• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

Messiah ben Yosef has been described as a warrior as well. This would fit Bar Kochba.
Where is this described? I have read the passages in Sanhedrin 98 and surrounding other chapters regarding the messiah, and I do not remember encountering such. Also, it wouldn't make much sense for Messiah ben Yosef to be a warrior, since his archetype and namesake, Yoseph ben Yaacov was not one.

Here's a link that may be of interest on the topic:

Who is the Moshiach ben Yosef?

Will try to read this in the next couple of days.

The emboldened is wrong. The belief in the "dual messiah" theory is NOT universally held by all Rabbis.

Yes, I was wrong to say that all the rabbis believed in the dual messiah...very sloppy on my part. Still doesn't change the fact that such a picture is presented in Talmud and a number of leading rabbis supported the idea in the centuries surrounding Yeshua.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;977203; said:
In the pshat interpretation, it's Israel. There is a delineation between the Diaspora Jews and those who have remained.

It cannot be Israel. The suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. There can be no claim to such by Israel.

1) I caution you on the fallacy that Rashi invented this idea. Origen in Contra Celsus discusses that the Jews believed the Suffering Servant was Israel back in 325 CE. Furthermore, the Targum Jonathan dispells this timing issue within Jewish tradition.

I didn't say Rashi invented the idea, I said he popularized it. I know there were such interpretations going back much further that did attribute Isaiah 53 to Israel, as well as Moses and Isaiah himself. However, the most predominant interpretation before Rashi was that it spoke of the messiah.

2) If you're not familiar with the acronym PRDS; then I suggest you look it up. It stands for pshat, remez, drash and sod. In short, the Talmudic references you speak of regarding Isaiah 53 are in the drash sense of interpretation. In drash, there is a moral to be learned; not a literal truth.

Well, now we are getting to the crux of our disagreement. Who holds the correct interpretation of what it means to be a Jew? Was it the followers of Yeshua or the followers of the rabbis who met at Yavne around 90 AD to redirect Judaism after the Temple had been destroyed.

And to answer your question directly, within miDRASH, the Suffering Servant is claimed to be Moses, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Hezekiah, Isaiah, and a few others I believe.

Yes, but each of these individuals fail to meet all of the requirements for the Messiah (suffering servant and conquering king), whether it is lineage or that other prophesies regarding the Messiah ben Yoseph (e.g. those in Zachariah) came after each of these men.

The same way that sins were forgiven since Cain brought an improper sacrifice: repentance.
The sacrifices are an outward expression of an inward repentant heart condition and nothing more. Please don't fall for the consideration that Jews can't be forgiven and haven't been for millenia.

I'll get to Cain in a later post, but I am not saying that Jews cannot be forgiven. Each and everyone of them has had the opportunity to do so through Yeshua's atoning sacrifice--just like everyone else.

Actually, this is also a fallacy for a number of reasons:

1) Jesus didn't die in 30 CE. He supposedly died in 33 CE.
2) The miracles of the Temple had been decreasing in quantity and quality since the death of Shimon HaTzeddek who lived about 3 centuries before Jesus.
3) Not all of the miracles ceased in 30CE.
4) There are other reasons for the decreasing of the miracles and these contain the following but are not limited to:
a) the hellenization of Israel.
b) the infighting amongst Jews.
c) the decepid state of the Jewish religion. By the time Jesus was crucified, the Sanhedrin wasn't even meeting in the Hall of Hewn Stone.

Well, we don't know the exact year of Jesus' death, but 30 CE is probably the best estimate we have. Even those who don't even know about the Talmudic reference of the atoning sacrifice not being accepted 40 years prior to the destruction of the temple have placed it in 30 CE.

I didn't say all the miracles ended in 30 CE. I only stated that the atoning sacrifice was no longer accepted, as shown by the red cord no longer turning white at Yom Kippur.

Leviticus 17 is about consuming blood; not what it does on the altar. Read the entire chapter.

I agree that that is the larger issue regarding chapter 17, but within it, 17:11 specifically says that one should not consume blood because G-d has set it aside to be the means of atonement. There is no atonement wihtout the shedding of blood--hence the reason why we should not consume it.

Actually, Elohim, isn't a plural word when it refers to G-d. It's a proper name. The only time that elohim is plural is when it refers to human elements (i.e. Psalm 82).

Can you provide a source for this as it goes againsts everything I have ever read on the subject.

But to clarify my question, I will ask: how do you determine there are three and only three persons in the godhead?

Ultimately, it comes down to the teachings of the rabbis who wrote the New Testament. If you want me to show you there are only three, then I cannot in the Tanakh, but I still contend that there is evidence for a plural nature to G-d. There is also evidence of those three natures as understood in Messiahism: Spirit and Incarnation.

Ruach simply means spirit. Spirit does not incline itself to separate "person"hood.

Don't focus too much on the concept of "person", because that is a Gentile/pagan attempt to try to explain the mistry of G-d's plurality. The concept of a triun G-d is simply speaking of the three natures (still not the best word, but all words fail short) by which G-d interacts with His creation.

For a better understanding of what I mean by trinity, read points 2 and 3 of my church's statement of faith:

Statement of Faith

Literal anthropomorphism is idolatrous from a Jewish POV.

Then you are saying that Jews do not believe Jacob actually wrestled with G-d as recorded in Genesis? If he did not, then what is occurring there and why did Jacob take the name Israel?
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;977577; said:
Where is this described? I have read the passages in Sanhedrin 98 and surrounding other chapters regarding the messiah, and I do not remember encountering such. Also, it wouldn't make much sense for Messiah ben Yosef to be a warrior, since his archetype and namesake, Yoseph ben Yaacov was not one.

From the essay I linked, comes the following (which is just above the list I gave previously):

To understand what the Rabbis have taught about the major figures that will have a role in end time?s story we need to look at a few verses in Zechariah 2:

1 And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold four horns.
2 And I said unto the angel that spoke with me: ?What are these?? And he said unto me: ?These are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem.?
3 And the LORD showed me four craftsmen.
4 Then said I: ?What come these to do?? And he spoke, saying: ?These?the horns which scattered Judah, so that no man did lift up his head?these then are come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations, which lifted up their horn against the land of Judah to scatter it.?
5 And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand.
6 Then said I: ?Whither goest thou?? And he said unto me: ?To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof.?
7 And, behold, the angel that spoke with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him, 8 and said unto him: ?Run, speak to this young man, saying: ?Jerusalem shall be inhabited without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein.
9 For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and I will be the glory in the midst of her.
10 Ho, ho, flee then from the land of the north, saith the LORD; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.
11 Ho, Zion, escape, thou that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.?
12 For thus saith the LORD of hosts who sent me after glory unto the nations which spoiled you: ?Surely, he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
13 For, behold, I will shake My hand over them, and they shall be a spoil to those that served them?; and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.

These verses seem to be talking about the end times. Jerusalem is filled again with people (8) and verse 10 indicates the ingathering which we have seen the Tenach places in the end-times. But look at 1-4; we see that there are 4 horns, which represent the enemies of the Jewish people, who sent them into exile. Opposed to them are four craftsmen, who cut them down. These four seem to be important figures in the end-times. Who are they? Here is what the Rabbis teach[13]: ? ?And the LORD showed me four craftsmen.? Who are these four craftsmen? Rav Chunah the son of Bizna said in the name of Rebbi Shimon, ?These are Moshiach ben Dovid, Moshiach ben Yosef, Elijah and the Righteous Priest.? ? The four of the Rabbis are the three people mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls plus the leader of Ephraim.

So what is the job of this fourth person? One hint is in the prophet Ovadiah:

17 But in mountZion there shall be those that escape, and it shall be holy; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
18 And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken.
19 And they of the South shall possess the mount of Esau, and they of the Lowland the Philistines; and they shall possess the field of Ephraim, and the field of Samaria; and Benjamin shall possess Gilead.
20 And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel, that are among the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath, and the captivity of Jerusalem, that is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the South.
21 And saviours shall come up on mountZion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD?S.

He we see, from verse 18, that the House of Joseph (including its leader) has a military role in the end-times drama. Verse 21 indicates that this is a joint effort. From this we see that the time when the Moshiach ben Yosef comes ends with a period of peace. This would indicate the period we have seen above when there is world peace, a renewal of the Davidic kingdom, etc. Let me summarize the Rabbinic writings[14] with regards to Moshiach ben Yosef:

There will be a period of about seven years of terrible famines and other troubles. The land of Israel will at that time be under Non-Jewish control, and a leader of the tribe of Ephraim, will arise to lead militarily against these nations who control Jerusalem. He will be successful, but after his initial victory he will die in battle. This will cause a great mourning and many will lose faith. At that time (still within the seven years) the Moshiach Ben David will be revealed, he shall finish the battle. After which, he will resurrect all the dead, starting with the Moshiach Ben Yosef. Both of them will go up to MountZion to fulfill the prophecy in Ovadiah verse 21: "And the saviors (plural - both Messiahs) shall go up onto MountTzion and judge MountEsav, and the kingdom will be for Hashem." There is the fulfillment of ALL the major prophesies like an end to war and a world at peace with the Jewish people in a restored Jerusalem with the third Temple.

bgrad said:
Yes, I was wrong to say that all the rabbis believed in the dual messiah...very sloppy on my part. Still doesn't change the fact that such a picture is presented in Talmud and a number of leading rabbis supported the idea in the centuries surrounding Yeshua.

1) I never said that the "dual messiah" theory isn't presented in the Talmud and that there are numbers of Rabbis who believe it.
2) Whether this was believed during Jesus' time could be a point of disagreement, but instead, I'll go with the line of thinking and we can put him into the list I gave previously.

1)They are two different people from two different tribal families.

The geneologies of Jesus are problematic as it is; however, neither one speaks of being a descendant of Eprhaim. Both the Mathean and Lukan geneologies are Judaic; not Ephramaic.

2) They live at the same time.

There was no other Messiah (ben David?) living at the time of Jesus.

3) Moshiach ben Yosef never takes the throne nor is he entitled to.

Jesus claims the title of "King of the Jews". Therefore, he wasn't M. ben Yosef.

4) Moshiach ben Yosef is a warrior (Moshiach ben Dovid would also appear to be)

Jesus was never a warrior.

5) Moshiach ben Yosef will be killed in BATTLE[15] and will be the first to be raised from the dead by Moshiach ben Dovid.

Jesus wasn't killed in battle.

6) The period of time from when Moshiach ben Yosef first comes into prominence until he is resurrected after the Moshiach ben Dovid comes to his throne is very short, the longest period is under two years.

No Messiah came within seven years of Jesus' death.

From these points, it becomes apparent that Jesus wasn't Messiah ben Yosef. I should further note that the "ben Yosef" has nothing to do with Jesus' father's name. It has to do with tribal affiliation.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;977615; said:
It cannot be Israel. The suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. There can be no claim to such by Israel.

Actually, it can. If you want to discuss this further; then that's fine by me. But it may be best as a separate rabbit trail in and of itself. This gets into Hebraic terms, grammar, context and so on. Rather involved.

bgrad said:
I didn't say Rashi invented the idea, I said he popularized it. I know there were such interpretations going back much further that did attribute Isaiah 53 to Israel, as well as Moses and Isaiah himself. However, the most predominant interpretation before Rashi was that it spoke of the messiah.

You need to substantiate that the "most predominant interpretation before Rashi was that it spoke of the messiah". And I caution you, please look at your sources. When you see something labeled Midrash, Midrashim, Midrash Aggadah, anything with Midrash; then you are in the realm of Drash interpretation.

bgrad said:
Well, now we are getting to the crux of our disagreement. Who holds the correct interpretation of what it means to be a Jew? Was it the followers of Yeshua or the followers of the rabbis who met at Yavne around 90 AD to redirect Judaism after the Temple had been destroyed.

The emboldened is a red herring. Please don't bring up irrelevant points like this. They only muddy the discussion.

Here is a short description on PaRDeS:

Pardes (Jewish exegesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The Pardes typology describes four different approaches to Biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism. The name, sometimes also spelled PaRDeS is an acronym for the four approaches:
  • Pshat (פְּשָׁט) ? the "simple meaning" of a verse or passage [1]
  • Remez (רֶמֶז) ? "hints" of a deeper meaning beyond just the literal words
  • Drash (דְּרַשׁ) ? "interpretation"; unraveling midrashic meaning by comparing words and forms in the passage to similar occurrences elsewhere
  • Sod (סוֹד) ? the "secret" or mystical meaning of a passage, as given through inspiration or revelation
Each type of Pardes interpretation examines the deeper meaning of a text. As a general rule, the deeper meaning never contradicts the base meaning. The Pshat means the literal interpretation. Remez is the allegorical meaning. Drash includes the homiletic or halakhic meaning and Sod represents the deeper hidden meaning.

Now, if you want to delve into a discussion on who has the right to determine Midrash Halacha; then you're in for a LONG discussion, because this is the basis of Oral Torah. Other than that, I think it would be wise for you to accept what I've presented since you are attempting to argue your point using the Talmud. It's either authoritative or it isn't. You decide on how you want to proceed.

bgrad said:
Yes, but each of these individuals fail to meet all of the requirements for the Messiah (suffering servant and conquering king), whether it is lineage or that other prophesies regarding the Messiah ben Yoseph (e.g. those in Zachariah) came after each of these men.

1) Midrash Aggadah isn't literal. Midrash Aggadah is a homily or allegory that provides a morale.
2) Isaiah 53 isn't a pshat prophetic occurrence for Messiah ben Yosef. (as seen from the discussion in the essay) Even in your statement, you ware getting it confused since Messiah ben Yosef is NOT a King.

bgrad said:
I'll get to Cain in a later post, but I am not saying that Jews cannot be forgiven. Each and everyone of them has had the opportunity to do so through Yeshua's atoning sacrifice--just like everyone else.

And I'm telling you wrong on three accounts:

1) No one needs a mediator between them and G-d to be forgiven.
2) One needn't sacrifice on an altar to have forgiveness.
3) The crucifixion wasn't a sin offering.

bgrad said:
Well, we don't know the exact year of Jesus' death, but 30 CE is probably the best estimate we have.

According to what?

bgrad said:
Even those who don't even know about the Talmudic reference of the atoning sacrifice not being accepted 40 years prior to the destruction of the temple have placed it in 30 CE.

Feel free to provide sources.

bgrad said:
I didn't say all the miracles ended in 30 CE. I only stated that the atoning sacrifice was no longer accepted, as shown by the red cord no longer turning white at Yom Kippur.

There are a few problems with your contention that the sacrifices were no longer accepted:

1) Even followers of Jesus performed the sin offerings in the Temple after his death.
2) Ezekiel 43:18-27 and Jeremiah 33:18-24 both speak of sacrifices being re-instituted in the future and for all time.

bgrad said:
I agree that that is the larger issue regarding chapter 17, but within it, 17:11 specifically says that one should not consume blood because G-d has set it aside to be the means of atonement. There is no atonement wihtout the shedding of blood--hence the reason why we should not consume it.

The shedding of blood on the altar does NOT atone for all sins; therefore, while there is atonement from the spilling of blood, it is not the only way.

bgrad said:
Can you provide a source for this as it goes againsts everything I have ever read on the subject.

Sure. I have an acquaintance who is a Jew who is fluent in Hebrew, here is what she has written:

In Hebrew, a numerically plural noun has three characteristics:

It receives a plural suffix;
It receives a plural verb;
It receives a plural adjective.

In Genesis we read בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים which translates to: "Eloh*m (He) created". Singular, not the plural "they" created ( בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים ). "Eloh*m is used more than 2000 times in the Tanach and almost always has a singular verb.

The adjective is almost always singular, too, where elohim is concerned. . For example: אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק "righteous Eloh*m" in Psalm 7:10), and not אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיקִים "righteous (pl) Eloh*m".

Elohim speaks to the majesty of the entity -- a ruler or judge (HaShem, angels and man) and is used to describe HaShem when He is in a judging or ruling mode (versus say anon*i which speaks of His mercy). The root of the word is eil, which means force.

So, no, sorry -- elohim by itself is neither singular or plural. It depends on how it is used in a sentence.

Just because a word ends in "-im" does not make it plural in Hebrew. Example: water is mayim.

bgrad said:
Ultimately, it comes down to the teachings of the rabbis who wrote the New Testament. If you want me to show you there are only three, then I cannot in the Tanakh, but I still contend that there is evidence for a plural nature to G-d.

I never said that there isn't a "plural nature to G-d". Now, your understanding of such a statement is certainly different than mine; however, when I think of "plural" with reference to G-d, I think of infinite. G-d to me is ineffable. I will also say that I don't consider nature and "person" to be equivalent, and that will cause a difference in our definitions and opinions.

bgrad said:
There is also evidence of those three natures as understood in Messiahism: Spirit and Incarnation.

I don't hold to any belief of incarnation or anthropomorphism of G-d as it would be idolatrous for me to do so. I understand why you do; however, from a Judaic POV, this belief is completely incompatible.

bgrad said:
Don't focus too much on the concept of "person", because that is a Gentile/pagan attempt to try to explain the mistry of G-d's plurality. The concept of a triun G-d is simply speaking of the three natures (still not the best word, but all words fail short) by which G-d interacts with His creation.

For a better understanding of what I mean by trinity, read points 2 and 3 of my church's statement of faith:

Statement of Faith

Your SOF leaves you open to modalism, trinitarianism, and polytheism. Which one fits your belief structure?

bgrad said:
Then you are saying that Jews do not believe Jacob actually wrestled with G-d as recorded in Genesis?

Correct. It was an angel. (some Jewish tradition holds that it was Esau's angel)

Hosea 12
4. In the womb, he seized his brother's heel, and with his strength he strove with an angel.

5. He strove with an angel and prevailed; he wept and beseeched him; In Bethel he shall find Him, and there He shall speak with us.


bgrad said:
If he did not, then what is occurring there and why did Jacob take the name Israel?

Here is a parashat on the passage in Genesis:

Nitzavim-Vayelekh - Yehuda Feliks

Jacob's struggle with the angel is an open question-- the actual struggle, its results, and the blessing bestowed upon Jacob at its conclusion. The Midrash already raised the struggle to a metaphysical level. The man, for that is what the text actually says, ish, is an angel and according to one midrash he is "the guardian angel of Esau", according to another, "Samael, the guardian angel of Rome". Jacob is not merely Jacob the man, but a symbol of the struggle between the peoples of Esau - Edom and Jacob - Israel, or, if you will - Christianity vs. Judaism.


Most commentators follow Maimonides, saying that this act was a prophetic vision, not a real event. In his prophetic dream, Jacob saw himself grappling with the angel. So clear and tangible was Jacob's dream that, upon awakening, he felt the blow inflicted upon him by the angel that left him "limping on his hip" (Gen. 32:32). Rarely is a dream so lifelike that the dreamer awakens to see the effects of the dream on his body. Following are the attempts several commentators to grasp the significance of this event and invest it with a unique meaning.


R. Isaac Karo at the beginning of his commentary on the text says: "All that happens to the fathers is meant to happen to the sons, and all that happened to Abraham is a sign of the exile in Egypt, all that happened to Isaac is a sign of the Babylonian exile and all that happened to Jacob is a sign of our current exile... and indeed our exile is the worst, the most bitter, and the longest of them all ". In more detailed fashion, Karo returns us to Esau selling his birthright. Now Esau is demanding the return of two things Jacob took from him through guile: the birthright and the blessing. However, because of his evil acts he has no chance in such a confrontation with his brother. Therefore, he sends in his stead the "guardian angel of Esau" to grapple with Jacob. In this struggle, Jacob is the victor with regard to the blessing and the angel indeed does bless him, that is, he supports and reinforces the blessing. The name Jacob, deriving from aqov halev (Jer. 17:9) "contorted, deceitful", is changed to Israel, deriving from serara, authority, thus absolving Jacob of the deceit through which he originally obtained the blessing.

Yet in the matter of the birthright, Jacob does not come out on top and his defeat is symbolized by the blow to his hip. The Bible uses the term kaf hayarekh and Rabbi Karo wonders about the combination of these two words, kaf, meaning hand, and yarekh, meaning hip [actually, it refers to the hip socket, concave like the palm when cupped]. He therefore considers the word kaf as referring to Jacob's hand that grasped Esau's heel at the time of their birth. To demonstrate that no deceit was involved in the purchase of the birthright, Jacob sends Esau the gift offering in our parasha as further payment for the pot of lentils already paid for the birthright. Jacob is left limping because Esau has not yet received the gift, the payment.


Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi in his book Ma'ase Hashem also connects the struggle with the angel and the sale of the birthright. He says the story of the sale lacks many details and therefore it appears as if there had been a deception, but in fact a "document of sale" was legally signed between Jacob and Esau. So that the document would not get lost and would always be available for the purchaser, "the custom was that the person desiring to guard a document would strap it to his hip" (see also Baba Bathra 135b: "If a person died and a document was found strapped to his waist").

Jacob acted similarly with regard to Esau's document of sale. The angel strove to get at Jacob's hip to take the document away from him, thus nullifying the transaction, but was unsuccessful and the document remained in Jacob's care. Therefore, when blessing Jacob, the angel said: "for you have striven with beings divine and human, and have prevailed". According to Ashkenazi, this verse refers to the original struggle with Esau (= human) and to the current struggle with the angel of G-d (=divine), and to Jacob's victory in both instances. As in Karo's interpretation, the change of name indicates that the deal was not done through aqov, deceit, but by authority, serarah, as implied by the name Yisrael, which means it was done by law (Ma'ase Hashem, p. 118a).


Rabbi Isaac Abarbanel also thinks the struggle took place in the frame of a prophetic vision. We must distinguish between a prophetic dream and a prophetic vision on a very elevated level, what Abarbanel calls "a tangible prophetic vision". In such a vision, the prophet sees things in a most real way and performs tangible acts, such as, for instance, Abraham's actions during the visit of the three angels. He sees the statement that Jacob remained alone as a significant fact; if Jacob had only dreamt, there would be no meaning to his being alone, because the sleeper and the dreamer are always alone.

In this prophecy Jacob sees and senses the person struggling with him and tries to fell him, but fails to do so; instead, he injures his hip. The meaning of the vision is that the guardian of Esau, i.e. the nation, not the person, is trying to kill Israel, and there is a hint here of the continuing confrontation between the gentiles and Israel. In the prophetic vision, G-d tells Jacob that Esau will not be able to kill him. He will, however, strike Jacob's descendants, the fruit of his loins-the same word as "hip", in such a way that will not destroy them but will inflict pain and leave them limping. This situation will continue for as long as Jacob's descendants are in the land of Esau, i.e. in the Diaspora. But when the dawn shall break, when the Redemption comes, the gentiles will ask Jacob's descendants for permission to separate, and then the Jews will not allow them to leave - "I will not let you go unless you bless me" (Gen. 32:27). The significance of the blessing is the reaffirmation that Isaac indeed blessed Jacob and the acknowledgement that the blessings were received in good faith and not through guile.


Rabbi Shlomo Halevy, in one of the drashot in his book Divre Shelomo, explains this image in a similar manner. Unlike Abarbanel, R. Shelomo says that the vision was in a dream and it was intended to inform the Jewish people of future happenings. Esau's angel, Samael, has the upper hand only during the night - the period of exile, while the dawn brings with it redemption. The injury inflicted by the angel-Esau can only touch the descendants of Jacob when they are not worthy: "And behold the angel saw that rationally he could harm Jacob because of Jacob's wholesomeness, not to mention the merits of his father and mother and grandfather and grandmother... and so he smote his hip, meaning that he harmed Jacob's children (the fruit of his loins) who were rendered susceptible because of their lack of virtues". The gist of this explanation is that the people of Israel can be harmed by their enemies in times of mass conversion or when they are undeserving.

R. Shlomo lists three kinds of sins that lead to Esau overpowering the descendants of Jacob: 1. heretical beliefs and ideas; 2. bad deeds; 3. a split within the nation, even if each individual is virtuous on his own. After all, a limp occurs when the bones are not properly aligned and this symbolizes the lack of cohesiveness within the nation, arrogant behavior on the part of the young towards their elders, and people pushing their way into higher positions that they are not suited for. Rabbi Shlomo, like Abarbanel, interprets the blessing at the break of dawn as an affirmation of Isaac's blessing to Jacob (Divre Shelom 170a).
 
Upvote 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgrad
Well, now we are getting to the crux of our disagreement. Who holds the correct interpretation of what it means to be a Jew? Was it the followers of Yeshua or the followers of the rabbis who met at Yavne around 90 AD to redirect Judaism after the Temple had been destroyed.

The emboldened is a red herring. Please don't bring up irrelevant points like this. They only muddy the discussion.

Unforatunately, work is preventing me from responding to everything right now, but this is not irrelevant--it is the essential part of our disagreement. It is about the authority to interpret the Tanakh. I hold the oral torah to be interesting commentary that gives us the mind of the Jews in the early centuries of the common era; however, it is all mere speculation of men in my mind and has zero inspiration from G-d. On the other hand, I believe that the writings of the rabbis who wrote the Brit Hadashah are "G-d Breathed" and provide the correct understanding of Scripture. You obviously disagree with this. However, we can argue all day about our different understandings of the Old Testament, but we will never convince each other of our position since our understandings are based upon different interpretations, of which we disagree regarding their authority.

One question on a different issue that I do have, as you may be the first person I have ever encoutnered who may fit this description, but how did you stop believing in the resurrection of Jesus? (I am assuming from your background that at one time you held his resurrection to be a truth.)
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;977689; said:
Unforatunately, work is preventing me from responding to everything right now, but this is not irrelevant--it is the essential part of our disagreement. It is about the authority to interpret the Tanakh. I hold the oral torah to be interesting commentary that gives us the mind of the Jews in the early centuries of the common era; however, it is all mere speculation of men in my mind and has zero inspiration from G-d.

The Oral Torah and Talmud are not commentary provided by Jews in the just the early centuries of the CE.

The Oral Torah predates the Written Torah and the Talmud, while written in centuries after the CE began, relates discussions and halacha of times well before.

I'll discuss the "inspiration" consideration after the next section of your post.

bgrad said:
On the other hand, I believe that the writings of the rabbis who wrote the Brit Hadashah are "G-d Breathed" and provide the correct understanding of Scripture. You obviously disagree with this. However, we can argue all day about our different understandings of the Old Testament, but we will never convince each other of our position since our understandings are based upon different interpretations, of which we disagree regarding their authority.

Regardless of inspiration or negation of inspiration, the one thing we would agree on is continuity. You will not find the contradictions posed by the Christian testament within the Talmud. But that's a discussion for another time.

As far as "convincing", that's not my purpose on being involved in this thread. You will believe what you want to and I will do the same. My purpose in being here is simply to inform from a Judaic POV.

bgrad said:
One question on a different issue that I do have, as you may be the first person I have ever encoutnered who may fit this description, but how did you stop believing in the resurrection of Jesus? (I am assuming from your background that at one time you held his resurrection to be a truth.)

Yes, I did believe in the resurrection.

Belief, to me, is a matter of feeling supported by the documentation/substantiation of the item that is requiring belief. Documentation-wise, there is nothing outside of the Christian testament to support the belief that Jesus resurrected.
Substantiation-wise, even IF Jesus did somehow resurrect; then, to be quite honest, it means absolutely nothing to me. It's irrelevant when it comes to the Jewish Messiah. Point blank: there is no world peace, there is no Messianic kingdom, there is no Torah-knowledge throughout the world, there is no Third Temple. Thus, until somehow proven otherwise, Jesus is a failed messianic figure. You have the hope that he will come back. I don't. Jesus is a non-entity to me.

Couple the above with the things that Christianity (including Messianism) ascribe to Jesus, and I feel even more sound in my belief that this cat couldn't/wouldn't be the Jewish Messiah.

I hope that answers your question. If it doesn't; then please feel to rephrase so that I might understand it better.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;977723; said:
Couple the above with the things that Christianity (including Messianism) ascribe to Jesus, and I feel even more sound in my belief that this cat couldn't/wouldn't be the Jewish Messiah.

Rastafarians believe that Haile Selassie is the Messiah. Some have diverted from this belief, but it is one of the original pillars of the Rastafari faith.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;977689; said:
Unforatunately, work is preventing me from responding to everything right now,

bgrad:

I wanted to apologize for skimming over this part of your last post. I want to assure you that timing is NOT of the essence in this thread for me. Therefore, whatever time frame for you is perfectly fine for me. I hope you are well.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;984810; said:
Good Morning, Bob.

Is the belief in the messiahship of Haile Selassie based on the Jewish Messiah or some other set of tenets?

The Rastafari belief is based on several tenets, rooted deeply in the whole Bible but influenced by the diasporatic experience - typically referred to as Pan-Africanism - and leaders such as Marcus Garvey. To say that the Selassie's role as a deity is based soley on the idea of the Jewish Messiah is not accurrate. Much of Rastafarian rhetoric (for lack of better terms) is based on the NT, and Selassie's name itself means "Power of the Trinity." However, in Rastafari there is a much greater focus on the OT than in typical Western Christian churches and Selassie is thought of more in terms of the OT than is Jesus of Nazareth - much more, to some. Rastafarians identify with the ancient Hebrews of the Pentateuch and therefore also identify with a Messiah that is more like the example as foretold in the OT. Of course, Jamaica is a majority Christian country, and much of what happens in Jamaica is understood in the context of Christianity (as in the U.S.).
 
Upvote 0
Bob Marley;984905; said:
The Rastafari belief is based on several tenets, rooted deeply in the whole Bible but influenced by the diasporatic experience - typically referred to as Pan-Africanism - and leaders such as Marcus Garvey. To say that the Selassie's role as a deity is based soley on the idea of the Jewish Messiah is not accurrate. Much of Rastafarian rhetoric (for lack of better terms) is based on the NT, and Selassie's name itself means "Power of the Trinity." However, in Rastafari there is a much greater focus on the OT than in typical Western Christian churches and Selassie is thought of more in terms of the OT than is Jesus of Nazareth - much more, to some. Rastafarians identify with the ancient Hebrews of the Pentateuch and therefore also identify with a Messiah that is more like the example as foretold in the OT. Of course, Jamaica is a majority Christian country, and much of what happens in Jamaica is understood in the context of Christianity (as in the U.S.).

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Btw, I wrote this on the previous page. Feel free to see how the above lines up with the traditional Jewish criteria for the Jewish Messiah:

First of all, he must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:15)
He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)
He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)
He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)
He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)
He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)
He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)
He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)
 
Upvote 0
In response, Muffler:

First of all, he must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:15)

This is tough, but there is less of a division between the OT and NT in Rastafari. That being said, Selassie isn't thought of as really being Jewish or Christian, he is what he is. That being said, there is a strong tradition of geneology, which is also part of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church...

He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)

Selassie is thought of as being from the Tribe of Judah because...

He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)

In the tradition of the EOC, Selassie is the 225th king in the line of Solomon. The Kebra Negast is an Ethiopian book that tells the story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, in which they create the line of Ethiopian kings the persist through Selassie.

He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)

Here is where the combination of Pan-Africanism identifies with the ancient Hebrews: The lost tribes are scattered throughout the African Diaspora, much like the Jewish Diaspora. Repatriation to Ethiopia is a key tenet of Rastafari. The zionistic element, however, relates to Ethiopia moreso than Jerusalem. Jerusalem is completely sacred to Rastafari as well, but not so much as Ethioia (traditionally, maybe not modernly).

He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)

Which is why this part doesn't really fit. The temple is not a key focus of Rastafari.

He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)

In much of Rastafari, the age of peace is very, very important, however it can be expressed in terms of the Prophets and/or in terms of Revelation, and often interchangeably. Of course, if one were to read Revelation in a vacum and without the guidance of a trained Christian pastor, one may come to the realization that it is a book deeply rooted in the Prophets anyway.

He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)

"Orthodox" Rastafari is very, very observant of the Torah. For example, Rastafari keep (their version of) Kosher (Ital) and take on the vows of the Nazirite.

He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)

This one is easy. Yes.
 
Upvote 0
Bob Marley;985077; said:
In response, Muffler:

First of all, he must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:15)

This is tough, but there is less of a division between the OT and NT in Rastafari. That being said, Selassie isn't thought of as really being Jewish or Christian, he is what he is. That being said, there is a strong tradition of geneology, which is also part of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church...

He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)

Selassie is thought of as being from the Tribe of Judah because...

He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)

In the tradition of the EOC, Selassie is the 225th king in the line of Solomon. The Kebra Negast is an Ethiopian book that tells the story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, in which they create the line of Ethiopian kings the persist through Selassie.

He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)

Here is where the combination of Pan-Africanism identifies with the ancient Hebrews: The lost tribes are scattered throughout the African Diaspora, much like the Jewish Diaspora. Repatriation to Ethiopia is a key tenet of Rastafari. The zionistic element, however, relates to Ethiopia moreso than Jerusalem. Jerusalem is completely sacred to Rastafari as well, but not so much as Ethioia (traditionally, maybe not modernly).

He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)

Which is why this part doesn't really fit. The temple is not a key focus of Rastafari.

He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)

In much of Rastafari, the age of peace is very, very important, however it can be expressed in terms of the Prophets and/or in terms of Revelation, and often interchangeably. Of course, if one were to read Revelation in a vacum and without the guidance of a trained Christian pastor, one may come to the realization that it is a book deeply rooted in the Prophets anyway.

He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)

"Orthodox" Rastafari is very, very observant of the Torah. For example, Rastafari keep (their version of) Kosher (Ital) and take on the vows of the Nazirite.

He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)

This one is easy. Yes.

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing again. It's interesting how the different perspectives can be synergized.

I'm sure I'll have questions soon.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;977056; said:
You're perspective is very much welcomed. I think we will have some very interesting discussions (and disagreements) as I am a practicing Messianic Jew.

could it be that you are merely a descendant of Israel who has been called back to the fold?

IMHO, "Messianic Jew" is a misnomer. there were ten other tribes...
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top