Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David

[Lapell]

Now, if God happens to decide to take the form of a man and to become one of them, whatever His reasons can be, would He do so from any influence of some men, even from the people He decided on His own to choose ( not because of any special deeds they performed, but for reasons He knows as Job would state it somewhere in the Book of the same name… ) ?

 

[Lapell]

Non-denominational. I usually congregate with Orthodox because that’s the closest to my place here. But I have been to all of the above and have no problem with any. In fact, I have even attended Chabad Yeshiva for some time.

Ben:

Interesting. So that you could embrace Judaism from as many angles as possible. I take it, then, that you could not understand how those of other branches think unless you have spent some time among them as one of them… Really worth noting!

 

[Ben_Masada]

Are you joking, Ben? Is it really your understanding of what I am trying to say?
As for saying He did come to this world as a man, I only say what the Church since the time of the first Apostles (not just saint Paul, but all of them) has constantly taught because I do believe it’s the truth. They taught it even under the threat of being expelled from the synagogues, persecuted, stoned or given up to the authorities to be put to death. They were very sure of what they were preaching.
What I said asking you if meant to tell God how to be God may have been put awkwardly. What I meant was: don’t you believe that God cando everything? For if he can create the whole universe out of nothing, how should it be impossible for Him to take the form of a man? You might say: “But why should he do that?” This is another matter.
Can He or can He not? If He happens to decide to come among His creatures as one of them, whatever the reason, isn’t He able to do so?

Lapell, God can do every single thing He wants to do but one. That thing
you wish He did or could have done. For instance, to have come in the person of Jesus. Why, because Christians have decided that He did? You must be kidding!

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, you are falling in the same mistake as most people, including Catholics, often fall into, and it’s that they don’t differentiate what comes from the Church and what comes from individuals or groups among her following their own opinions at the expense of the teachings of the Church. Even when we say this, even though it’s true, many people still don’t believe us and think that the Church-- as all of her members (which is really only one dimension of who the Church really is) – all made up her teachings as we go along… Wrong!
It’s like saying that all that a Jew can say and do, even the wrongs, necessarily is accepted as part of the traditional teachings of Judaism…

Oh! I have heard that before! It happens almost everywhere. A good Catholic will remain a Catholic as long as he won’t commit a crime. If he does, he was not a Catholic. The same happens with the other Christians. At the moment one commits a crime; the first thing his correligionaries say is that he was not a Christian. It means that there was never a Crusade or Inquisition in the life of the Church because those who perpetrated those crimes were not good Catholics.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

I realize you must have spoken out of sincere trust into things that you were taught or told about Jesus and the Church and the Christians. From my point of view, it sounded like you could have been the one who made up a false teaching on the Wedding at Cana. I really had no way to know.
One way or another, however, my warning about false witnessing, I think, was (and still is) quite in order…

Lapell, tell me something. Can you show me anywhere in the NT a statement saying that Jesus was NOT married? No, you cannot. So, it means that when you say that Jesus was not married, could we say that what you say is a false teaching?
Probably not. So, why would it be a false teaching from me to say that Jesus was married? Can you see how covenient you guys make things appear from your side?

 

[Lev23]

Lapell, tell me something. Can you show me anywhere in the NT a statement saying that Jesus was NOT married? No, you cannot. So, it means that when you say that Jesus was not married, could we say that what you say is a false teaching?
Probably not. So, why would it be a false teaching from me to say that Jesus was married? Can you see how covenient you guys make things appear from your side?

It’s obvious you never took a serious look at reading the NT. All throughout the NT, the message of the Messiah as bridegroom to take a bride he has purchased to wed, that is the Church is found. From the Gospels to Revelation, Jesus ends up marrying his bride, the Church.

Why would Jesus have a wife and then go around talking how the Church will be his bride? You cannot play this card anymore.

 

[reen12]

I noted a reference to Greek mythology, as it pertains to
Jesus of Nazareth. I’m assuming this indicates:

deity/son of deity
the dying…then rising…deity
In this regard, there were Egyptian parallels, as well, as I recall.
Wouldn’t be surprised to find similar parallels in Norse mythology. :tiphat:

As to Greek influence:
One does wish to call to mind the early words set down by the cousin of Jesus, John -
who wrote his account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

John said that Jesus of Nazareth was the ‘Word of God.’

In Greek philosophy, the* Logos* [the ‘Word’] was held to be the
informing principle in creation. Here, John is calling upon the
constructs of Greek philosophy.

John continues:
“In him [Jesus] were all things created.”

---

So John is advancing the claim that the informing principle of creation - the “Logos” -
is a divine person…not simply an abstract metaphysical construct of Greek philosophy.

John’s theology is perfectly gorgeous.
Elegant, theologically - in that the opening chapter of John says a great deal
about who John thought Jesus to be.

“And the Word [Logos] was God.” Or…And the Logos is a divine being.

Saul of Tarsus said it best:
“If Christ has not risen, then our faith is in vain.”
Which echoes, somehow, Jesus saying:
“And you, Peter, who do you say that I am?”
“Thou art the Christ [the anointed] - the Son of the living God.”

One believes this, or one does not. One finds the concept of a triune deity
compelling, or otherwise. Three persons in one God.

Yet across the millenia, come the words

Here, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

reen12

 

[Patrick1982]

Yet across the millenia, come the words

Here, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

reen12

… and He is. “It is meet and right to worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity, One in essence and undivided.”

 

[Ben_Masada]

I noted a reference to Greek mythology, as it pertains to
Jesus of Nazareth. I’m assuming this indicates:

deity/son of deity
the dying…then rising…deity
In this regard, there were Egyptian parallels, as well, as I recall.
Wouldn’t be surprised to find similar parallels in Norse mythology.

 

[Ben_Masada]

… and He is. “It is meet and right to worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity, One in essence and undivided.”

God is absolutely One.

The Trinity cannot be one because the second person of the Trinity is said to exhibit the wounds of the crucifixion. One needs a body to exhibit wounds. If Jesus brought to heaven his body along, he is no longer the same in essence. Therefore,
all that Polytheism needs to assert itself is just more than one god. It means that Chritianity cannot be called a Monotheistic religion.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

It’s obvious you never took a serious look at reading the NT. All throughout the NT, the message of the Messiah as bridegroom to take a bride he has purchased to wed, that is the Church is found. From the Gospels to Revelation, Jesus ends up marrying his bride, the Church.

Why would Jesus have a wife and then go around talking how the Church will be his bride? You cannot play this card anymore.

Sorry, but I am afraid that the way you have been playing up to now is no
longer good. I have revealed your trick. Your cards have no more value on the table. The name of your game is Church tradition. It doesn’t go that way any more. It has to be written, even in your TN. If it’s Jewish I will accept; if it’s not Jewish, I will reject as interpolation. Don’t forget that Jesus was Jewish. Therefore, anything non Jewish about him, is an adulteration of the text.

Ben:

 

[reen12]

As to the concept of two messiahs - ben Jospeh, ben David,
apparently this notion was first found in Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer 19
and Talmud Sukkah 52b and mentioned for the first time in the
Book of Beliefs and Opinions of R. Saadiah Gaon.
I scanned the material provided at:

torah.org/learning/ruth/class34.html

Since the God of Israel had already offered forgiveness and salvation -
even to those not of Israel - the claim that Jesus died for the sins of humankind

• thus making atonement [at-one-ment] - may well be a moot point.

*Come now, let us set things right, says the LORD: Though your sins be like *
scarlet, they may become white as snow; Though they be crimson red,
they may become white as wool. Isaiah 1:18

This is why the notion of original sin is critical in Christian thought.
No sin - inherited from Adam - no need for a savior from same.
Christianity may well be a solution in search of a problem.

I’m with Reb Zusia. One of the dearest hearts that ever served his Creator.

reen

 

[Patrick1982]

As to the concept of two messiahs - ben Jospeh, ben David,
apparently this notion was first found in Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer 19
and Talmud Sukkah 52b and mentioned for the first time in the
Book of Beliefs and Opinions of R. Saadiah Gaon.
I scanned the material provided at:

torah.org/learning/ruth/class34.html

Since the God of Israel had already offered forgiveness and salvation -
even to those not of Israel - the claim that Jesus died for the sins of humankind

• thus making atonement [at-one-ment] - may well be a moot point.

*Come now, let us set things right, says the LORD: Though your sins be like *
scarlet, they may become white as snow; Though they be crimson red,
they may become white as wool. Isaiah 1:18

This is why the notion of original sin is critical in Christian thought.
No sin - inherited from Adam - no need for a savior from same.
Christianity may well be a solution in search of a problem.

I’m with Reb Zusia. One of the dearest hearts that ever served his Creator.

reen

Who said anything about inherited sin? “Freedom in God, as enjoyed by Adam, implied the possibility of falling away from God. This is the unfortunate choice made by man, which led Adam to a subhuman and unnatural existence. The most unnatural aspect of his new state was death. In this perspective, “original sin” is understood not so much as a state of guilt inherited from Adam but as an unnatural condition of human life that ends in death. Mortality is what each man now inherits at his birth and this is what leads him to struggle for existence, to self-affirmation at the expense of others, and ultimately to subjection to the laws of animal life. The “prince of this world” (i.e., Satan), who is also the “murderer from the beginning,” has dominion over man. From this vicious circle of death and sin, man is understood to be liberated by the death and Resurrection of Christ, which is actualized in Baptism and the sacramental life in the Church.”
( orthodoxinfo.com/general/doctrine1.aspx )

"Original Sin according to St. Paul:
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_sin.aspx

 

[Lapell]

Lapell, God can do every single thing He wants to do but one. That thing
you wish He did or could have done. For instance, to have come in the person of Jesus. Why, because Christians have decided that He did? You must be kidding!
Ben:

What makes you say that Christians have “decided” that He did? That would mean they made it up, and I don’t believe at all that they did… Are you sure it’s in the Truth that you are interested in?

 

[Lapell]

As for saying He did come to this world as a man, I only say what the Church since the time of the first Apostles (not just saint Paul, but all of them) has constantly taught because I do believe it’s the truth. They taught it even under the threat of being expelled from the synagogues, persecuted, stoned or given up to the authorities to be put to death. They were very sure of what they were preaching.
What I said asking you if meant to tell God how to be God may have been put awkwardly. What I meant was: don’t you believe that God cando everything? For if he can create the whole universe out of nothing, how should it be impossible for Him to take the form of a man? You might say: “But why should he do that?” This is another matter.
Can He or can He not? If He happens to decide to come among His creatures as one of them, whatever the reason, isn’t He able to do so?

Well, can God or can’t He?

 

[Lapell]

Oh! I have heard that before! It happens almost everywhere. A good Catholic will remain a Catholic as long as he won’t commit a crime. If he does, he was not a Catholic. The same happens with the other Christians. At the moment one commits a crime; the first thing his correligionaries say is that he was not a Christian. It means that there was never a Crusade or Inquisition in the life of the Church because those who perpetrated those crimes were not good Catholics.

Ben:

So, if a Jew commits a crime, is it the fault of the teachings of Judaism? If it’s a rabbi who commits the crime, is it the fault of the teachings of Judaism?
Outsiders might believe so, but does it mean that it’s the case?

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

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

I was told about the way Isaiah 53 is twisted and I thought it cant be that bad, but boy was I wrong.
I’m so thankful to my wonderful Saviour for revealing the meaning of Isaiah 53 to me. It is such a beautiful chapter and full of such love for me a person who deserves hell.
I am not worthy of his wonderous love for me and after seeing this thread, the Lord amazes me even more. He is amazing and I only wish that more people would trust him.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. And I can say, for **my **transgression, for my iniquities, the chastisement of **my **peace. Hallelujah!

 

[Lapell]

Oh! I have heard that before! It happens almost everywhere. A good Catholic will remain a Catholic as long as he won’t commit a crime. If he does, he was not a Catholic. The same happens with the other Christians. At the moment one commits a crime; the first thing his correligionaries say is that he was not a Christian.
It means that there was never a Crusade or Inquisition in the life of the Church because those who perpetrated those crimes were not good Catholics.

Ben:

That doesn’t mean that the man wasn’t Christian, but that at that time he was not in tune with the teachings of the Church…
Now, when it comes to the Crusades, there were. I don’t say that there wasn’t. However, it always seems that events such as these are as black as you and many others portray it.
Not that there were no wrongs, far from it! But I doubt very, very much that it was in order to eliminate as many Jews and other people maybe as possible! Really!!!

 

[Lapell]

Lapell, tell me something. Can you show me anywhere in the NT a statement saying that Jesus was NOT married? No, you cannot. So, it means that when you say that Jesus was not married, could we say that what you say is a false teaching?
Probably not. So, why would it be a false teaching from me to say that Jesus was married? Can you see how covenient you guys make things appear from your side?

O.K., where in the NT is it stated that Jesus was married to some woman, or to Mary Magdalen?
Now, when I said that you go under the assumption that Jesus could not be God (that is, God’ Eternal Word) made flesh, but just a man, this is one example.
If He is God (I use “is” just because to me He is without a doubt), then why would He in the form of a man get married? He would not need it like mere humans do.
Logically, as a man He would not sin if He married somebody. But if He truly is what He Himself claimed to be, the one who said:" Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." … why, tell me, would He need to get married?

 

[Lapell]

I don’t know if you can put yourself in our shoes, Ben, I mean realizing that what our belief in Jesus as the Messiah and God the Son implies quite many more things than can meet your eyes.