Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David

[ralphinal]

No. But only for the simple fact that there is no Jew on earth who can say from the bottom of his heart or his mind that he absolutely does not believe in God.
He or she might tell you so but to get rid of your attempts at bothering him or her. Every Jew knows that we are the channels of God on earth. They might say they don’t believe in a religious god. But a Jew is not a fool or stupid being to declare that there is no God, if he can’t prove it. That’s in Psalm 14 and 53.

Once someone asked Albert Einstein if he believed in God. He answered and said that all
his life was to try to catch God at His work of Creation. It means God has never stopped creating. And in fact, Scientists have proved that the Universe expands. That’s God in His work of Creation, according to Einstein.

Ben:

Yes. That person would be jewish and violating one of the tenets of Judaism.

So we have a no vote because Jews are not stupid enough to be atheist and a yes vote because Jews can commit the same sins as the rest of us.

From what research I have done on this, there is a group of Jewish people who hold that it is not important what you believe about God, as long as you do not think that there is more than One. Zero God is not more than One, so it is acceptable. These people are Jewish by ethnicity, but that is not the question. They hold that being Jewish is not about what you believe but about performing the correct rituals. Secular Judaism in its pure form.

Back to the answers, there are Jews who are born mentally retarded, so it is absurd to think that all Jews are geniuses

 

[Valke2]

Back to the answers, there are Jews who are born mentally retarded, so it is absurd to think that all Jews are geniuses

A mentally retarded Jew is what is known as an “accountant.” The rest of us are lawyers, doctors and investment bankers.

 

[ralphinal]

A mentally retarded Jew is what is known as an “accountant.” The rest of us are lawyers, doctors and investment bankers.

That may be the funniest thing I have ever read on here.

 

[Lapell]

The whole chapter 53 of Isaiah is about the dramatic epic of two Messiahs: Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. The drama that culminated in the “death” of Messiah ben Joseph for the sins of Messiah ben David. Properly speaking, Messiah ben Joseph is Ephraim or Israel, the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom. And Messiah ben David is Judah, the Southern Kingdom.

The sins of Judah had filled the Divine cup, and in God’s judgment, the day had arrived for the removal of Judah. (Isa. 9:8) But according to I Kings 11:36, God had promised David that Judah, whose Tribe he had come from, would stay forever as a Lamp in Jerusalem. Therefore, according to Isaiah 9:8, the final judgment that was supposed to come to Judah fell upon Israel instead, and Messiah ben Joseph had to go instead of Judah. In other words, Israel had to redeem Judah.

But Isaiah says in 53:9 that the Suffering Servant was without guile, and sinless. That’s exactly what Israel was: Pure of the sins he died for, since they were the sins of Judah and not his. Messiah ben Joseph therefore, did not die for his sins but for the sins of Messiah ben David. Therefore, Israel was removed because of the sins of another. He was pierced so to speak, by the sins of Judah. The sacrifice of Israel or Messiah ben Joseph meant the salvation of Judah or Messiah ben David. That’s why Zechariah in 12:10 says that they (Judah) shall look upon him (Israel) whom they (Judah) had pierced with their sins, and mourn for him (Israel) as the one who mourns for his firstborn.

Now, let me explain by way of an analogy how Israel or Messiah ben Joseph who is the Suffering Servant died innocently of the sins of Judah or Messiah ben David: “A” and “B”. “A” has committed a crime punishable with death, and “B”, by mistake was condemned for that crime. It doesn’t matter how evil is “B” in his life or how bad are his sins. The point is that he was condemned to die for the crime of “A”. Therefore “B” was killed innocent and pure of the crimes and sins of “A”. “A” got saved by the death of “B”. So, “B” was the Suffering Servant that brought salvation to “A”. Now matching the analogy to reality, “A” was Judah that pierced “B” with his crimes and sins.

Now, with the removal of Messiah ben Joseph, Messiah be David occupied the place of the Suffering Servant with reference to the rest of Mankind because of God’s promise to Noah that humanity would never be destroyed again in an universal manner. (Gen. 8:21) The People-redeemer was the pledge and on his way in the near future with the choice of Abraham through Isaac. That’s what sustains the world and allows it to keep going.

Ben

Ben Masada, to say that Israel was chosen by God is one thing. But that Israel is without sin??.. Any Biblical text or of the Talmud that would show it? You may have to read all the things you have been telling us. I’m afraid they offer interpretations drifting away, far away, from the actual authentic interpretations of the passages you are commenting about…

 

[Lapell]

ralphinal;4904744:

Nothing else Ralphinal. Death is the last thing to happen to us. Isn’t that wonderful! Rest for the rest of eternity. Imagine if there was no death! Life would have no
meaning. The Greek gods of the Olympian Pantheon must have envied us when they lived.
They thought they were immortal. Thanks God there is no afterlife. These are the ones whose service to God is acceptable, because that’s not a conditional service. We serve God because it’s in the Jewish nature to do so and not with an eye in reward of afterlife.

I don’t blame you for worrying about what will happen to you when you die. You have inherited this attitude from Paul, who declared that if the dead won’t resurrect, let’s ear and drink for tomorrow we die. (I Cor. 15:32) His loyalty to God was conditioned by the resurrection of the dead. If it were not according to what he expected, might as well make a carnival out of his life and die tomorrow. That’s conditional faith, as all faith naturally is.

Ben:

It may be wonderful, Ben Massada, but then why are we on this earth and live? Why do you and I exist?

 

[Lapell]

No, it was not a thing of “Now, I am priest,” but a matter of sprituality. About two thirds of the Levites decided to join Judah on religious reasons. The Ten Tribes were going too secular, and the Levites were of a religious nature.

Ben:

Where did you get this information from?

 

[Lapell]

I think I need to apologize. I had to read the other posts to realise that Ben Masada’s OP might be part of a debate which may still exist among Jews. I tended not to think so…
Now, I confess I had never heard of a Messiah ben Joseph in the Old Testament. I believe that the Jews consider the kings of Judah as messiahs since they were “anointed” as kings. I take it the kings of Israel (the northern Kingdom) would be also considered as messiahs for the same reason?
Now, there seems to be some confusion in Ben Masada’s explanations. He starts by talking about “Messiah ben Joseph”, then he calls it Israel, but the prophets’ messages mostly refer to the northern kingdom as Ephraim!
And this idea that the people of the Kingdom of Israel (Ephraim) suffered and “died” for the sins of the Kingdom of Judah, where did he get that? For after all, Judah too was exiled…
As for the people who might claim to come from one of the lost tribes, how does Ben Masada know for certain that they can’t be right. What does he make of a documentary made by a Jew a few years ago “Searching The Lost Tribes” or something like that. That Jew found some people who happened to have fascinated him because of some customs they were keeping that struck him as Jewish customs ( I think it had to do with having two sets of dishes, one for meals with meat, the other for meals with dairy products, two different sets of utensils for the same reason, and a few other typically Jewish customs). Those people were living from away from known Jewish areas…

 

[Lapell]

Lev23;4885968:

There is a huge difference. My view is Jewish. Yours is Greek. Since Jesus was Jewish and not Greek, it means your view is prone to fail from the onset.

Which in turn keeps Catholics chained to the opinions and assumptions of priests. I am glad you reminded me of the New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Therefore, nothing to do with Christians. You are too literal in your interpretation of the Scriptures. And with regards to Jesus being God’s son, that’s Greek Mythology.
Ben:
You have dismissed any argument from so-called Gentiles and considered them incompetent, just because we are not Jews per se. What are you doing here in a Catholic forum?

 

[Lapell]

Lev23;4885968:

I tried to keep an open mind, but…

There is a huge difference. My view is Jewish. Yours is Greek. Since Jesus was Jewish and not Greek, it means your view is prone to fail from the onset.

Ben:

Were the first Apostles Greek? They were all Jews, sir! And it’s from them that we got all the texts forming the New Testament… It’s far from being just a matter of Greek Mythology, and there was such a thing in hope in a resurrection, not just of reanimation, among the Jews in the two centuries before the coming of Jesus of Nazareth, you know that…

 

[Lapell]

Ben,
I wonder how you can say that Israel has not sinned when the prophet Hosea specifically accused Israel (Ephraim) of having fallen into sin and of acting like a prostitute who rejected God’s words. In Hosea, chap. 5. Do you dismiss the prophets included in the canon of the TaNaKH, Ben?

 

[Lapell]

You have dismissed me in your other thread supposedly because I am not a Jew, but a Gentile. I then was p(name removed by moderator)ointing a thing that the text (John 2, the Wedding at Cana) was actually saying. I hadn’t made that up. And YOU were commenting a text from the New Testament, not the TaNaKH! So that was not exactly in your province, Ben!
Also, to try to put Paul of Tarse apart from the rest of the Apostles as though they did not agree (after discussion) on the teachings. What the Apostles preached Paul preached also.
Sorry that this has nothing to do with this thread, but even though I am not a Jew per se, I feel I am as entitled as you are to discuss things from a Biblical perspective. Valke2 and a few others may disagree with me on certain things, but they never made me feel as though what I would say would necessarily irrelevant!!
My question about Hosea 5 I feel quite relevant to the discussion here.
(Maybe you won’t talk to me the way you did on the other thread, but I rather wanted to tell you how I felt…That’s all!)

 

[Lapell]

Do you have any idea about the size of the Pauline blasphemy you have just said? Pauline, because he was the first one to say that if the dead won’t resurrect, let’s eat and drink because tomorrow we die. (I Cor. 15:32) You have told me in other words that your faith is conditional. Your servitude to God is based on the reward of afterlife. It means that God is not what you love or serve but what you can get for doing so. It means that between you and God the relation is purely businesslike. I am not so sorry to hear that because you are not Jewish. Ask any Jew if he would continue loyal to God if he was sure that there is no afterlife. I would be terribly surprised if his answer could be like yours. To me personally, it doesn’t mean a thing if everything ends up with the death of the body, which by the way is what I believe it does. My relationship with the
Almighty will be the same till that day arrives. I’ll be always grateful to Him for life, health and a mind to develop my Intellect. Praised be the Creator of the Universe!

Ben:

Was Paul really the first? Wasn’t Qohelet (Ecclesiaste) saying something quite similar? And how would you right the wrongs that he and Job pointed out in society? On earth, there are such situations where bad things are done to good people.
Do you believe that the fact that all die is enough? When good people suffer a horrible death and bad people not such a horrible death, what kind of comfort is it that both die? I am not satisfied.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Was Paul really the first? Wasn’t Qohelet (Ecclesiaste) saying something quite similar? And how would you right the wrongs that he and Job pointed out in society? On earth, there are such situations where bad things are done to good people.
Do you believe that the fact that all die is enough? When good people suffer a horrible death and bad people not such a horrible death, what kind of comfort is it that both die? I am not satisfied.

You remind me of the guy who, in a small group of ten people, made in the loto and was very happy. When he found out that all ten had made the same amount of money in the same loto, his happiness was shortlived. He had found out a weak trace of human character: That what makes you happy is not what you get but what others don’t. You are too focused on afterlife rewards. And if there is Heaven, you won’t be happy there because you are going to see others in there with you. You’ll be happy only if you will be the only one in Heaven. There won’t be any comfort to you in there if you see someone who caused good people to suffer. I thought you followed the Pauline policy that salvation is by faith and not by good things done. I guess I was mistaken.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

You have dismissed me in your other thread supposedly because I am not a Jew, but a Gentile. I then was p(name removed by moderator)ointing a thing that the text (John 2, the Wedding at Cana) was actually saying. I hadn’t made that up. And YOU were commenting a text from the New Testament, not the TaNaKH! So that was not exactly in your province, Ben!
Also, to try to put Paul of Tarse apart from the rest of the Apostles as though they did not agree (after discussion) on the teachings.

What the Apostles preached Paul preached also.

Lapell, I am terribly sorry. I do apologize from the bottom of my heart. Especially because you have left me with the thought that I have failed Isaiah 2:2,3. It says in there that when the Gentiles want instruction in the Word of God, the address is Zion, the Jewish People. I’ll try to be more careful next time; I promise.

Now, you said something above in terms of “What the Apostles preached, Paul preached also.” Let’s get two verses in Acts to see if we can confirm that statement of yours. That’s in Acts 21:20,21. Verse 20 says that what the Apostles preached would make of the converts staunch defenders of the Jewish laws. Verse 21 says that Paul used to teach the Jews to abandon Moses, to stop circumcising their children, and to renounce the Jewish customs. Does your statement above still stand in a Court of Law? I am not too sure.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben,
I wonder how you can say that Israel has not sinned when the prophet Hosea specifically accused Israel (Ephraim) of having fallen into sin and of acting like a prostitute who rejected God’s words. In Hosea, chap. 5. Do you dismiss the prophets included in the canon of the TaNaKH, Ben?

No Lapell, I do not dismiss what Hosea said. I agree with him. I am afraid you did not understand the thread. It says in there that Israel was sacrificed innocent of the sins he had not commited, which were the sins of Judah. Israel did not die for his sins but for the sins of Judah. Judah needed a redeemer, and Israel was the one for the job, according to Isaiah 9:8. That’s why Israel was removed from existence according to Psalm 78:67,68. So that Judah would remain, because of God’s promise to David to spare Judah,
according to I Kings 11:36.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;4886005:

Were the first Apostles Greek? They were all Jews, sir! And it’s from them that we got all the texts forming the New Testament… It’s far from being just a matter of Greek Mythology, and there was such a thing in hope in a resurrection, not just of reanimation, among the Jews in the two centuries before the coming of Jesus of Nazareth, you know that…

No, sir. None of the Apostles was Greek. They were all Jewish. That’s why none of the writings of the NT was written by any of them. Two reasons: The first is too much non-Jewish stuff in there. The second reason is that none of the writings of the Nazarenes was approved into the Canon of the NT in 327 CE by the Fathers of the Church
due to the controversial character of their writings vis-a-vis the writings of Paul.

Regarding resurrection, you are right. There were Jews then and still many today who believe in resurrection. But for lack of Scriptural knowledge. Resurrection of dead people in Christian terms serve only to create contradictions for the Tanach, which says a lot against it. You can check these passages: Job 7:9,10; 10:21; 14:12; II Samuel 12:23; Psalm 88:6; 146:4; Proverbs 2:19; Ezek. 26:20. I have ommitted Ecclesiastes, which is famous against resurrection.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

So we have a no vote because Jews are not stupid enough to be atheist and a yes vote because Jews can commit the same sins as the rest of us.

From what research I have done on this, there is a group of Jewish people who hold that it is not important what you believe about God, as long as you do not think that there is more than One. Zero God is not more than One, so it is acceptable. These people are Jewish by ethnicity, but that is not the question. They hold that being Jewish is not about what you believe but about performing the correct rituals. Secular Judaism in its pure form.

Back to the answers, there are Jews who are born mentally retarded, so it is absurd to think that all Jews are geniuses

If you go back to the post of Valke2, you will see that we are not in contradiction with each other. I say that there is no Jew who does not believe in God in his own peculiar way. He says that there is, but that Jew will be considered like an outlaw against one of the Jewish principles of Judaism. Therefore, our views cancel each other.

Zero God and many gods is the same for me. There is but one God, and He is incorporeal at that. Moreover, there is no Jewish by ethnicity. To be Jewish is not to belong to a different race. Therefore, there is no such a thing as Jewish ethnicity. It’s true, we are a People, but not a different race. There is more than several ways for a Jew to lose his Jewishness. And one of them is to confess loyalty to another religion or faith.

Ben

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;4886005:

You have dismissed any argument from so-called Gentiles and considered them incompetent, just because we are not Jews per se. What are you doing here in a Catholic forum?

Must I remind you that’s the NON-Catholic section of the Forum? If you can’t handle the Truth, I should be the one to ask you what you are doing in a non-Catholic section of the Forum.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada, to say that Israel was chosen by God is one thing. But that Israel is without sin??.. Any Biblical text or of the Talmud that would show it? You may have to read all the things you have been telling us. I’m afraid they offer interpretations drifting away, far away, from the actual authentic interpretations of the passages you are commenting about…

If Biblical quotations is what you need, I can give you some but you have to unglue yourself from the letter and be able to see the truth through metaphors or allegories.

Let’s start with Psalm 78:67-70. The Ten Tribes of the Nortern Kingdom were known as the Tent of Jospeh by the Psalmist. Hence the term Messiah ben Joseph. Judah, the Kingdom of the South was know as the House of David. Hence the term Messiah ben David. God rejected MBJ when He allowed the Assyrians to remove him for good. And He reconfirmed Judah (MBD) to remain in the whole Land of Israel.

According to Isaiah 8:6, Judah had refused the Waters of Shiloah. It means, God’s Covenant with His People. Therefore, God had decreed that Judah would have to go. However, God had promised David that He would spare Judah for his sake, and that Judah would remain forever as a Lamp in Jerusalem. That’s in I Kings 11:36. But Judah to be spared of death for his sins, needed a redeemer. Therefore, according to Isaiah 9:8, God’s
decree on Judah fell upon Israel, who had to be sacrificed for the sins of Judah.

That’s what I mean when I say that Israel was without sin. Without the sins he died for, which were the sins of Judah. Therefore, Israel was removed from the Land for the sins of another. I find the thread quite simple to understand if you follow this trend. It doesn’t matter how sinful was Israel. God’s judgment had not arrived to punish Israel for his sins, but Judah for his. Israel was the redeemer dying for the sins of another; not his. Therefore Israel was without sin. Did you get it? Don’t worry, I’ll go over if you didn’t.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;4904860:

It may be wonderful, Ben Massada, but then why are we on this earth and live? Why do you and I exist?

That’s the easiest answer I am going to give today. We are on this earth and live because we were born. Don’t tell me you didn’t think about that before you asked!
Regarding the second question, it is not for me but for our parents. Ask yours why you exist. They are to blame for your existence. They didn’t consult with you if you wanted to be born. They just went into each other and you came out. Now, tell me doesn’t it make sense?

Ben: