The Metamorphose of Apollos

[Psychotheosophy]

**My pleasure. I am sure you are familiar with Isaiah 53. That’s about the Suffering Servant, who is the Messiah. Now, if you read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; and 45:4, you will see that Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name,
so that no one will need to assume that he was Jesus.

Here is another one. I am sure also that you are familiar with the expression “The Anointed of the Lord.” This is what Messiah means. Now, if you read Habakkuk 3:13,
you will see that, “The Lord comes to save His People; His anointed one.” It means that
the People, rather than the individual, is the Anointed of the Lord.

And if you have heard that the Messiah is also to be known as the son of God, there
will be no problem. If you read Exodus 4:22,23, you will see that “Israel is My son; so,
let My son go, so that he may serve Me,” says the Lord.

There are many other indications of being the People the Suffering Servant of the Lord, especially if you read Psalms 44:11-26. And here, the Psalmist uses no symbolism of the pronoun in the singular. He uses the plural to avoid any confusion that he is talking about the People and not the individual.

For now, I think it’s enough, because for the one who is easy to understand, half word suffices.**

In the scriptures you quoted,
The Suffering Servant is named “Jacob” and “Israel”
Why do we only use “Israel?”

From Isaiah 53:10
The Suffering Servant,
“…makes himself an offering for sin…”
How does Israel make itself an offering for sin?

 

[Benadam]

**My pleasure. I am sure you are familiar with Isaiah 53. That’s about the Suffering Servant, who is the Messiah. Now, if you read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; and 45:4, you will see that Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, **
**so that no one will need to assume that he was Jesus. **

Here is another one. I am sure also that you are familiar with the expression “The Anointed of the Lord.” This is what Messiah means. Now, if you read Habakkuk 3:13,
**you will see that, “The Lord comes to save His People; His anointed one.” It means that **
the People, rather than the individual, is the Anointed of the Lord.

And if you have heard that the Messiah is also to be known as the son of God, there
will be no problem. If you read Exodus 4:22,23, you will see that "Israel is My son; so,
let My son go, so that he may serve Me," says the Lord.

**There are many other indications of being the People the Suffering Servant of the Lord, especially if you read Psalms 44:11-26. And here, the Psalmist uses no symbolism of the pronoun in the singular. He uses the plural to avoid any confusion that he is talking about the People and not the individual. **

For now, I think it’s enough, because for the one who is easy to understand, half word suffices.

Isn’t it common to conceptualize nations or peoples as an individual among ancient Jewish scribes and sacred authors? I’ve read the motif so many times to read a Jewish person claim that a people can’t be conceptualized as an individual doesn’t seem to harmonize with the ancient Jewish mind.

 

[Ben_Masada]

In the scriptures you quoted,
The Suffering Servant is named “Jacob” and “Israel”
Why do we only use “Israel?”

From Isaiah 53:10
The Suffering Servant,
“…makes himself an offering for sin…”
How does Israel make itself an offering for sin?

**At the time of Isaiah, there were two Messiahs: Messiah ben Joseph, which was Israel the Ten Tribes or Kingdom of the North, and Messiah ben David, or Judah, which was the Southern Kingdom, and today are the Jewish People. So, what we have today is the House of Jacob called by the new name of Israel from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1)

The Suffeing Servant, therefore, was Israel, the Ten Tribes, known as MbJ. Today, we have only Judah, known as MbD, but no longer the Suffering Servant, but the Triumphant Servant.

Isaiah 53:10 is a reference to Israel being offered for the sins of Judah. To explain this to you here, I need more than a post or two. But you can have it straight from my thread, Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Isn’t it common to conceptualize nations or peoples as an individual among ancient Jewish scribes and sacred authors? I’ve read the motif so many times to read a Jewish person claim that a people can’t be conceptualized as an individual doesn’t seem to harmonize with the ancient Jewish mind.

** Yes, it was common and still is to conceptualize nations or peoples as an individual. That’s what was done with the People of Israel, whom God Himself through Moses called “My son. Israel is My son. Let him go so that he may serve Me.”(Exo. 4:22,23) **

 

[NotWorthy]

**At the time of Isaiah, there were two Messiahs: Messiah ben Joseph, which was Israel the Ten Tribes or Kingdom of the North, and Messiah ben David, or Judah, which was the Southern Kingdom, and today are the Jewish People. So, what we have today is the House of Jacob called by the new name of Israel from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1)

The Suffeing Servant, therefore, was Israel, the Ten Tribes, known as MbJ. Today, we have only Judah, known as MbD, but no longer the Suffering Servant, but the Triumphant Servant.

Isaiah 53:10 is a reference to Israel being offered for the sins of Judah. To explain this to you here, I need more than a post or two. But you can have it straight from my thread, Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David. **

I don’t think this was the prevailing attitude among 1st century Jews. They were looking for a person to be the Messiah, in my opinion. Weren’t there 2 or 3 people that claimed to be the Messiah of Israel immediately prior to and after the time of Jesus?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

**At the time of Isaiah, there were two Messiahs: Messiah ben Joseph, which was Israel the Ten Tribes or Kingdom of the North, and Messiah ben David, or Judah, which was the Southern Kingdom, and today are the Jewish People. So, what we have today is the House of Jacob called by the new name of Israel from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1)

The Suffeing Servant, therefore, was Israel, the Ten Tribes, known as MbJ. Today, we have only Judah, known as MbD, but no longer the Suffering Servant, but the Triumphant Servant.

Isaiah 53:10 is a reference to Israel being offered for the sins of Judah. To explain this to you here, I need more than a post or two. But you can have it straight from my thread, Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David. **

Here is your post from that thread:

Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David

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 as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever. Therefore, according to Isaiah 9:8, the final judgment that was supposed to come upon Judah fell upon Israel instead, and Messiah ben Joseph had to go instead of Judah, or Messiah ben David.

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 was the Suffering Servant died innocent 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, according to Psalm 78:67-70, Messiah be David occupied the place of Messiah ben Joseph, but as the Triumphant 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. Now, there is a small detail worthy keeping in mind. The blood of the Suffering Servant was shed once and for all. Now, Mankind is kept safe with the existence of Judah, the Triumphant Servant, according to Jeremiah 31:35-37.

Ben

The problem I have,
Which I think was also raised in that thread,
Is that Judah continued to sin.

Judah was not triumphant against the enemy of sin.
And so,
This offering for sin was not sufficient in that regard.

It seems God could do better than that.
Especially for there to be eternal happiness.

Is there another sin offering that would be sufficient in that regard?

 

[Ben_Masada]

I don’t think this was the prevailing attitude among 1st century Jews. They were looking for a person to be the Messiah, in my opinion. Weren’t there 2 or 3 people that claimed to be the Messiah of Israel immediately prior to and after the time of Jesus?

**Not only in the First Century, but also even today, among all peoples, the masses are usually the beggars to be misled. Then, it’s only obvious that from among themselves, some who are able to see beyond their noses, take advantage of their naivite to claim what they beg. This idea of an individual Messiah is part of a slavish mentality, as a resulf of 400 years of slavery in Egypt. When Moses showed up as a Messianic leader, they took him as the one himself.

But where is the Logic of an individual Messiah? He is born, lives his span of life and dies. and then what? Are we to expect a Messiah in every generation? It makes no sense. The Messiah does not die. The Messiah is collective. The People who lives forever according to God’s promise to David in I Kings 11:36.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

Here is your post from that thread:

The problem I have,
Which I think was also raised in that thread,
Is that Judah continued to sin.

Judah was not triumphant against the enemy of sin.
And so,
This offering for sin was not sufficient in that regard.

It seems God could do better than that.
Especially for there to be eternal happiness.

Is there another sin offering that would be sufficient in that regard?

**If you try the thread again, I have explained there that the sacrifice of Israel (MbJ) for Judah (MbD) was to redeem it from being doomed by God for having rejected God’s Covenant. But because of God’s promise to David to spare Judah, hence MbD.

No one is doomed to a death sentence for his sins, but for rejecting God’s Covenant. There is a great difference between transgressing the Law or rejecting it. To transgress the Law is human, but to reject it is insurrection. The triumph of Judah resides on the fact that he was confirmed by God while Israel was rejected or doomed forever by being melted into the pool of the Gentiles. (Psalm 78:67-69) **

 

[NotWorthy]

**Not only in the First Century, but also even today, among all peoples, the masses are usually the beggars to be misled. Then, it’s only obvious that from among themselves, some who are able to see beyond their noses, take advantage of their naivite to claim what they beg. This idea of an individual Messiah is part of a slavish mentality, as a resulf of 400 years of slavery in Egypt. When Moses showed up as a Messianic leader, they took him as the one himself. **

You act as if ignorant masses were mistakenly thinking of an individual. But in 130 AD, there was a “messiah” that rose up in Israel and was supported by the brightest of Jewish Rabbi’s. I think you are mistaken in your opinion of the Jews who read these prophecies as an individual (for they are partly right… they just happened to miss the boat).

But where is the Logic of an individual Messiah? He is born, lives his span of life and dies. and then what? Are we to expect a Messiah in every generation? It makes no sense. The Messiah does not die. The Messiah is collective. The People who lives forever according to God’s promise to David in I Kings 11:36.

Jesus is the Logic of an individual Messiah. He was born, lived a short life, died, and then rose from the dead (conquering Death) and then Ascended into Heaven.

The Messiah, in Jesus, makes perfect sense.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You act as if ignorant masses were mistakenly thinking of an individual. But in 130 AD, there was a “messiah” that rose up in Israel and was supported by the brightest of Jewish Rabbi’s. I think you are mistaken in your opinion of the Jews who read these prophecies as an individual (for they are partly right… they just happened to miss the boat).
Jesus is the Logic of an individual Messiah. He was born, lived a short life, died, and then rose from the dead (conquering Death) and then Ascended into Heaven.

The Messiah, in Jesus, makes perfect sense.

**Your reference about this Messiah of the year 133/4 CE is to Rabbi Akiva, who proclaimed Bar Korba a Messiah. Two reasons why I don’t believe Rabbi Akiva meant what he said. The first is the size of the man’s mind, and then, the still expected by many as the Messiah won’t be someone who will need Rabbis to proclaim him the Messiah. I am almost sure that Rabbi Akiva took advantage of the wave to swim against the Roman occupation. His mistake was to put too much credit on Bar Korba, thinking that he would succeed. Anyways, he died for his intentional or not, lack of commonsense. The believer in the collective Messiah will never get disappointed.

Now, I understand that the “Messiah Jesus” makes perfect sense, but you forgot to add,
“to me” or “to us Christians.”**

 

[NotWorthy]

**Your reference about this Messiah of the year 133/4 CE is to Rabbi Akiva, who proclaimed Bar Korba a Messiah. Two reasons why I don’t believe Rabbi Akiva meant what he said. The first is the size of the man’s mind, and then, the still expected by many as the Messiah won’t be someone who will need Rabbis to proclaim him the Messiah. I am almost sure that Rabbi Akiva took advantage of the wave to swim against the Roman occupation. His mistake was to put too much credit on Bar Korba, thinking that he would succeed. Anyways, he died for his intentional or not, lack of commonsense. The believer in the collective Messiah will never get disappointed.**One must also remember, Rabbi Akiva doesn’t agree with you, hence your reasoning for not believing what he said, eh? The point being, it was accepted by numerous people, commoner and rabbi alike, in Israel. These guys weren’t exactly re-inventing the Messianic wheel.

Btw, thanks for the names. I heard this on a MP3 recording, so I had no clue how to spell the names.

Now, I understand that the “Messiah Jesus” makes perfect sense, but you forgot to add,
“to me” or "to us Christians."

No, I forgot to add, “… For those with ears to hear and eyes to see…”

 

[Ben_Masada]

NotWorthy:
One must also remember, Rabbi Akiva doesn’t agree with you, hence your reasoning for not believing what he said, eh? The point being, it was accepted by numerous people, commoner and rabbi alike, in Israel. These guys weren’t exactly re-inventing the Messianic wheel.

Btw, thanks for the names. I heard this on a MP3 recording, so I had no clue how to spell the names. No, I forgot to add, “… For those with ears to hear and eyes to see…”

**I repeat and say: Rabbi Akiva had ulterior motifs to proclaim
Bar Korba a Messiah. He was only feeding fuel to the fire, in the hope that the Romans would give up destroying their legions in Judea. **

 

[Psychotheosophy]

**If you try the thread again, I have explained there that the sacrifice of Israel (MbJ) for Judah (MbD) was to redeem it from being doomed by God for having rejected God’s Covenant. But because of God’s promise to David to spare Judah, hence MbD.

No one is doomed to a death sentence for his sins, but for rejecting God’s Covenant. There is a great difference between transgressing the Law or rejecting it. To transgress the Law is human**, but to reject it is insurrection. The triumph of Judah resides on the fact that he was confirmed by God while Israel was rejected or doomed forever by being melted into the pool of the Gentiles. (Psalm 78:67-69)

Since God created humanity without sin,
And never wanted them to sin,
So,
It doesn’t seem that “to transgress the Law is human.”

Gentiles can convert to Judaism
So I don’t think
Being in the “pool of Gentiles”
Is “doomed forever.”

What would it take
To revert insurrectionists
After rejecting the Law?

 

[NotWorthy]

**I repeat and say: Rabbi Akiva had ulterior motifs to proclaim
Bar Korba a Messiah. He was only feeding fuel to the fire, in the hope that the Romans would give up destroying their legions in Judea. **

I repeat and say: Rabbi Akiva bolstered the claims of Bar Korba, no matter what his ulterior motifs, because Israel assumed the Messiah would be a single person. Rabbi Akiva couldn’t have supported an individual Messiah, in the hopes that the Romans would give up destroying their legions in Judea, if Israel was not expecting an individual Messiah.

 

[Danno2281]

I find it insulting that you say read it when I quoted it. It is your argument that is weak. It says boldly which I gave the definition. He was a Jew in a Synagogue doesn’t seem he would be a stranger. Your interpretation is off because nowhere does it say what they taught him but we do know that he taught from Scripture that Jesus was the Messiah. That shows that your made up scenario is false.

One of the problems with our understanding is that we do not hear what those before us in time heard as they heard it.The word “Jew” is a case in point. When we use that word today we mean those who follow only the Mosaic covenant. But the word actually designated an inhabitant of Judea (as opposed to Galilee or the diaspora for instance). This is why, especially in John’s gospel, the disciples speak of “Jews” with a certain disparagement, for it was not the Hebrews (remember that Nathaniel is referred to as an Isrealite)who opposed Christ), but the opposition came from Judeans specifically. Judaioi are primarily inhabitants of Judea, not to be considered synonymous with Hebrews or even Israelites. Peter, a Galilean, means men of Judea when he speaks of Jews…

 

[NotWorthy]

One of the problems with our understanding is that we do not hear what those before us in time heard as they heard it.The word “Jew” is a case in point. When we use that word today we mean those who follow only the Mosaic covenant. But the word actually designated an inhabitant of Judea (as opposed to Galilee or the diaspora for instance). This is why, especially in John’s gospel, the disciples speak of “Jews” with a certain disparagement, for it was not the Hebrews (remember that Nathaniel is referred to as an Isrealite)who opposed Christ), but the opposition came from Judeans specifically. Judaioi are primarily inhabitants of Judea, not to be considered synonymous with Hebrews or even Israelites. Peter, a Galilean, means men of Judea when he speaks of Jews…

Hmmm, I was interested in hearing some words of Peter on this, to see if they supported what you said or not.

Acts 2, when he addresses the crowds - Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words. "you who are Jews (are the ones that live in Judea), indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem (would include those who are ‘what we call Jewish’ but are pilgrims from the other countries).

Later in the same speech, he calls them “those of you who are Israelites”, which (IMO) means those who desire to see Israel restored…

Good job, Danno!

 

[Danno2281]

**I repeat and say: Rabbi Akiva had ulterior motifs to proclaim
Bar Korba a Messiah. He was only feeding fuel to the fire, in the hope that the Romans would give up destroying their legions in Judea. **

The simple truth is that Rabbi Akiva did proclaim that Bar Kochba was Messiah. His motives are his; the responsibility for the deaths of those Hebrews who believed his lie is his alone. Rabbi Akiva, as surely as bar Kochba, can be accorded the name bar Koseba (son of the lie), but it is only bar Kochba who was so designated by Jews. The whole of Israel (including those in the diaspora) was looking for a single individual who would usher in the triumphal golden age for Israel, an anointed who would establish the Davidic kingdom forever. The concept of two Messiahs, or of a nation as Mossiah would have meant nothing to the people of two thousand years ago. Please give any contemporary citations from that period that might in any way support your contention.

 

[Ben_Masada]

The simple truth is that Rabbi Akiva did proclaim that Bar Kochba was Messiah. His motives are his; the responsibility for the deaths of those Hebrews who believed his lie is his alone. Rabbi Akiva, as surely as bar Kochba, can be accorded the name bar Koseba (son of the lie), but it is only bar Kochba who was so designated by Jews. The whole of Israel (including those in the diaspora) was looking for a single individual who would usher in the triumphal golden age for Israel, an anointed who would establish the Davidic kingdom forever. The concept of two Messiahs, or of a nation as Mossiah would have meant nothing to the people of two thousand years ago. Please give any contemporary citations from that period that might in any way support your contention.

**You are not at all interested in any kind of citation or source about the collective Messiah. As I can see from this post of yours, you are interested only
in the thrill that you wish you could catch a Jew speaking nonsense about Judaism, but yours is just wish thinking. I’ll give you a much better citation than you expect. I’ll give you a Prophet who could not err. Isaiah.

You and we all know that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. Well my friend,
Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that you have no need to assume that he could have been Jesus. But as I can see, it won’t help you. But anyways., read
Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4. Now, it’s your turn to show me someone who is not a Christian saying that Jesus was the Messiah.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

I repeat and say: Rabbi Akiva bolstered the claims of Bar Korba, no matter what his ulterior motifs, because Israel assumed the Messiah would be a single person. Rabbi Akiva couldn’t have supported an individual Messiah, in the hopes that the Romans would give up destroying their legions in Judea, if Israel was not expecting an individual Messiah.

Rabbi Akiva knew too much to content himself with the lack of logic in an individual Messiah. He knew that if the individual Messiah was true, we would have to expect a Messiah in every generation. He knew that this does not make sense at all. Rabbis must have some kind of agenda not to reveal the truth about the collective Messiah revealed by Isaiah the Prophet to the masses.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Since God created humanity without sin,
And never wanted them to sin,
So,
It doesn’t seem that “to transgress the Law is human.”

Gentiles can convert to Judaism
So I don’t think
Being in the “pool of Gentiles”
Is “doomed forever.”

What would it take
To revert insurrectionists
After rejecting the Law?

**Again I say: If you keep posting without reading the thread, you will never understand this lissue.

Yes, God created Humanity humanly perfect. (Eccle. 7:29) But God granted man with freewill, and man misused his freewill in the use of evil and degenerated. Then, in His grace, God gave us the Law through His Prophets. Then to break this Law is human. To reject it is insurrection.

Who said that the Gentiles are doomed. Only Israel was doomed to redeem Judah. The Gentiles, on the contrary, are saved and redeemed by the salvation and redemption of Judah. Now, the destiny of us all, Jews and Gentiles, are intertwined. The salvation of Mankind depends on the salvation of Judah (or the new Israel) . The existence of Mankind depends on the existence of this new Israel. (Jer. 31:35-37)

Now, for your last question, the only doomed without remedy was the one of Israel, because Judah needed to be redeemed. Today, those of Judah, or MbD who, instead of only transgressing, reject the Law or New Covenant, they have the grace to return because their redemption has been made alaready when MbJ or Israel died for the sins of Judah once and for all. Mind you that I am not talking about Gentiles but Jews. Gentiles have no obligation to the Law given to Israel. Their responsibility is to the Noahite laws. But if they convert, they draw upon themselves the same responsibilities of Judah. **