the potter' at 11:13, and the reference to 'him whom they have pierced' at 12:10

    You've demonstrated what this post is all about: Jewish attempts at getting around the original Hebrew text.



    ReplyDelete
  7. Don't call yourself Orthodox if you disregard the Targum. First of all, HaShem took ISRAEL out of Egypt and each exile is nicknamed Egypt, meaning he also has a will take us out of more Egypts. All these correlations you are making to try to fit Yeshu into the Tanakh are laughable because you just read them in at will, you could read anything into those verses. You don't learn Tanakh from the true perspective of Sages and Tzadikim are actually on the side of kedusha as opposed to the man worship and pantheism of xtianity and Messianism.

    Notice how if the prophecies of Israel are in parallel with those of the Messiah, as some definitely are, how the Messiah and Israel are really two peas in a pod. Like how David was the beloved king of Israel. Yeshu is NOTHING LIKE THAT, Israel rejects him, and he is not our king, not our Messiah. Case closed, it is really as simple as that.

    I hit you with a million points in my comment on your last post and now I mentioned several points NONE OF WHICH you responded to. You expect to not dialogue with me at all but rather disregard every point I made and just bring some random verse that you try fit your man-god into, and that is that. I was even nice enough to respond to your point, shooting it down, but you refuse to even acknowledge anything still. I also made new points and repeated a couple of my many points from the comment on your other post and you still have nothing to offer except anti-Torah, anti-Judaism, Yeshu-promoting rhetoric while trying to call yourself "Orthodox".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Real Breslov,

      If honoring the Targum above the Written Torah is the measure of your "Orthodoxy" then I want nothing to do with your brand of Orthodoxy.

      Shalom,

      Peter

      Delete
    2. Now you sound like a Karaite. The Targum is an aspect of the oral Torah and the oral Torah complements, explains, and is the counterpart of the written Torah. I thought you knew better.

      If elevating the xtian bible above the Tanakh by writing in the lies found there into the Tanakh, then the only kind of orthodoxy you are is xtian orthodoxy. Don't you see how what you said is hypocritical? You choose the xtian bible over the Targum which is still read along with Humash in Temani Batei Kneset weekly and studied along with the text by many just like Rashi is. I was assuming this whole time that you actually believed in the oral Torah.

      Delete
    3. Real Breslov,

      The Talmud prohibits the use of written translations such as the Targumim in the synagogue (Y Meg. 4:1, 28a, 74d).

      Delete
    4. Hahaha, not true. All Jewish communities read the Targum after each verse of Humash, and all Temanim still do it today. You have no idea what you're talking about.

      Delete
    5. “R. Haggai said R. Samuel bar R. Isaac went into a synagogue. He saw a teacher [reading from] a translation spread out, presenting materials from the book. He said to him, ‘It is forbidden to do it that way. Things which were stated orally must be presented orally. Things which were stated in writing must be presented in writing.’ ” y. Meg. 4:1, 74d

      "He who translates orally must not look at a written text [of the translation]; as for the reader of Scripture, he must not, lifting his eyes away from the text of the scroll, recite from memory, for the [written] Torah was given solely in the form of a written text, as is said, “The Lord said . . . I will write on the tablets” (Exod 34:1); on the other hand, he who translates orally must not turn his eyes upon the text of the [biblical] scroll. These injunctions—so stated R. Judah [the son of R. Simon] ben Pazzi—are clearly indicated by “And the Lord said to Moses: Write these words” (Exod 34:27), which refers to the text given in writing; and by “For these words are by mouth” (ibid.), which refers to the translation that must be given by word of mouth.44 For, as R. Judah the son of R. Simon [ben Pazzi] went on to say, the very same verse goes on to state, “I have made a covenant with you” (ibid.). A covenant made by what means? By means of “Write these words,” and also by means of “These words are by mouth” (ibid.). If you maintain in written form that which was ordained to remain written, and maintain by utterance of mouth that which was ordained [to be uttered] only by mouth, then “I, [the Lord], have made a covenant with you.” But if you set down in writing that which was ordained to be uttered by mouth and [utter] with your mouth that which was ordained to be written, then I shall not maintain my covenant with you," Pesiq. R 5:1

      Delete
    6. You'll also want to note that Targum Jonathan is a corrupted text that contains very late material, referencing Mohammad's wife Fatima in Genesis 21:21 and the 4th century C.E. city of Constantinople in Numbers 24:19.

      Delete
  8. Still waiting on replies to even one of my points. :)

    1. Yeshu is not a descendant of David paternally by your own admission which is a problem because tribal status is passed paternally and a kohen, for example, cannot make his adopted child a kohen as well.

    2. There is no comprehensive Torah of Yeshu, only a couple of random quotes and the NT does not even agree among itself on genealogies and teachings.

    3. Based on the above, we know nothing of any substance about Yeshu besides lots of heretical teachings in the xtian bible that may or may not be true.

    4. He cannot be Messiah for that reason.

    5. Israel never accepted him, nor did they accept the Sadducees, rather all the decrees and enactments of the Sages who are ordained via Devarim (Dt.) 17 were only made into binding halakha upon mass acceptance among the general populace of Israel - in other words, the Jewish common folk were "Pharisees" who rejected Sadduceean (Karaite-like) denial of oral Torah and rejected Yeshu.

    6. Instead of reading the text of Tanakh with open eyes, unblinded, you blindly insert Yeshu wherever it seems to you fit. I doubt you speak or can read Hebrew, yet you boast yourself over those who can and study Torah in Hebrew.

    7. I already cited Rashi and the Targum. Instead of relying on real Torah sources, you rely on a xtian bible much of which was written long after the claimed events. Yet you claim I didn't answer your claim about Zekharya 12 - look at all the points you haven't made a peep about. Sounds like you're stalling or just have nothing to answer with. You have no idea who typical this is in my experience dealing with Messianics as I used to be. No hate on my part, just hoping you would see some truth or be just a tiny bit opened to it. Saving souls is what I am into. Meaning I care about people like you. I am not just out to bash your beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Real Breslov,

      I'm happy to address each of your questions. I should have time this evening when I return home from work.

      Shalom,

      Peter

      Delete
    2. Real Breslov,

      Regarding your first point: Yeshua's genealogies recorded in the Apostolic Writings show that He was descended from David.

      Regarding your second point: Yeshua taught only the Torah of Moses.

      Regarding your third point: Yeshua's existence is corroborated even outside Scripture. He's mentioned in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, etc, etc.

      Regarding your fourth point: Yeshua did precisely what the Torah and Prophets said He would do.

      Regarding your fifth point: Do not follow a multitude to do evil.

      Regarding your sixth point: You are blind to the Messianic nature of passages such as Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 53, etc. The Prophetic Writings point directly and unmistakably at Yeshua as the Messiah.

      Regarding your seventh point: That's not correct. I use the original Hebrew text of the Torah to make many of my points.


      Delete
    3. Concerning Zechariah 12:10, notice that the verse mentions that the House of David will be looking on the one who was “pierced.” Will the Messiah be from the House of David, Peter? We both know the answer is yes…This means that the individual who is being “pierced” in Zechariah 12:10 does not refer to the Messiah son of David. Otherwise, the verse would say that David was the one being pierced!

      But that's not what it says...

      So your strawman attempt just sank you deeper into the hole...

      Your jesus is not the Messiah.


      Shalom and G-d bless!

      Delete
    4. Unknown (Real Breslov?),

      RE: "Otherwise, the verse would say that David was the one being pierced!"

      You have this presupposition that there MUST be 2 different Messiahs. However, as I've pointed out already, the text gives no indication that there will be 2 different Messiah. Rather, the text gives every indication that there is one Messiah who had a dual mission: be the rejected Messiah on one occasion (e.g. Zech 12:10; Isaiah 53) and be the accepted Messiah in the end. Your argument assumes that your dual Messiah conclusion is correct. But you must first prove that this dual Messiah theory is grounded in the text of Torah--and that you simply cannot do. There's no such evidence in Torah.

      Delete
    5. If we look in the Torah itself, there are little references to the Messiah directly. There is a kingly association with the "star of Jacob" mentioned in Numbers 24 and king David's reign, with a possible Messianic reference as well. Also, Genesis 49 refers to the blessings given to the sons of Jacob, and Joseph and Judah both receive blessings that allude to kingship.

      Interestingly enough, both the descendants of Judah and Joseph (Ephraim) served as kings in their respective parts of Eretz Yisrael. Ezekiel 37 refers to the stick of Ephraim and the stick of Judah becoming one during the Messianic age.

      Obadiah 1 also says this:

      Obadiah 1:18 And the house of Jacob shall be fire and the **house of JOSEPH a flame,** and the house of Esau shall become stubble, and they shall ignite them and consume them, and the house of Esau shall have no survivors, for the Lord has spoken.

      The role of Moshiach ben Yosef is to defeat Edom. There are various Rabbinic opinions on how this will play out, but this is a source for Moshiach ben Yosef in the Tanach.

      Whether or not you agree with this Rabbinic interpretation concerning Moshiach ben Yosef is inconsequential in demonstrating the falsehood of jesus's messiahship/godship. Your jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophesies of the Tanach and that is why your jesus cannot be the Messiah.

      Shalom

      Delete
    6. Unknown (Real Breslov),

      If the Torah is correct that the Messiah must first be rejected then that means there MUST be an intervening period of time between His visits in which certain latter Messianic prophecies are yet to be fulfilled. This means that there are 2 different sets of Messianic prophecies in the Torah: (1) prophecies concerning the first visit when the Messiah is rejected by His People; (2) prophecies concerning the second visit when the Messiah is accepted by His People. All we have to do to show that Yeshua is the promised Messiah is show that He fulfilled prophecies concerning the first visit in which He is rejected by His People. The fact that some prophecies are yet to be fulfilled does not, therefore, negate the evidence that shows Yeshua to be the Messiah who came first to be rejected and to provide atonement.

      Do you understand?

      Delete
    7. Peter, the Torah itself (The 5 Books of Moses) mentions nothing of the Messiah being "rejected first." The Tanach, (Torah, Prophets, and Writings included) also does not give credence to your false idea that there is a necessity that the Messiah must first come and be "rejected."

      Your understanding of Isaiah 53 is faulty in that you assume that it ONLY refers to the Messiah. The Messiah is a part of Israel, so there is no problem with the servant being associated with the Messiah. But you error in your assumption that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 refers exclusively to the Messiah. Thus, it makes no sense for you to argue that since your jesus was "rejected" by the Jewish people that this gives ultimate credence to your position of jesus being the Messiah. Bar Kochba was also ultimately rejected as being the Messiah, even to a greater extent to your jesus if we acknowledge that today there are literally no Jews today who believe that Bar Kochba was the Messiah. (Find me just one!) Your jesus, on the other hand, unfortunately, has a handful of Jewish followers. So as far as your silly "rejection contest" goes, Bar Kochba wins by a landslide!

      You have no good reason to assume that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 refers EXCLUSIVELY to the Messiah. Can we surmise that the Messiah may be a part of Isaiah 53? Yes!

      But to say that this suffering servant refers exclusively to the Messiah is to ignore the context of the rest of the servant songs as well as the trend of Messianic prophesy elsewhere in the Tanach.

      What I mean is this: Both Jewish and christians agree that these prophesies refer to the specific INDIVIDUAL of the Messiah:

      Isaiah 11:1. And a shoot shall spring forth from the **STEM OF JESSE,** and a twig shall sprout from his roots.

      Hosea 3:5. Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God and **DAVID THEIR KING,** and they shall come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness at the end of days.

      Jeremiah 30:9. And they shall serve the Lord their God and **DAVID THEIR KING, **whom I will set up for them.

      Ezekiel 37:24. And **MY SERVANT DAVID SHALL BE KING** over them, and one shepherd shall be for them all, and they shall walk in My ordinances and observe My statutes and perform them.

      Ezekiel 37:25. And they shall dwell on the land that I have given to My servant, to Jacob, wherein your forefathers lived; and they shall dwell upon it, they and their children and their children’s children, forever; and **MY SERVANT DAVID shall be their prince forever.**

      These are some of the very few prophesies that both Jews and christians agree upon referring to the specific INDIVIDUAL of the Messiah. Do you wonder why that is? There is some things these prophesies have in common with each other.

      1. All give credence to DAVIDIC descent of the individual.

      2. All concern the end of days

      So how does the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 measure up to this criteria? Well, I think we can both agree that Isaiah 53 concerns the end of days, so it meets criterion number 2…But what about criterion number 1?

      Peter, can you show me in the entirety of the servant songs of Isaiah where the suffering servant is ever referenced as being from the line of David/Jesse? Can you show any specificity of the servant’s ties to the David line specifically?

      I can show you nearly a dozen times where the servant is explicitly referred to as Jacob/Israel/Jeshrun. This lends credibility to the Jewish position that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 isn’t simply JUST the Messiah. Rather, the suffer servant of Isaiah 53 is a collective group, namely the righteous of Israel, Messiah included!

      Shalom

      Delete
    8. Unknown,

      Use an alias when you comment so as to be fair to other commenters. Now to respond to your point that Isaiah 53 cannot be referring to the Messiah as a person but rather must be referring to the People of Israel. My response is simply that the Talmud says this passage can be interpreted as referring to an individual Messiah:

      "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, 'surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" BT, Sanhedrin 98b

      Delete
    9. Peter did you read any of what I wrote? I never said that Isaiah 53 cannot refer to the Messiah.

      Your understanding of Isaiah 53 is faulty in that you assume that it ONLY refers to the Messiah. The Messiah is a part of Israel, so there is no problem with the servant being associated with the Messiah. But you error in your assumption that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 refers exclusively to the Messiah.

      Talmudic commentators agree, so please stop abusing the context of Rabbinic literature in order to disingenuously justify your false messiah, jesus. I understand that you have no foundation for your beliefs in the Tanach, but for you to abuse the context of Rabbinic literature in order to try and weasel in your false beliefs about jesus...Well...That's just low...And downright pathetic...

      Shalom

      Delete
    10. Yehuda,

      You say there are very little Messianic prophecies in the Bible. There are literally hundreds of prophecies relating to the 1st visit by the Messiah and Yeshua fulfilled ALL of them. Every single detail of His visit is a fulfillment of a prophecy.

      The voice of one calling in the desert to prepare His way (Isaiah 40:1-5, 9) was fulfilled by John the Immerser, the healing Messiah who would open the eyes and ears of the blind and deaf (Isaiah 35:4-6) was fulfilled by Yeshua, a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-18) was fulfilled by Yeshua who made the Torah real by living it out PERFECTLY, the humble Messiah who would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey (Zech. 9:9) was fulfilled by Yeshua, that a child would be born who would be "Everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6-7) was fulfilled by Yeshua who IS the Creator of the Universe and humbled Himself to be born on Earth in order to take away the sins of the world, that He would also be the suffering and rejected Messiah (Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, Zechariah 12:10) was fulfilled by Yeshua, I could go on and on, with the 30 pierces of silver, the casting of lots, there are hundreds of prophecies showing all the details of Yeshua's ministry.

      It's impossible to read the Apostolic Writings and miss the fact that Yeshua constantly fulfilled one prophecy after another---that He in fact fulfilled EVERY prophecy relating to the Messiah's 1st visit.

      Delete
    11. Peter,

      Peter,

      Deut 18:15-19 refers to Joshua in the immediate context and all subsequent prophets after him. Lets look at Deut 18:15 and 18:18 more closely:

      Deut 18:15 [Moses speaking] “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet **LIKE ME** from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him…

      Ok, so now we need to establish the context of what it means to be “LIKE” Moses. Verse 18 establishes this context concerning this particular chapter:
      Deut 18:18 [God speaking] ‘I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen **LIKE YOU,** [Like Moses] **and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.**

      So what does it mean to be LIKE Moses in this context? Simple! All at it means is that the prophet will SPEAK THE WORDS THAT GOD COMMANDS HIM. That’s all! Now, what prophet do we know in the Bible who fits this description?

      Every prophet in the Bible speaks the word of God…That’s the definition of a prophet!

      So who does this apply to? ALL PROPHETS! But in the immediate context, it applies to Joshua, since he was Moses’s successor. The Book of Joshua gives us explicit proof of this:

      Joshua 1:5. No man shall stand up before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so shall I be with you. I will not weaken My grasp on you nor will I abandon you.

      Joshua 1:16. And they answered Joshua saying: All that you have commanded us we shall do and wherever you send us we shall go.

      Joshua 1:17. Just as we obeyed Moses in everything, so shall we obey you. Only that the Lord your God be with you as He was with Moses.

      Joshua 3:7. And the Lord said to Joshua: This day I will begin to make you great in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that as I was with Moses, so will I be with you.

      Joshua 4:14. On that day the Lord made Joshua great in the sight of all Israel, and they feared him, as they had feared Moses, all the days of his life.

      Joshua 11:15. As the Lord commanded Moses His servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses.

      I would argue that there is no prophet in the entire Bible who is compared to Moses as much as Joshua. However, this prophesy is not specific to just one prophet!

      (Part I)

      Delete
    12. (Part II)

      We can also use grammatical consistency to demonstrate that Deut 18:18 does not refer to only one prophet, but rather, the general concept of “prophets” who succeeded Moses. Lets look at the verses again:

      Deut 18:17. And the Lord said to me, “They have done well in what they have spoken.

      Deut 18:18. I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.

      Deut 18:19. And it will be, that whoever does not hearken to My words that he speaks in My name, I will exact [it] of him.
      These verses describe “the prophet like Moses” who you deem to be one singular individual, namely, the Messiah. (Or in your case, Jesus.) Knowing this, lets keep reading on:

      Deut 18:20. But the prophet who intentionally speaks a word in My name, which I did not command him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.

      Deut 18:21. Now if you say to yourself, “How will we know the word that the Lord did not speak?”

      Deut 18:22. If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing
      does not occur and does not come about, that is the thing the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him.
      Look at words. Look at the grammar concerning the fact that both “the prophet like Moses” and “the false prophet” are referred to in the third person SINGULAR.
      If we are to be grammatically consistent with your interpretation of Deut

      18:18, namely that “the prophet like Moses” only refers to one singular person, shouldn’t we also interpret Deut 18:20-22 in the same way concerning “the false prophet”? Shouldn’t we also say that there will only be “one false prophet”? If you want to be grammatically consistent with the passage, this is really your only option. Do you really want to interpret Deut

      18:20-22 as referring to only one false prophet? Surely not!

      I get that you want to force this passage to exclusively refer to the Messiah. However, this is clearly not the case.

      Shalom

      Delete
    13. And peter, riding on a donkey isn't impressive. Thousands of people rode donkeys back then. Your jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem doesn't make him the Messiah. It's a rather silly argument don't you think?

      Delete
    14. And Peter, you brought up Isaiah 9:5-6... (or 9:6-7 in christian bibles)


      Concerning Isaiah 9:5-6

      Isaiah 9:5. For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

      and… called his name: The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days.

      Isaiah 39:8. And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, "The word of the Lord that you have spoken is good." For he thought, "For there shall be peace and truth in my days."

      There's your prince of peace! Hezekiah HIMSELF applied the prophesy to HIMSELF! It has nothing to do with jesus/yeshu/whatever.

      Isaiah 9:6 To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this.

      from now and to eternity: The eternity of Hezekiah, viz. all his days. And so we find that Hannah said concerning Samuel (I Sam. 1:22): “and abide there forever.” And, in order to refute those who disagree [i.e., the Christians, who claim that this (Prince of Peace) is their deity], we can refute them [by asking], What is the meaning of: “from now” ? Is it not so that the “deity” did not come until after five hundred years and more?

      There is no problem with the interpretation that this prophesy ultimately will reach fulfillment in Messiah. However, it is clear that in the immediate context, Isaiah 9:5-6 refers to King Hezekiah. As it states, the ruling of this eternal kingdom will be "FROM NOW until eternity." By NOW, Isaiah is referring to his generation. Hezekiah is the only viable candidate for the initial context of this prophesy.

      (Part I)

      Delete
    15. (Part II)

      The words "ad olam" are not exclusive to Hashem. I Samuel 1:22 is an example:

      I Samuel 1:22. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband: "Until the child is weaned, then I shall bring him, and he shall appear before the Lord, and abide there FOREVER.

      The Hebrew words used for "forever" in I Samuel 1:22 are עַד עוֹלָם or "ad olam."

      These are the EXACT SAME WORDS used to describe the "eternality" of the kingdom spoken of in Isaiah 9:6!

      Isaiah 9:6. To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to ETERNITY, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this.

      Once again, the word "eternity" here translates to עַד עוֹלָם or "ad olam," just like "forever" in I Samuel 1:22!

      Using this christian logic, Samuel is apparently "divine" as well, since he "eternally" abides!

      There is no "divine" Messiah. The Chazal never reflect this idea and nor does the Tanach.

      Isaiah 9:6 says that this kingdom will be established **FROM NOW until eternity." MeAta V'Ad Olam! This means that this prophesy had immediate effect in Isaiah's time. King Hezekiah was next in line on the throne after his wicked father Ahaz and he brought peace to Judah even in the wake of the Assyrian invasion!

      Now, if you want to whine about the fact that Hezekiah's kingdom has long since past, that is fine...Like I said before, I have no problem with the interpretation that this will come to ultimate fruition in the days of the true Messiah.

      But for anyone to say that jesus fulfilled this prophesy in any sense is absolute hogwash! The immediate context of this prophesy definitively refers to King Hezekiah. This means that it is not a prophesy speaking about a "divine son." Your obsession with deifying the Messiah is unhealthy and idolatrous.

      And concerning King Hezekiah, this is what is stated:

      II Kings 18:5. He trusted in the God of Israel there was none like him among all the kings of Judah who were after him, nor were there before him.

      II Kings 18:6. He cleaved to the Lord; he did not turn away from following Him; he kept His commandments, which He had commanded Moses.

      II Kings 18:7. Now the Lord was with him: in everything he ventured he succeeded; and he rebelled against the king of Assyria and did not serve him.

      And as far as the divine titles go, are you aware that Hezekiah's name literally means "G-d is my strength/Mighty G-d"? He was also a wonderful counselor as, no other king of Judah before or after him trusted in Hashem to the degree that Hezekiah did. (II Kings 18:5-7) He was also a "prince of peace," as I described in Isaiah 39:8. Yet you try to downplay this...At least Hezekiah was actually ruling as King during his lifetime. Once again, your jesus never sat on the throne. Plus, Judah wasn't even an autonomous theocracy, as the Romans were essentially in control of Judah during the time of jesus's life...Even jesus himself was killed by the Romans! So much for jesus's supposed "peaceful reign."

      So ultimately, your gripe with Hezekiah being the initial context of this passage is that his kingdom ended...The irony of all of this is that your jesus's "kingdom" never even started!

      YOUR jesus NEVER RULED ON THE THRONE AS KING AT ALL! Thus, compared to Hezekiah, your jesus loses every time!

      Shalom

      Delete
    16. it’s ironic that you put such an emphasis on the יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ part of Daniel 9:26, claiming that it was because of the “cutting off” of this “moshiach” that was the initiator of the “sixfold changes” mentioned in Daniel 9:24, including the “end of transgression/sin.”

      You obviously identify this “cutting off” of this “moshiach” with the death of jesus…But what I find ironic about this is that jesus’s death did not accomplish any of the “sixfold promises” mentioned in Daniel 9:24!

      Daniel 9:24. Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.

      Did any of these things happen after your jesus died, Peter? Has iniquity been erased from Israel as this verse states concerning “your people”? (Which refer’s to Israel, Daniel’s people.) Do you still sin?

      We both know that jesus’s death accomplished none of this…

      So the question becomes, why in the world would you associate the promises of Daniel 9:24 with jesus’s death?! It is clear that jesus’s death did not accomplish any of these promises of the end of transgression among Israel or any other people.

      So why do you insist that jesus must be this “moshiach” mentioned in Daniel 9:26?

      It is interesting to note that Jews and Christians can agree on other passages referring exclusively to the Messiah! Here are a few:

      Isaiah 11:1. And a shoot shall spring forth from the **STEM OF JESSE,** and a twig shall sprout from his roots.

      Ezekiel 37:24. And **MY SERVANT DAVID** shall be king over them, and one shepherd shall be for them all, and they shall walk in My ordinances and observe My statutes and perform them.

      Hosea 3:5. Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God and **DAVID THEIR KING,** and they shall come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness at the end of days.

      Jeremiah 30:9. And they shall serve the Lord their God and **DAVID THEIR KING,** whom I will set up for them.

      There is one thing all of these verses have in common: They all use a “Davidic qualifier,” meaning that they all exclusively refer to the Davidic dynasty in some fashion. This is a good reason why Jews and Christians can all understand that these future prophesies refer to one person: Moshiach ben David.

      But Daniel 9:24-27, nor the rest of the chapter, give us any indication that this “moshiach” mentioned has any connection to the Davidic dynasty, at least at face value…This lend credibility to the Jewish position that this “moshiach who was cut off” in Daniel 9:26 is not the promised Messiah son of David who is spoken of in the four aforementioned passages above that both Jews and Christians agree refer to the specific individual called “Moshiach ben David.”

      In fact, the word “moshiach” is NEVER used to exclusively refer to the individual of “Moshiach ben David” in the Tanach…Ever! Usually, the individual of Moshiach ben David is referred to as “David” or “melech/king.”

      So your interpretation of Daniel 9:26 actually runs contradictory to the rest of scripture…

      Shalom

      Delete
    17. And your references to Isaiah 40 and Isaiah 35 as being "fulfilled" by your jesus are absolutely laughable! Just because your false NT says that they were "fulfilled" doesn't make it true! If it were actually true, then we could tangibly experience it.

      Isaiah 40:5 And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh together shall see that the mouth of the Lord spoke.

      All flesh saw your jesus speak eh? I guess we don't need a "second coming" of your jesus to fulfill this prophesy then, right Peter?

      Or maybe you're talking out of both sides of your mouth...

      I'll go with the latter...

      And as far as Isaiah 35 goes, your the only "proof" you have comes from your false NT. I have no reason to trust a document that distorts the Tanach on every page in order to falsely champion jesus as the Messiah of the Tanach. This is an unprovable "fulfillment" of a prophesy that you can only base upon your own biased understanding of the NT. I don't see your jesus healing any blind people or deaf people today...I also don't see your jesus here at all.

      So maybe you'll just have to wait until the supposed "second coming."

      Too bad it's not happening...

      Just admit that jesus didn't fulfill any of these prophesies and that your biased understanding is what drives you to come up with the delusional idea that he did.

      Shalom

      Delete
    18. Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

      Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they sea with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed.

      Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until cities be waste without inhabitant, and houses without man, and the land become utterly waste, and Jehovah have removed men far away, and the forsaken places be many in the midst of the land.

      Delete
  9. Your jesus cannot be Moshiach for a number of reasons:

    1. He failed to fulfill the Messianic prophesies. (Isaiah 11, Hosea 3:5, and Ezekiel 37:24-28, just to name a few.)

    2. Your NT distorts the Tanach and attributes prophesies that are not exclusively to the Messiah and flippantly applies them to jesus in order to build a weak case for him as a Messianic candidate. (Matthew's abuse of Isaiah 7:14 and Hosea 11:1 are two prime examples of this. Psalms 110 is another good example.)

    3. If your jesus indeed claimed to be “divine,” this would actually prove jesus to be a false prophet!

    Deut 13:2-6 tells us that if a person claiming to be a prophet of G-d performs a miraculous feat, but tells us to worship other gods that we have not know, we are STILL to REJECT THAT PROPHET.

    Deut 13:2. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,

    (lets say jesus claims he will be killed and resurrect himself on the third day!)

    Deut 13:3. *and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens,* [and he] says, “Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,”

    (lets say jesus actually is killed and he does resurrect himself on the third day! But he asks us to WORSHIP HIM, despite the fact that the Jewish people were never instructed by Hashem in the Torah to worship jesus.)

    Deut 13:4. you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.

    (Then we shall NOT heed the words of jesus, because Hashem is TESTING US.)

    Deut 13:5. You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.

    Deut 13:6. And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.

    So there is overwhelming evidence against jesus concerning his supposed "messianic status."

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown (Real Breslov),

      Re: #1

      As I mentioned earlier, there are 2 sets of Messianic prophecies in the Torah: (1) those relating to the first visit when Messiah must be rejected and provide atonement; (2) those relating to the second visit when Messiah destroys the enemies of Israel (e.g. Edom). Yeshua fulfilled the first set thus proving Himself to be the Messiah. The fact that some prophecies are yet to be fulfilled--those relating to the 2nd visit--merely indicates that we live in the intervening period of time between the 1st and 2nd visits. It certainly doesn't negate the fact that Yeshua is the Messiah based on fulfilling the first set of prophecies.

      Re: 2

      You say that the Apostolic Writings abuse certain passages of Scripture. What is your basis for this conclusion? What evidence can you provide to support this conclusion?

      Re: 3

      You say that Yeshua was a false prophet because He taught that He was Divine. However, the Prophets say that the Messiah IS Divine. There's no way around the Hebrew source text which says this.


      Delete
    2. Peter, as mentioned earlier, the Tanach does not give credence to your false idea that there is a necessity that the Messiah must first come and be "rejected." In fact, Hosea 3:4-5 would indicate just the opposite!

      Hosea 3:4 For the children of Israel shall remain for many days, having neither king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor ephod nor seraphim.

      Hosea 3:5 Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and they shall come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness **AT THE END OF DAYS.**

      Peter, notice that nothing in the passage says that David (The Messiah) must come before this exile and then reappear at the end of days. Rather, the text only explicitly mentions the fact that the Messiah will come at the end of days. Your position that there be some sort of "first coming" before the final exile has no foundation in the Tanach.

      Also, you claim that the prophets claim that the Messiah is "divine." On the contrary, in the Messianic verse that I just posted, (Hosea 3:5) there is a clear distinction made between the Messiah and G-d:

      Hosea 3:5 Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and ***seek the Lord their God AND DAVID THEIR KING,**

      Note the distinction made between "the Lord their G-d" AND "David their king." Hosea did not say that "David their king" is actually synonymous with "the Lord their G-d." Rather, Hosea made a clear distinction between the two.

      Thus, you have no foundation for the worship of your jesus.

      Oh and P.S. I'm not Real Breslov...

      Shalom


      Delete
    3. Unknown,

      Use an alias in the future to be fair to other commenters. Now, as to your point that the Torah doesn't say that the Messiah must be rejected, all I can tell you is that the Talmud says that Isaiah 53 can be understood as referring to an individual Messiah and the text of Isaiah 53 says that this Messiah was "despised and rejected."

      Use an alias.

      Delete
    4. Peter, as I just mentioned, the Talmudic commentators did not understand the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 to refer exclusively to the Messiah. It is disingenuous of you to abuse the context of the Rabbinic commentators.

      Also, the Rabbis understand that the context of Isaiah 53 refers to the goyim realizing that Israel, the Messiah included, is the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 as the context of Isaiah 53 with Isaiah 52 clearly demonstrates. It is the nations of the world who saw the Jewish people as "damned to hell" because of our resistance to jesus, muhammad, etc. who will come to understand that Israel's suffering is a means of healing to the nations at the end of days.

      Isaiah 52:15 describes the gentiles kings who will shut their mouths because of their astonishment of Israel’s vindication by Hashem:

      Isaiah 52:15 So shall he cast down many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for, what had not been told them they saw, and [at] what they had not heard they gazed.

      Micah 7:16-17 echoes this sentiment:

      Micah 7:16. Nations shall see and be ashamed of all their might-they shall place a hand upon their mouth; their ears shall become deaf.

      Micah 7:17. They shall lick the dust as a snake, as those who crawl on the earth. They shall quake from their imprisonment; they shall fear the Lord, our God, and they shall fear you.

      Also, Isaiah 60:14 speaks of the future Israel who was previously despised by the nations as being vindicated at the end of days, also echoing in line with the suffering/despised servant of Isaiah 53:

      Isaiah 60:14And the children of your oppressors shall go to you bent over, and *THOSE WHO DESPISED YOU* shall prostrate themselves at the soles of your feet, and they shall call you ‘the city of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

      So there you have it. The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 ultimately is the nation of Israel. Please note that the Messiah is a part of Israel, too.

      Shalom

      Delete
    5. Yehuda,

      I can give you quote after quote where the Rabbis believe Isaiah 53 refers to an individual Messiah and yet you will continue to pout, saying that I'm abusing the text---as if the Rabbis are not saying precisely the same thing that I'm saying.

      You are too funny!

      Delete
    6. Peter, I can give you quote after quote that not only did the Rabbis understand that the suffering servant refers to Israel, Messiah included, but even a quote from a church father!

      The earliest known example of a Jew and a Christian debating the meaning of Isaiah 53 is the example from 248 cited by Origen. In Christian church father Origen's Contra Celsus, written in 248, he writes of Isaiah 53:

      "Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations."

      So this isn't a Rabbinic fabrication that was invented during the middle ages, as you christians like to falsely peddle. The idea that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 refers to Israel is an idea that is firmly rooted in Rabbinic thought.

      Targum Jonathan conveys the idea that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 does not only refer to the Messiah, but Israel as well, just as I have explained to you from the beginning.

      52:13 Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.

      (Targum) 52:13. Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong:

      So here was have a reference to the Messiah in the Targum concerning the servant, yes...But what about the next verse?

      52:14 According as many were appalled at thee—so marred was his visage unlike that of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of men—

      (Targum) 52:14. as the HOUSE OF ISRAEL looked to him during many days, because THEIR COUNTENANCE was darkened among the peoples, and THEIR COMPLEXION beyond the sons of men,

      Here we see that not only is the suffering servant described as being the Messiah, but ALSO AS ISRAEL. Isaiah 52:14 speaks of a man with a "marred countenance/visage" and Israel is clearly understood to be the subject of the verse according to the Targum.

      But what about Isaiah 53:10? Lets see what the Targum has to say:

      53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:

      (Targum) 53:10. But it is the Lord's good pleasure to try and to purify the remnant of his people, so as to cleanse their souls from sin; these shall look on the Kingdom of their Messiah, their sons and their daughters shall be multiplied, they shall prolong their days, and those who perform the Law of the Lord shall prosper in his good pleasure.

      As you can see, the Targum clearly indicates that the children of Israel are the ones having their days prolonged along with the Messiah.

      So as I have said multiple times, Peter, Rabbinic sources confirm that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 does not refer exclusively to the Messiah, but rather, to Israel, Messiah included.

      So please, Peter, stop abusing the context of Rabbinic literature. Your disingenuous tact isn't doing your position any favors.

      But just to give you a taste of your own medicine, I will post John 14:28.

      John 14:28 "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

      Here we have jesus claiming that he is "lesser" than the Father. This would indicate that jesus is not claiming to be equal with the Father, thus making him not divine.

      So according to jesus himself, it appears that jesus is claiming that he is separate from G-d and not "G-d in the flesh."

      Would you agree, Peter?

      Let's see how honest you are...

      Shalom

      Delete
    7. Yehudah,

      Since you can't get around the fact that the Talmud states that Isaiah 53 can be interpreted as referring to the individual Messiah, you are now trying to argue a completely different point, citing John 14:28 as evidence that Yeshua cannot be Divine.

      So I'll respond to this new point you've raised.

      The Torah says that G-d alone by Himself created the Heavens and the Earth. Yet the Torah also says that the "Word" of G-d created the Heavens and the Earth:

      "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host," Psalm 33:6

      So that means that the "Word" is "G-d." We also know that G-d's Spirit is G-d (Gen. 1:1 for example). So G-d is completely transcendent and beyond us and simultaneously very close to us, speaking directly to us. But how can G-d be both beyond (transcendent) and close (immanent)? It's a contradiction, right? Yet it is true. Would you dispute that G-d's Spirit is upon Israel? That He can indwell individual members of Israel? Would you dispute that the Prophets were indwelled by the Spirit of the L-rd? Would you dispute that the infinite G-d came to dwell in a House made by man (i.e. the Temple)?

      So you already believe that something can come FROM G-d and simultaneously be G-d (as in the case of the "Word").

      Yet when it comes to Yeshua you say that it's impossible that He could be FROM G-d and simultaneously G-d. That's rather inconsistent, wouldn't you say?


      Delete
    8. Peter, my purpose in bringing up John 14:28 was to show you the double standard that you have set up. In isolation, the verse in John 14:28 appears to say that jesus is claiming that he is not "G-d in the flesh." Likewise, you have isolated a passage in the Talmud and falsely claimed that it applies exclusively to the Messiah, despite the fact that the Targum, other Rabbinic commentaries, and even an early church father attest to the fact that Rabbinic opinion on the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 refers to Israel, Messiah in included.

      Quite frankly, I don't care about your interpretation of John 14:28. The entire NT is filled with falsehood from beginning to end. My only point in bringing it up was to show the hypocrisy that you have implemented by isolating a passage in the Talmud and claiming that it only applies to the Messiah, when read in context with the whole of Rabbinic commentaries, including the Targum Jonathan, we can establish that the context of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 refers to Israel, Messiah included.

      But since you can't argue using integrity and intellectual honesty, it is clear that you are extremely desperate to cling to your position, even to the point of delusion.

      Shalom

      Delete
    9. Ending a comment in "shalom" after calling someone delusional, lacking in integrity, and intellectually dishonest seems a bit...disingenuous.

      I'm not entering this fight. Just saying, it comes off poorly.

      Delete
    10. You're clearly picking sides based off of a shallow point. Peter is most certainly lacking in integrity in his contextual abuse of the Talmud. I don't know what religion you are "anonymous," but If you are a traditional christian who believes in jesus, if I told you that jesus never claimed to be "god in the flesh," you would call me disingenuous, as well. You would tell me that I am abusing the context of the NT and that there are sources which indicate such. I'm not here to debate that. I'm here to demonstrate the fact that this is analogous to what Peter is doing with the Talmud. He is isolating a passage and taking it out of context, when it is clear that the Talmudic Rabbis understood the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 to be not just the Messiah, but also Israel.

      So I suggest you stay far away from this "fight," as you clearly have nothing valuable to offer...

      Shalom

      Delete
    11. What I have of value to offer is this: If you describe someone in such unkind terms (even if you might be accurate), and then you end your comment with "Peace," you come off as being insincere and facetious. This does not help your case - it paints your personality in a negative light, which damages your credibility.

      It's not that your comment that he's disingenuous is the problem. You say what you mean, you're a bit hostile about it, and that's fine. It's that you pair this marginal hostility with "shalom." Since you say I'm "clearly" picking sides (It wasn't so clear to me, but oh well),I'll be entirely even-handed about it - Peter comes across as a bit of a jerk sometimes, too. Regardless of who's doing it, pairing clearly adversarial language with "But peace to you!" comes across as facetious.

      I'll say one thing about this war between Messianic missionaries and mainstream counter-missionaries. You guys both have some good points. I spent most of yesterday and all of last night digging through the Tanakh and the Gemara and targumim and Rashi and other sources, tracking down what Peter's been saying, and what the others have been saying. (I won't mention the conclusion I've come to). Very thought-provoking.

      That said, numerous Messianics often seem hostile. That's a problem. Similarly, *all* the counter-missionaries I've ever encountered, every single one, has come across as an angry jerk.

      I see your suggestion that I stay away, and your insult that my comments are of no value. If my comments have no value, fell free to simply ignore them. Seriously, it's no skin off my back. Yet, as for your suggestion (once again so hostile, painting the "Shalom" you say at the end as false) I must reject it.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous, thank you for elaborating on your position. Since you are on the fence, I will provide you with the my favorite refutation against christianity.

      The christian assertion that Israel cannot atone for sin without “jesus blood/death” couldn’t be farther from the truth…Nowhere in the Tanach does it even hint that “jesus blood/death” is needed for Israel to receive forgiveness of sin from Hashem.

      Leviticus 17:11 states that blood animal sacrifice is one way to atone for sin. However, it does not state that blood sacrifice is the only way to atone for sin…(also, note that “jesus blood” is also not mentioned here…Only animal blood!)

      The prophet Daniel stood RIGHTEOUS and SAVED before Hashem without a Temple. He didn’t need “jesus blood” or jesus in any fashion on order to stand righteous before Hashem.

      Ezekiel 14:14 even if these three men–Noah, Daniel and Job–were in it, they could SAVE only themselves by THEIR RIGHTEOUSNESS, declares the Sovereign LORD.

      You see, Daniel received forgiveness for his sins INDEPENDENT of jesus during the first exile. He did this by praying and sincerely repenting before Hashem. Daniel 6:11 states that he even did this in the face of death! Clearly, Daniel knew that his sincere repentance to Hashem brought him back to righteousness.

      He was simply following the words of Jeremiah!

      The context of Jeremiah 29 concerns what G-d expects of us during the exile in order to merit the rebuilding of the Holy Temple. Consider what is said in Jeremiah 29:12-14

      Jeremiah 29:12. And you shall call Me and go and pray to Me, and I will hearken to you.

      Jeremiah 29:13. And you will seek Me and find [Me] for you will seek Me with all your heart.

      Jeremiah 29:14. And I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will return your captivity and gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will return you to the place whence I exiled you.

      G-d expected that the Israelites would pray to Him while in Babylon. The result of their prayers and repentance allowed them to return to the land and rebuild the Holy Temple.

      This is precisely what Daniel did…

      And this is precisely what Orthodox Jews do today! Hosea gives us a similar message:

      Hosea 3:4. For the children of Israel shall remain for many days, having neither king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor ephod nor seraphim.

      Hosea 3:5. Afterwards shall the children of Israel RETURN, and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and they shall come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness at the end of days.

      How do we return to Hashem if we do not have any sacrifices? Hosea tells us in Hosea 14:2-3!

      Hosea 14:2. RETURN, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have STUMBLED IN YOUR INIQUITY.
      Clearly, the subject of the next verse explains HOW Israel is supposed to RETURN to Hashem so that OUR INIQUITIES WILL BE FORGIVEN. Of course, the next verse explains just that!

      Hosea 14:3 Take WORDS with yourselves and RETURN TO THE LORD. Say, “YOU SHALL FORGIVE ALL INIQUITY and teach us [the] good [way], and let us render [for] bulls [the offering of] our lips.

      Even though we have stumbled in our iniquity and have been put into exile, we still have a means of returning to Hashem though our sincere PRAYERS. We take our words and return to Hashem by saying; “FORGIVE ALL INIQUITY.” Nothing in Hosea 14:2-3 indicates that we need the blood of animals in order to atone for our sins during the exile. And most importantly, NOTHING in Hosea 14:2-3 says we need the blood of jesus!

      This is why Daniel was able to stand righteous before Hashem, praying three times a day, despite the fact that he knew he would be thrown into a pit of lions if he continued to do so. Yet he continued to do so in the face of death! (Daniel 6:11)

      Delete
    13. (Part II)

      The Torah itself also gives us instructions as to what to do if we are in exile and we have no means of giving sacrifices in the Temple or Mishkan. Leviticus 26:38-43 elaborates:

      Leviticus 26:38 You will become lost among the nations, and the land of your enemies will consume you.

      Leviticus 26:39 And because of their iniquity, those of you who survive will rot away in the lands of your enemies; moreover, they will rot away because the iniquities of their fathers are still within them

      Leviticus 26:40 **THEY WILL CONFESS THEIR INIQUITY and the iniquity of their fathers** their betrayal that they dealt Me, and that they also treated Me as happenstance.

      Leviticus 26:41 Then I too, will treat them as happenstance and bring them [back while] in the land of their enemies. If then, their clogged heart becomes humbled, then, [their sufferings] will gain appeasement for their iniquity,

      Leviticus 26:42 and I will remember My covenant [with] Jacob, and also My covenant [with] Isaac, and also My covenant [with] Abraham I will remember. And I will remember the Land,

      Leviticus 26:43[For] the Land will be bereft of them, appeasing its sabbaticals when it had been desolate of them, **AND THEY WILL GAIN APPEASEMENT FOR THEIR INIQUITY.** This was all in retribution for their having despised My ordinances and in retribution for their having rejected My statutes.

      We know that the prophet Daniel confessed his iniquity and the iniquity of his forefathers multiple times during the exile according to the Book of Daniel. And just as Leviticus 26:38-43 explains, Israel was gathered back to the land by Hashem.

      If the Jewish people did not need “jesus blood/death” to merit going back to the land of Israel and the rebuilding of the Holy Temple during the first exile, then why would we need it now?!

      We don’t!

      Hebrews 9:22 is a false statement from the NT. It erroneously claims that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.”

      Delete
    14. (Part 3)

      Lets take a look at II Chronicles 30:16-20 where it is HEZEKIAH’S PRAYER and NOT BLOOD which ATONES for the sins of the people…

      II Chronicles 30:16. And they stood in their station as was their custom, according to the Torah of Moses, the man of God; the priests sprinkled the blood from the hand of the Levites.

      II Chronicles 30:17. For there were many among the congregation who had not consecrated themselves, and the Levites were in charge of the slaughter of the Passover sacrifices for everyone who was unclean, to make it holy for the Lord.

      II Chronicles 30:18. For a multitude of the people, many from Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not purified themselves, for they ate the Passover sacrifice not as it is written, for *Hezekiah had PRAYED**for them, saying, *”MAY THE GOOD LORD ATONE FOR**

      II Chronicles 30:19. anyone who has set his whole heart to seek God, the Lord, the God of his forefathers, though [he be] not [cleaned] according to the purity that pertains the holy things.”

      II Chronicles 30:20. *And THE LORD HEARKENED TO HEZEKIAH and HEALED the people.*

      The Hebrew word יְכַפֵּר is used in verse 18. It means ATONE! Here we see that in the case of Hezekiah’s passover, many of his Israelite guests DID NOT cleanse themselves with BLOOD according to the Law of Moses. In order to ATONE for the sins of his people, King Hezekiah PRAYED TO HASHEM that he should grant ATONEMENT for all those in his Kingdom who truly turned their hearts to Hashem. Now, to further expand on this…In verse 16, it clearly states that the Levites were in charge of sprinkling BLOOD to purify Israel as it is stated in the Torah of Moses…Now, verses 17 and 18 say that there were many in Israel WHO DID NOT PURIFY THEMSELVES WITH THE *BLOOD* AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH! When someone disobeys a Law in the Torah, what do we call that? We call it a SIN! Here, there were individuals who SINNED by NOT being purified by the LEVITICAL PRIESTS OF THE HOLY TEMPLE with BLOOD! Now, according to Hebrews 9:22, the only way to ATONE FOR SIN is through BLOOD! But here, the sin that was committed was that they DIDN’T use blood for atonement…So how is this sin atoned for?

      According to Hebrew 9:22, it has to be blood! But is that how this sin was atoned for? NO! Their sins were atoned for in this manner:

      II Chronicles 30:18 *Hezekiah had PRAYED**for them, saying, *”MAY THE GOOD LORD ATONE FOR**

      II Chronicles 30:19. anyone who has set his whole heart to seek God, the Lord, the God of his forefathers, though [he be] not [cleaned] according to the purity that pertains the holy things.”

      II Chronicles 30:20. *And THE LORD HEARKENED TO HEZEKIAH and HEALED the people.*

      The sin of those not purified with the blood was atoned for through PRAYER! Thus, Hebrews 9:22 is an inaccurate statement…

      And if you are still skeptical about atonement without blood, The Hebrew word יִּרְפָּא is used in verse 20 for the word “healed.” The root of this word is רְפָּא which means heal. Amazingly, this same root is used in Isaiah 53:5

      Isaiah 53:5. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were *HEALED.*

      The Hebrew word נִרְפָּא is used in verse Isaiah 53:5 for the word “healed.” This shares the SAME ROOT with יִּרְפָּא as shown above. In both cases, (Isaiah 53:5 and II Chronicles 30:20) a form of the word רְפָּא is used for the word “healed.”

      Clearly, there are circumstances in which atonement can be made through PRAYER, particularly when blood sacrifice is not immediately available…

      Delete
    15. (Part 4)

      II Chronicles 33:9-13 demonstrates this same principle of forgiveness of sin without blood sacrifice within exilic contexts:

      II Chronicles 33:9-13: “And Manasseh led Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem astray to do what was evil, more than the nations whom the Lord had destroyed from before the Children of Israel. And the Lord spoke to Manasseh and to his people, but they did not listen. And the Lord brought upon them the generals of the king of Assyria, and they seized Manasseh with hooks and bound him with copper chains and brought him to Babylon. And when he was distressed, he entreated the Lord his God, and he humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. And he PRAYED to Him, and He accepted his prayer, and He heard his supplication and He restored him to Jerusalem to his kingdom, and Manasseh knew that the Lord was God.”

      Here we see that Manasseh used PRAYER to receive forgiveness of his sins as well. We see that when blood sacrifice is not available, prayer is a valid method of atonement for sin. Also keep in mind that under Manasseh’s rule, the kingdom of Judah was more idolatrous than it had ever been in the past! Clearly, Manasseh’s prayer served as a means of forgiveness/atonement without blood sacrifice and most importantly, without jesus!

      Here we have a cause and effect: King Manasseh says a prayer asking for forgiveness and G-d accepts his prayer and restores him as King of Judah. No blood sacrifice was used to atone for King Manasseh as there is nothing in the text that would indicate such.

      This proves that Hebrews 9:22 is a false statement. Blood sacrifice is not the only way to atone for sin. Your jesus has nothing to with our atonement.

      May Israel merit the rebuilding of the Holy Temple and the reinstatement of the Levitical sacrificial system through our sincere prayer and repentance, speedily in our days!

      Shalom

      Delete
    16. Interesting. I'm sure Peter and others have a different perspective, and I'll await their responses, and do my own research.

      Delete
    17. Anonymous, you'd certainly be right that Peter and other have a "different perspective," but I'd be willing to bet you've already seen it in its "full glory." This is why Peter and other christians are so obsessed with trying to refute the fact that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 refers not only to the Messiah, but also to Israel. Peter and others erroneously cling to the false idea presented in Hebrews 9:22 that the only way that they can truly receive forgiveness of sin is through the blood of jesus. Unfortunately for them, the Tanach says otherwise, as I have clearly demonstrated above.

      This is why Peter will undoubtedly bring up Isaiah 53 once again and erroneously try and argue that it refers only to one person rather than a collective group of people. If you'll notice in my original response to Peter concerning Isaiah 53, my argument was strictly from the Tanach. I did not mention even one Talmudic source! It was Peter who decided to bring up the Talmud after he realized that the Tanach did not support his position concerning Isaiah 53 referring to jesus...So what did Peter do? Out of desperation, Peter went to the Talmud and contextually abused a source and falsely claimed that the Talmud agrees with him that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 refers ONLY to the Messiah. Since you claim to have done your research, Anonymous, you should know by now that Peter was absolutely being disingenuous, as the Targum itself attests to the fact that not only does the suffering servant refer to the Messiah, but to Israel as well. Also, Origen, the church father, also attests to this fact in his debate with Celsum in Contra Celsum:

      "Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations."

      So not only does Targum Jonathan attest to the fact that ancient Rabbinic thought encompassed the idea that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 refers to Israel, Messiah included, but also a church father, Origen, attests to this fact as well!

      So yes, Anonymous, continue to do you research. I wish you well

      Shalom

      Delete
  10. Concerning Isaiah 53, in order to determine who the servant is, we need to look at the context. Isaiah 49:3-6 is a good place to start.

    Isaiah 49:3. And He said to me, “You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast.”

    Isaiah 49:4. And I said, “I toiled in vain, I consumed my strength for nought and vanity.” Yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my deed is with my God.

    Isaiah 49:5. And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him, and Israel shall be gathered to Him, and I will be honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God was my strength.

    Isaiah 49:6. And He said, “It is too light for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth.”

    So how is this reconciled? How can Israel bring back Israel? The answer is simple! Isaiah 49:3 refers to a specific part of Israel, namely the righteous remnant. (G-d promised a righteous remnant of Israel throughout all generations.) Verse 5 refers to the remnant bringing back the rest of Israel back to righteousness. And finally, verse 6 refers to the newly restored Israel being “light to the nations” through the revelation of truth through Hashem.

    In other words, this is a two step process:

    1. The righteous remnant of Israel will bring back the rest of Israel to righteousness. (Isaiah 49:3-5)

    2. The newly restored nation of Israel will serve to be a “light to the nations.” (Isaiah 49:6)

    So ultimately, the nation of Israel is the servant who will be “a light unto the nations.” However, in order to get to that point, the righteous remnant of Israel will first gather back the rest of Israel back to Torah. It’s a two step process.

    The servant is the righteous remnant of ISRAEL.

    Isaiah 51:7. Hearken to Me, you who know righteousness, a people that has My Torah in their heart, fear not reproach of man, and from their revilings be not dismayed.

    This is yet another verse which highlights the suffering of G-d righteous servant, Israel. Isaiah 54 even refers to the “SERVANTS of the Lord”!

    Isaiah 54:17. Any weapon whetted against you shall not succeed, and any tongue that contends with you in judgment, you shall condemn; this is the heritage of the SERVANTS OF THE LORD and their due reward from Me, says the Lord.

    Isaiah 52:15 describes the gentiles kings who will shut their mouths because of their astonishment of Israel’s vindication by Hashem:

    Isaiah 52:15 So shall he cast down many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for, what had not been told them they saw, and [at] what they had not heard they gazed.

    Micah 7:16-17 echoes this sentiment:

    Micah 7:16. Nations shall see and be ashamed of all their might-they shall place a hand upon their mouth; their ears shall become deaf.

    Micah 7:17. They shall lick the dust as a snake, as those who crawl on the earth. They shall quake from their imprisonment; they shall fear the Lord, our God, and they shall fear you.

    Also, Isaiah 60:14 speaks of the future Israel who was previously despised by the nations as being vindicated at the end of days, also echoing in line with the suffering/despised servant of Isaiah 53:

    Isaiah 60:14And the children of your oppressors shall go to you bent over, and *THOSE WHO DESPISED YOU* shall prostrate themselves at the soles of your feet, and they shall call you ‘the city of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

    So there you have it. The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 ultimately is the nation of Israel. Please note that the Messiah is a part of Israel, too.

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown,

      Use an alias to be fair to other commenters.

      RE: "The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 ultimately is the nation of Israel."

      The Talmud says otherwise:

      "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, 'surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" BT, Sanhedrin 98b

      Delete
  11. Before I comment, let it be known that "unknown" is not me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. OK, I'm going to reply to your original reply of my points, which is what I asked for, and disregard all the comments between you and "unknown" (who is not me) for now.

    1. You said, "Yeshua's genealogies recorded in the Apostolic Writings show that He was descended from David." Not true, they all disagree and not only that, if Jesus' biological father was not a descendant of David, he could not be a Davidic king just like one cannot be a kohen if his biological father is not a kohen.

    2. You said, "Yeshua taught only the Torah of Moses." If he said to listen to those who sit in the seat of Moses, i.e. the Sanhedrin (Dt. 17), then he was right on. If only you and other xtians would heed that advice. The only problem is, there is NO record of any comprehensive Torah from Yeshu, only a select few quotes.

    3. You said, "Yeshua's existence is corroborated even outside Scripture. He's mentioned in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, etc, etc." Yeshu is not mentioned in the Talmud. There is, however, Toldot Yeshu, which should be held more authentic than any NT document. Josephus is a whole other can of worms not to get into right now... hehe. :)

    4. You said, "Yeshua did precisely what the Torah and Prophets said He would do." Absolutely not, anyone who reads Samuel, Kings, and Isaiah through without bias will see we are looking for a physical and spiritual warrior like David to restore Jewish supremacy.

    5. You said, "Do not follow a multitude to do evil." Too bad only "Pharisaic" Judaism survived, Sadduccees died out, Karaites hardly exist anymore, and the faith of the populace of Israel has always been true Torah. Notzrim died out and this whole Messianic deal is only proving to get gentiles out of xtianity and into Torah, whether it be conversion or not.

    6. You said, "You are blind to the Messianic nature of passages such as Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 53, etc. The Prophetic Writings point directly and unmistakably at Yeshua as the Messiah." Only unmistakable to a closed mind that has preconceived bias and isn't looking for the truth. The very grammar of the verse poses a problem to you as I briefly mentioned.

    7. You said, "That's not correct. I use the original Hebrew text of the Torah to make many of my points." אז איזה יופיץ אנחנו נדבר בעברית מעכשיו ואל תנסה להשתמש בגוגל טרנסלייט. בקלות אפשר לראות אם אתה משתמש בו או לא. And by the way, my point 7 was more like "you trust the xtian bible over Jewish sources like the Targumim, Rashi, Malbim, etc".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Real Breslov (the REAL Real Breslov),

      Re: #1

      Yeshua's father was descended from David. This is demonstrated in the genealogy given in the book of Matthew.

      2 genealogies of the same person can disagree and both still be accurate. One may not be intended to be strictly chronological but rather focusing on certain ancestors of note. One might focus at times on the mother's ancestry rather than the father's ancestry. Etc, etc. In short, disagreements between 2 ancestral records are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that both ancestral records be correct.

      Re: #2

      You say "there is no record of any comprehensive Torah" from Yeshua. But there is: it's the Torah of Moses. Yeshua taught only the Torah of Moses. And, by the way, He also practiced it perfectly.

      Re: #3

      It seems you are no longer disputing the historicity of Yeshua. Glad to see you've come to your senses. To deny the historicity of Yeshua is like denying the historicity of the Second Temple.

      Re: #4

      The Prophets tell of a single Messiah who comes on 2 different occasions: (1) some prophecies concern the 1st visit in which the Messiah must necessarily be rejected and killed; (2) some prophecies concern the 2nd visit in which the Messiah is a conquering King, destroying all the enemies of Israel (e.g. Edom).

      The fact that Yeshua fulfilled the first set of prophecies regarding the Messiah's 1st visit establishes Him as the Messiah and tells us that when He returns He will destroy the enemies of Israel. The fact that some prophecies remain to be fulfilled only proves that we now live in the intervening period between the visits.

      Re: #5

      If the Rabbis of the Pharisaical school were all correct then why are there differing opinions throughout the Talmud? And why are there factual errors in the Talmud? Can something that consists of 100% Torah contain factual errors and contradictory instructions?

      Now, keep in mind, that I value the Talmud. I just don't exalt it as Torah because it's clearly imperfect. And we know that Torah is perfect.

      Re: #6

      You said the grammar of Zechariah 12:10 poses a problem to the idea of a Divine Messiah (i.e. Yeshua). In what way? On the contrary, the Hebrew grammar indicates that G-d is the speaker and that His own People rejected Him to the point of piercing Him. This same grammar is accepted by the Talmud.

      Re: #7

      Whenever someone cannot overcome the evidence presented, he inevitably resorts to attacking the presenter of that evidence. This is the logical fallacy known as an ad hominem attack. It's pretty much the death knell of your argument and signals to everyone that you can't handle the truth.

      Delete
    2. Hi Breslov,
      I would beg to differ on the point of Yehoshuas'(NOT YAHSHUA-This is YHVHs Name) mother being unable to transfer the appropriate lineage for Aaron.

      The circumstances would allow a mothers transfer if her father(a son of aaron thru phineas and Zadok) had no sons. Such is allowable thru the law established for the daughters of zelophad.
      There is no property in this instance as levi/aaron has no inheritance like the other tribes.
      So, in this case, the daughter can transfer the priesthood -,raising up a name to her father.
      Again, as I said further below in a comment, the promise of the crown is inherit to Davids seed only.
      Yehoshua(He shall save-as in YHVH shall save) could not possibly qualify for the throne.

      Only for the high priesthhood. As psalms 110 says-YHVH has sworn and will not relent YOU(the adon of verse 1) are a priest forever after the prophetic utterance of Malchizedek(Shem).
      All the priestly lines from Abraham thru Yehoshua came to them when Shem transfered the priesthood.
      It was Abraham that recieved the tithe of the bread and the wine which is the high priests due.

      As to the ritual of the eucharest, this is a corruption of paganism, see psalms 16.

      As far as I can see, the geneologies of mathew and luke are the maternal and paternal lines of Joseph.
      For some reason many trinitarians hold to a fact that mary is listed in davids line.
      This simply is not the fact.

      shalom
      Herald

      Delete
    3. Harold,

      I am confused why you come to the conclusion that the Melchizedek priesthood relates exclusively to jesus…I am not convinced that it refers to jesus at all…But I have no problem with it having a Messianic connotation to it as well.

      One of the most striking commonalities between King David and Abraham is that they both “crushed kings” with the help of Hashem. This directly correlates with Psalms 110:5, which explicitly states this:

      Psalms 110:5. The Lord, on your right hand, *has crushed kings* on the day of His wrath.

      Now Harold, during jesus's lifetime, did jesus “crush kings”? Was he successful in defeating his enemies? Were his enemies “made a footstool at his feet”? (Psalms 110:1) Clearly not! Your jesus/yeshua was killed and failed to fulfill the Messianic prophesies outlined in the Tanach. As it stands, jesus has fulfilled none of Psalms 110 in any tangible sense. You can argue that he will fulfill it in his supposed “second coming,” but to claim that jesus has fulfilled any of this Psalm would be completely baseless as it stands…

      Another oddity about your understanding about this “Melchizedek priesthood” is that you believe that jesus’s/yeshua’s bloodshed “atoned for the sins of the world.” Where in the Tanach does it state that the Melchizedek priesthood achieves atonement via the blood sacrifice? The only priesthood that was given this divine instruction that I know of was the Levitical priesthood…If you could find a passage in the Tanach which states that the “Melchizedek priesthood” achieves atonement via “blood sacrifice,” then maybe your position would make a little more sense. But as it stands, you appear to be baselessly asserting that this Melchizedek priesthood has “superior atoning power” in comparison to the Levitical priesthood, when there is nothing in the Tanach that indicates that the Melchizedek priesthood deals with blood atonement at all! I hope you will consider these concerns.

      Shalom

      Delete
    4. Peter,
      In your mention of #4 you reference EDOM, so I am assuming you are speaking of isaiah 34 and 63.

      If you will go to isaiah 59 you will find the mention of the clothing that is bloodstained in Is.63.

      This clothing is allegorical, it is YHVHs clothing, not Yehoshua.

      It is YHVH(is. 12) that has become YAHSHUA.

      The subtlties of all the throwing around of the word "Lord" in all translations tends to blind people to the real name that is being referred to. In almost all instances in the Tanakh, the word Lord means YHVH.
      There is no mention of Yehoshua in the Tanakh except for the "Adon" reference in Psalms 110;1 and malachis malak referance who comes to purify the sons of Levi.
      In that case it is speaking of the Malak(priest) that is already coming(as per of the writing of malachi) and this priests return suddenly to an established temple.
      This "Temple" will not be established until after the ressurection and retribution, and end of gog in 1-31 18.
      Mt Zion must be raised up high first, then the son of david comes to build the alter and sanctuary at the base of the Mount as it was in Sinai during the time of Moses

      All the time of judgement is handled by YHVH.
      "I looked around and saw NO man, therefore MY own Arm brought the retribution" ( this is YHVH speaking of HIMSELF)

      Shalom,
      Herald

      Delete
  13. I am "Unknown" Peter. I don't have a blog to post from, so I figured it was easier to post as "Unknown."

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Yehuda. This makes it easier to converse.

      Delete
  14. Even if those passages doesn't literally apply to Yeshua within the pshat of the text changes nothing. The Brit HaChadesha writers can still deploy a drash or remez to bring about a thought!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gifted, Please refer to our conversation last year concerning your contextual abuse of "midrash" and the false NT.

      http://orthodoxmessianic.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-paradox-of-divine-messiah-and-other.html

      Shalom

      Delete
  15. there are only two Moshiacs, The son of aaron of daniel 9 and his future great nephew the son of david.
    This occurs because the mother of the Moshiac of Aaron is a daughter of Aaron,made to concieve by YHVH according to Isamuel 2:35:I will raise up for myself a faithful priest..."

    The rest of this daughter of Aarons children are sired by a son of davids line/zerubabel,ergo they carry Davids lineage, not aaron.

    A great granson of this union will manifest the abilities of Isaiah 11.

    This son of david will be born in Josephs territory in the wilderness of the peoples(ezekiel 20 and genesis 49).,The americas. most specifically in this case the United States.

    He is in jacobs blessing on Joseph as a persecuted person who will wear as a crown the horns of mannaseh and ephraim.

    He is in hosea 12 as ephraims prophet that preserves the remnant that ephraim persecutes.
    There is no Moshiac of joseph, this is about the son of david.

    He will be the"breaker" of Micah 2, the "tribute of isaiah 18(the USA is the country in reference)",
    This is also referenced in zephaniah 3(shai-loh/tribute) and initially in Judahs tribal blessing in genesis 49.

    The error trintarians make about the ressurected high priest that is coming back later is the error of tranlating the "Mashal" of Micah 5(4 if JPS).

    It does not mean "ruler" of israel coming out of bethlehem, being struck on the cheek.
    It means speaker of parables whose utterances are of old.(psalms, I will utter secrets from the foundation of the world in parables)

    The Kingship is promised to davids seed, Not Aaron and not Joseph.

    Also in Micah it is Israel shall srike in judgement out of Lehi.
    not,
    They shall strike the judge of Israel with a rod across the cheek.

    Shalom,
    Herald

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harold,

      I am confused why you come to the conclusion that the Melchizedek priesthood relates exclusively to jesus…I am not convinced that it refers to jesus at all…But I have no problem with it having a Messianic connotation to it as well.

      One of the most striking commonalities between King David and Abraham is that they both “crushed kings” with the help of Hashem. This directly correlates with Psalms 110:5, which explicitly states this:

      Psalms 110:5. The Lord, on your right hand, *has crushed kings* on the day of His wrath.

      Now Harold, during jesus's lifetime, did jesus “crush kings”? Was he successful in defeating his enemies? Were his enemies “made a footstool at his feet”? (Psalms 110:1) Clearly not! Your jesus/yeshua was killed and failed to fulfill the Messianic prophesies outlined in the Tanach. As it stands, jesus has fulfilled none of Psalms 110 in any tangible sense. You can argue that he will fulfill it in his supposed “second coming,” but to claim that jesus has fulfilled any of this Psalm would be completely baseless as it stands…

      Another oddity about your understanding about this “Melchizedek priesthood” is that you believe that jesus’s/yeshua’s bloodshed “atoned for the sins of the world.” Where in the Tanach does it state that the Melchizedek priesthood achieves atonement via the blood sacrifice? The only priesthood that was given this divine instruction that I know of was the Levitical priesthood…If you could find a passage in the Tanach which states that the “Melchizedek priesthood” achieves atonement via “blood sacrifice,” then maybe your position would make a little more sense. But as it stands, you appear to be baselessly asserting that this Melchizedek priesthood has “superior atoning power” in comparison to the Levitical priesthood, when there is nothing in the Tanach that indicates that the Melchizedek priesthood deals with blood atonement at all! I hope you will consider these concerns.

      Shalom

      Delete
    2. Well hello Unknown,
      It is finally nice to have someone question me directly.
      Okay, as I read your list of comments it is evident that you are mistaken in me saying one particular premise at all.

      Blood sacrifice for personal atonement.ie Yehoshua is christian dogma not mine.

      Abraham took isaac to moriah, There Abrham sees in vision YHVH providing a seh(lamb) to continue the covenant(just as the death of isaac was designated for, but a ram was given instead)

      That "lamb" was the lamb of exodus 13:13 given in exhange for a stiff-necked people,the lambs life for the offspring of the donkey.

      Later Zechariah 9 shows YHVH riding that donkey with HIS lamb(much in the way Abraham rode a donkey with isaac).
      It is YHVH that is King in zech 9 not the "lamb"

      The covenant at sinai ALREADY had atontment for sin, just as it ALREADY had healing from the waters of Marah.
      Yehoshuas death was the sacrifice to RENEW this covenant.
      Our atonement is in the original covenant NOT thru direct action of the blood of the "lamb"

      That death was for the covenant, it has no further bearing on sin atonement.

      OKAY?- that is my position ,

      Now, concerning psalms 110"
      There are THREE subjects being spoken of here.

      YHVH, Yehoshua and the son of david in our time.

      YHVH said to my adon, "sit at my right hand until I position the enemy for down trodding"

      This is about YHVH and Yehoshua.


      David(of our time) is not at YHVHs right hand. This is about YHVH being at the moshiac of Davids right hand at the time of battle.

      YHVH is said to act just like Gideons men acted at the brook when they lapped water from their hands.

      YHVH says in isaiah that our time will be like the days of Midian.

      It is YHVH that crushes kings not yehoshua or our son of david.

      Finally: A priest was to raised up by YHVH(1 sam 2:35) this priest is to walk FOREVER before YHVHs anointed(a refereance to davids line).

      What you will find is that ALL the priests, since the time of the transfer from Malchizedk(Shem) to Abraham, must come from Shem thru Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Aaron Phineas, Zadok.

      Since this last priest of 1 sam 2:35 is to walk FOREVER, he will be the last and only one.

      Also: Noah transferred the prieshood to Shems line, eliminating the other two sons.

      In psalms 110"YHVH has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest FOREVER according to the prophetic utterance of malchizedek(shem)."

      It is in 1 samuel 2:35 that YHVH swears this. There is no one greater than YHVH so it is not necessary for HIM to referance swearing.
      The fact that YHVH speaks is enough.
      I hope I answered your questions concisely enough.
      Thanks for asking.
      Shalom,
      Herald

      Delete
    3. Unknown,
      I neglected to clarify just WHAT does atone for sin.

      It is simply TRUE repentance my friend.

      Yes, the covenant has penalties associated with different sins, silver, animals,birds wheat,etc.(also ,in some cases restitutions are to be made)but the foundational requirement is to truely turn from our sins and walk righteously.

      Herald

      Delete
  16. Checkmate. Nice work, Peter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Jason.

      Can you believe these guys? Putting man-made writings above the Torah? And ignoring the very words of Torah?

      Anyway, you're an encouragement as always. Love you, brother.

      Delete
    2. "Putting man-made writings above the Torah? And ignoring the very words of Torah?"

      Peter, you should talk! This is exactly what you do with the Christian "scripture", the NT, which informs your worldview and filters your understanding not only of the whole Hebrew Bible (in your corrupted Christian translation, of course), including Torah is but about who G-d is!

      Delete
  17. Speaking of logical fallacy :)

    1. NT wasn't mentioned. Red herring.
    2. Peter has not claimed the NT to be equal to or a substitute for Torah. Straw man.
    3. Shifting attention to a loose Aramaic paraphrase in place of the Hebrew source text. Card-stacking.
    4. No response regarding Talmudic support for object singularity in Zechariah 12:10. Cherry picking.

    This reminds me of Dan asking around the synagogue about the subject of Is 53 and the response was "not that man", which told him all he needed to know. If the discussion featured some verse about "Israel" explicitly, I wonder if they'd be so interested in targums.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jason... "logical fallacy", "straw man"... such copious use of idioms, all to avoid dealing with reality. I am reminding you about the obvious historical fact that Christianity has put its writings, especially those of Paul, far above Torah, relegating Torah to an obsolete book of the "old covenant" and whose primary function for Christianity today is to be an endless source of imaginary "types and shadows" pointing to their precious demigod, Jesus.

      Delete
  18. I saw "putting man made fallacies over Torah". I already cited Devarim 17. Case closed. This is what you get arguing with Christians who don't want to know the truth of Torah: you prove a point and they disregard it without explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The Mosaic Court, the Sanhedrin, is ordained in the written Torah. The how-to of the 613 commandments was given to Moses who relayed it to the elders and so on throughout the generations. When the Sanhedrin ceased to exist because Yeshu was not the Messiah and Bar Kokhba nearly succeeded but failed to be the Messiah and completely throw off Roman rule, this oral Torah was codified in the Talmud. Xtians and Messianics rarely understand how this works and they are confused about what is and isn't canon in some stupid sola scriptura Protestant doctrine.

    Tanakh was canonized by none other than the SAGES. The instructions of the oral Torah are not some different body of teachings, rather they are necessary to understand the 613 commandments. Whenever there was a decree that was enacted by the Sages of the Sanhedrin later, for the needs of a later generation because of new instances that came up, these decrees are not given Scriptural weight. There is constantly a distinction between Scriptural law and Rabbinic law, they are no weighed the same even though all of Israel must heed Rabbinic law as Scriptural law commands in Dt. 17.

    I find it funny and ridiculous at the same time that some of you Messianic xtians here will quote Rabbinic statements to try to support the belief in Yeshu, while at the same time if ANOTHER Rabbinic statement is quoted against them, you'll immediately say "it's not binding, we don't trust them" and claim we're then setting up "man-made" things as Torah. That is the clearest example of INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY and DOUBLE STANDARD that could be come up with. I have no idea how you don't realize this. I think you do, you just are dishonest with yourself and with the whole argument because you're not interested in the truth; rather, you're interested in twisting every bit of Scripture and Rabbinic statements to support your man-god messiah. Very disappointing. I was hoping for some logical debate or some sort of intellect and wisdom here, but I find none.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. As long as people assume they are the gods of their own religion, they set what is right by the "holy spirit" that tells them heresy, they are doomed. It takes a bit of humility as a first step to realizing and then receiving the truth of Torah. Anyone who reads the wealth of knowledge and wisdom of the Sages, from the Talmud, Zohar, and so on, will realize that no one has a clue about Torah like they do. Yeshu, lehavdil, never wrote any sort of Torah insights. Loving your neighbor (your fellow Jew or ger toshav) as yourself is the foundation of the whole Torah, our Sages already said that. If Yeshu repeated it, fine, but it isn't his new Torah insight. Not only that, xtians misconstrue it to mean that the whole Torah and all its details are no longer relevant, but that all you need to do is "love", its the "law of love". Well little do they know, love is not what they think it is. A circumcised heart is not what they think it is. We know what those things are. They all involve caring that our brothers observe the Torah and removing the lusts of our flesh to do HaShem's will. Xtians misconstrue this, because they don't have the oral Torah (and therefore not any understanding of the Scriptures), into something that is evil, hedonistic, and just plain heresy. I would love to see that change, and luckily, I know many former xtians and Messianics who made it out, like I did, and the numbers are growing. Hebrew roots and the Messianic movement are stepping stones for people to get out of the mess.

      How would you say that HaShem and the Satan would come to an agreement about making this movement in xtianity that calls for getting back to the Hebrew roots? On one hand it is bad, a benefit to the Satan, to try to seep off the spiritual power of the Torah, to try to claim it as Yeshu's. On the other hand, it is good, a benefit to the side of kedusha, in that many, as a result of getting involved in Hebrew roots, come to realize the truth as I have been pointing out, and they leave the idol Yeshu altogether and either become righteous gentiles or they become Jews. :)

      Delete
    2. Isaiah 9:2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.

      Matthew 4:16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.

      John 3:19 And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Anonymous, that made no sense. Thanks for some random quotes that offer no argument and no value whatsoever to discussion.

      Delete
    4. You are blind and sit in darkness, you cannot see the truth.

      Delete
    5. "You are blind and sit in darkness, you cannot see the truth."

      Classic Christian antisemitic view of Jews we've seen from your spiritual ancestors (including the church scribes who penned and edited the NT) for the last 2K years.

      Delete
    6. Yeshua answered them, “Stop grumbling to each other! No one can come to me unless the Father — the One who sent me — draws him. And I will raise him up on the Last Day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘They will all be taught by Adonai.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God — he has seen the Father. Yes, indeed! I tell you, whoever trusts has eternal life: I am the bread which is life. Your fathers ate the man in the desert; they died. But the bread that comes down from heaven is such that a person may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that has come down from heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever. Furthermore, the bread that I will give is my own flesh; and I will give it for the life of the world.”

      Delete
    7. Anonymous, give us a name. You're blind, you don't understand the Tanakh according to the only people who were entrusted with it and passed down the understanding of it. You blindly read your man-god idol into the Tanakh yet you don't even read Hebrew or at least an English translation of Rashi's commentary which is the most basic commentary that helps the reader understand some of the difficult etymology in the Tanakh and helps clarify what is being stated. You know nothing of such things, your eyes are blinded and your heart is uncircumcised. You disregard the commandments of the Creator and you deny Him by worshiping another. You lose any place in the world to come through this and you are liable for horrible punishment in Geihinnom if you don't repent before you pass away. The punishment of Gehinnom is more terrifying and horrible than anything imaginable in this world just like the pleasure of the world to come is more pleasurable than anything imaginable on this earth, times a million. It pays to be true to your Creator!

      Delete
    8. Real Breslov, your funny~ lol

      Delete
    9. Not so funny when you'll be burning with your idol Yeshu. Tanna D'vei Eliyahu (the words of Eliyahu HaNavi himself) states that there will be a procession in Geihinnom of everybody following their idols into the flames. You know nothing about Torah, you are all cliche Messy-anic/xtian statements with no real insight and no real understanding to base an insight on in the first place. I love how you now have nothing to say.

      Delete
    10. Like I said, you are funny!

      Don't you know "He whom the son sets free is free indeed?" I have been given the gift of eternal life. Not worried about flames

      Delete
    11. Lol, a free pass to heaven. Be an anti-Semite, do whatever your free floating moral compass ("the spirit") tells you, and just get into heaven automatically. Not the way it works, dummy.

      Delete
    12. You are dead in tresspass and sin. Where is your temple, your high priest, your atoning sacrifice? How does it work for you according to the torah?

      Your name calling and haughty spirit show you do not even follow what you PROFESS to believe of the torah. You fool no one.

      Delete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete