The Metamorphose of Apollos

[Danno2281]

**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.**

Every Jew who became a Christian, as well as all the pagans convinced of the Christian truth fits the description you ask for, for before they came to the realization of Christ as Messiah, they were not Christians.
Just as a note of accuracy, Isaiah does not quite fill the bill as a contemporary of Aquiva, but that is another matter. You diudn’t because you can’t.
The whole section of Isaiah from the beginning of ch 40 refers to Israel (Jacob) as servant, but there is a dramatic shift at Is 50: 4 where the servant speaks. At verse 10 another shift - “Who among you fears the Lord?” This is not addressed to the servant, but to Isaiah’a hearers, Israelites, who do not serve, who do not heed His servant’s voice. No my friend, Israel has not listened to the servant, Jacob has remained steadfast in his disobedience.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

**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.**

I’m sorry I didn’t realize that you added more posts to the other thread.

First,

Being human is being perfectly human.
To sin is to act as something less than perfectly human.

**
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. **

So,

Those of Judah (the new Israel) can return after insurrecting because of the sacrifice of Israel?
Those of Israel (MbJ) can never return?
Gentiles can convert according to the Noahite laws?
If the Gentiles convert, they are to be responsible to the New Covenant?

What is the difference between the Noahite laws and the New Covenant?

 

[NotWorthy]

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, by this response of yours to my statement, it seems you misunderstood what I was saying.

                 Originally Posted by **NotWorthy**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5271473#post5271473)                 
             *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.

I could care less what the Rabbi knew or what his motive was. He went with the horse that Israel was expecting. It seems Israel misunderstood your reference to Isaiah’s Suffering Servant to be Israel and only Israel collectively.

Frankly, I’m a little bit surprised that you think Israel is the only answer to the Suffering Servant. I was under the impression that prophecies often have multiple meanings and multiple fulfillments - some partial and some full.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, by this response of yours to my statement, it seems you misunderstood what I was saying.

I could care less what the Rabbi knew or what his motive was. He went with the horse that Israel was expecting. It seems Israel misunderstood your reference to Isaiah’s Suffering Servant to be Israel and only Israel collectively.

Frankly, I’m a little bit surprised that you think Israel is the only answer to the Suffering Servant. I was under the impression that prophecies often have multiple meanings and multiple fulfillments - some partial and some full.

**Regarding Israel’s misunderstanding of Isaiah’s reference to
the Suffering Servant as Israel by name, it’s another evidence that what was going in the mind of the masses could not be what Rabbi Akiva had in mind. And as you assert yourself, Akiva did work on that horse, as long as there was a slim hope to get rid of the Romans who had proved to be more than just a manace to Israel by disrupting families with rapes of single and married women.

Regarding prophecies, there is no more than one meaning. The multiple meaning you are referring to, is only in the mind of the preconceived notion’s bearer according to his or her religious orientation. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

I’m sorry I didn’t realize that you added more posts to the other thread.

First,

Being human is being perfectly human.
To sin is to act as something less than perfectly human.

No, I didn’t say that. To sin is to act as a human. There is no perfect human.

So,

Those of Judah (the new Israel) can return after insurrecting because of the sacrifice of Israel?
Those of Israel (MbJ) can never return?

Not as a people or Tribe. But as a Gentile who converts.

Gentiles can convert according to the Noahite laws?

No, the Noahite laws, one keeps as a Gentile. The fulfilling of those laws is no requirement for conversion to Judaism.

If the Gentiles convert, they are to be responsible to the New Covenant?

Just like any other Jew is.

What is the difference between the Noahite laws and the New Covenant?

**The Noahite laws are the terms of the general Covenant made with all Mankind. The New Covenant is with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. **

 

[NotWorthy]

**Regarding Israel’s misunderstanding of Isaiah’s reference to
the Suffering Servant as Israel by name, it’s another evidence that what was going in the mind of the masses could not be what Rabbi Akiva had in mind. And as you assert yourself, Akiva did work on that horse, as long as there was a slim hope to get rid of the Romans who had proved to be more than just a manace to Israel by disrupting families with rapes of single and married women. **This reasoning would hold water if that were the only case of “false messiahs” rising up in Israel. But there were numerous ones before and after the True Messiah, Jesus Christ. Israel seemed to be braced for a single Messiah to lead them, but sadly they wanted one to appear in the image that they were looking for, such as the one Rabbi Akiva “created” in order to rid Isreal of Rome.

**Regarding prophecies, there is no more than one meaning. The multiple meaning you are referring to, is only in the mind of the preconceived notion’s bearer according to his or her religious orientation. **

Maybe, maybe not. Isaiah’s prophecy in 7:14 seems to come to mind. Partial fulfillment in Isaiah’s book with the birth of the child from the young maiden.

But complete Fulfillment in the birth of Jesus Christ, Emmanuel.

 

[Ben_Masada]

This reasoning would hold water if that were the only case of “false messiahs” rising up in Israel. But there were numerous ones before and after the True Messiah, Jesus Christ. Israel seemed to be braced for a single Messiah to lead them, but sadly they wanted one to appear in the image that they were looking for, such as the one Rabbi Akiva “created” in order to rid Isreal of Rome.

Maybe, maybe not. Isaiah’s prophecy in 7:14 seems to come to mind. Partial fulfillment in Isaiah’s book with the birth of the child from the young maiden.

But complete Fulfillment in the birth of Jesus Christ, Emmanuel.

**And do you know why Jesus was the true Messiah? Because of the many others, he was the one you chose to copy from the claims of Paul’s.

And with regards to Isaiah 7:14, you are mistaken about it’s fulfilment. That virgin of Isaiah 7:14 is reported by Amos 5:2 as being Israel. And the child born of her is judah whom Isaiah mentions by name if you can set asside religious bias and follow the sequence of Isaiah 7:15, 22 and 8:8. In Isaiah 7:15, that child will feed on butter and honey, which will be the food of all those who stayed in the Land. So, the child is all those who remained in the Land. Who stayed on the Land after Israel was removed by the Assyrians? Judah. (v. 22) Then, in Isaiah 8:8, Isaiah let go the following expression: “…of thy Land, Immanuel.” That’s Judah mentioned by name in the text. Therefore, the child is Immanuel, and Immanuel is Judah.**

 

[Danno2281]

**And do you know why Jesus was the true Messiah? Because of the many others, he was the one you chose to copy from the claims of Paul’s.

And with regards to Isaiah 7:14, you are mistaken about it’s fulfilment. That virgin of Isaiah 7:14 is reported by Amos 5:2 as being Israel. And the child born of her is judah whom Isaiah mentions by name if you can set asside religious bias and follow the sequence of Isaiah 7:15, 22 and 8:8. In Isaiah 7:15, that child will feed on butter and honey, which will be the food of all those who stayed in the Land. So, the child is all those who remained in the Land. Who stayed on the Land after Israel was removed by the Assyrians? Judah. (v. 22) Then, in Isaiah 8:8, Isaiah let go the following expression: “…of thy Land, Immanuel.” That’s Judah mentioned by name in the text. Therefore, the child is Immanuel, and Immanuel is Judah.**

Time out.The Hebrew of Isaiah uses the word almah- a young woman of marriageable age which the scholars who translated the Septuagint (ca 200 BC) chose too translate as virgin because only that would make sense in the context. But that is not the word that Amos uses. Your attempt to correlate the one with the other (Isaiah with Amos)cannot stand the scrutiny of the Hebrew text.**

 

[Psychotheosophy]

No, I didn’t say that. To sin is to act as a human. There is no perfect human.

I know you didn’t say that. I said that.

Let me put it this way…

If you believe that,
From the time of Adam,
Sinning is always associated with a some loss of freedom.
And
God created us as free beings,
Then,
To sin is contrary to the nature of Mankind.

Not as a people or Tribe. But as a Gentile who converts.

So,

The remedy to a great evil such as the insurrection against the Law,
Requires the sacrifice of something greater than an individual human being.

Is this one of the reasons why you believe that the Messiah must not be an individual human being?

 

[NotWorthy]

As I read your following retort, it seems rather clear that “the many others” represent Judea’s expectation of a single Messiah

And do you know why Jesus was the true Messiah? Because of the many others, he was the one you chose to copy from the claims of Paul’s.

… and maybe due to the fact that, uh… He is God!!!

And with regards to Isaiah 7:14, you are mistaken about it’s fulfilment. That virgin of Isaiah 7:14 is reported by Amos 5:2 as being Israel. And the child born of her is judah whom Isaiah mentions by name if you can set asside religious bias and follow the sequence of Isaiah 7:15, 22 and 8:8. In Isaiah 7:15, that child will feed on butter and honey, which will be the food of all those who stayed in the Land. So, the child is all those who remained in the Land. Who stayed on the Land after Israel was removed by the Assyrians? Judah. (v. 22) Then, in Isaiah 8:8, Isaiah let go the following expression: “…of thy Land, Immanuel.” That’s Judah mentioned by name in the text. Therefore, the child is Immanuel, and Immanuel is Judah.

I’ve got to agree with our good danno.

I’m also puzzled by your reference to Isaiah 7:14 as Judah. To be honest with you, I’ve been puzzled by the whole Jewish rendering of Isaiah 7:14.

Here’s the way I’ve heard it.
a) The child (and yes, Jewish rabbinical tradition treats it as a child) is the same child as prophesied in Isaiah 9:5-6.
b) The prophecy in Isaiah 9:5-6 is a Messianic prophecy.
c) But (here’s the weird part) the child in Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy.

 

[Ben_Masada]

As I read your following retort, it seems rather clear that “the many others” represent Judea’s expectation of a single Messiah… and maybe due to the fact that, uh… He is God!!!
I’ve got to agree with our good danno.

The many others I am referring to are those with Messianic aspirations. Although Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, but the gospel writers put up the claim for him 50+ years after he had been gone, you have chosen that one. “Uh… he is God?” There you go again with Greek Mythology. You don’t get it that we are talking about Judaism and that there is no such a thing in it.

I’m also puzzled by your reference to Isaiah 7:14 as Judah. To be honest with you, I’ve been puzzled by the whole Jewish rendering of Isaiah 7:14.

Why should you? We are Jews talking about what is Jewish. You should be puzzled if we were trying to interpret Christianity with Jewish tools.

Here’s the way I’ve heard it.
a) The child (and yes, Jewish rabbinical tradition treats it as a child) is the same child as prophesied in Isaiah 9:5-6.
b) The prophecy in Isaiah 9:5-6 is a Messianic prophecy.
c) But (here’s the weird part) the child in Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy.

As a matter of fact, Isaiah 7:14 is more a metaphorical analogy of Israel as a virgin giving birth to a child, which is Judah, and dying of her birth pangs. The death of the mother is understood in the rejection of the Tent of Joseph by God; and the birth of the child is understood in the confirmation of Judah by God. Both references are in Psalm 78:67-69.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I know you didn’t say that. I said that.

Let me put it this way…

If you believe that, From the time of Adam, Sinning is always associated with a some loss of freedom. And God created us as free beings, Then, To sin is contrary to the nature of Mankind.

** No, it isn’t. It would be if we did not have freewill. Since we do, we have become responsible for our own shortcomings. Even with the Law, given by the grace of God, it’s still up to us to obey or not as long as we are aware of the consequences of the law of cause and effect.**

So,The remedy to a great evil such as the insurrection against the Law, Requires the sacrifice of something greater than an individual human being.

There is no more sacrifice for insurrection against the Law. The sacrificial lamb is gone. Any insurrection against God’s Covenant reverts the Jew to the condition of a Gentile. Readmitance only through conversion. Paul would be a good example. To return to Judaism, he would have to convert.

Is this one of the reasons why you believe that the Messiah must not be an individual human being?

No, the reasons why I believe that the Messiah must not be an individual but Israel, are two. One is Logic and the other is Biblical. The Logic is based on the fact that the Messiah does not die. The individual is born, lives his span of life, and dies. Are we to expect a Messiah in every generation? It makes no sense. The Biblical one is Isaiah the Prophet. He identifies the Messiah with Israel by name so that no one needs to assume that he could be an individual.

 

[NotWorthy]

The many others I am referring to are those with Messianic aspirations. Although Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, but the gospel writers put up the claim for him 50+ years after he had been gone, you have chosen that one. “Uh… he is God?” There you go again with Greek Mythology. You don’t get it that we are talking about Judaism and that there is no such a thing in it.

The many others drew many followers from an Israel that was expecting an individual as a Messiah. Or else they would have been simply a voice in the wind lost to the history.

No Greek Mythology here, buddy. I understand the difference between Paganism and Monotheism, thank you. Christianity is the fulfillment of what you guys have been expecting for over 3000 years and (so far) have missed by almost 2000 years. But its not too late to catch the bus, Ben!

Why should you? We are Jews talking about what is Jewish. You should be puzzled if we were trying to interpret Christianity with Jewish tools.

Oh, we do interpret Christianity with Jewish tools! It makes perfect sense, just as interpreting Judaism with Christian tools.

To me its like studying the caterpillar and the butterfly. You can only understand one more fully, after you understand the other.

As a matter of fact, Isaiah 7:14 is more a metaphorical analogy of Israel as a virgin giving birth to a child, which is Judah, and dying of her birth pangs. The death of the mother is understood in the rejection of the Tent of Joseph by God; and the birth of the child is understood in the confirmation of Judah by God. Both references are in Psalm 78:67-69.

That’s not the way many Jews understood it in ancient Israel. They interpreted the two prophecies (7:14 & 9:5-6) to be the same child, only one was Messianic (9) and one was not (7). That simply makes no sense.

I think your interpretation of these prophecies may be influenced by the “those crazy Catholics believe it ‘this way’, and they can’t be right, so we’ve got to interpret it 'that way’” method of bible study that prevails among Jews (the council in Jamnia) and Protestant reformers.

As is plainly obvious, this simply represents my opinion.

 

[Ben_Masada]

The many others drew many followers from an Israel that was expecting an individual as a Messiah. Or else they would have been simply a voice in the wind lost to the history.

I have never denied that we have and still in the majority, Jews who expect an individual Messiah. But they are part of the unlearnt masses.

No Greek Mythology here, buddy. I understand the difference between Paganism and Monotheism, thank you. Christianity is the fulfillment of what you guys have been expecting for over 3000 years and (so far) have missed by almost 2000 years. But its not too late to catch the bus, Ben!

**Really! Do you really understand the difference between Paganism and Monotheism? Where in Monotheism you are going to find God conceiving a child with a woman? Only in Pagan Mythology. But you guys invented this idea and now struggle to insert it into Judaism. **

Oh, we do interpret Christianity with Jewish tools! It makes perfect sense, just as interpreting Judaism with Christian tools.

Tell me when you reach the puch line so that I won’t embarrass you with a long face.

To me its like studying the caterpillar and the butterfly. You can only understand one more fully, after you understand the other.

Is it the punch line or should I wait for something funnier?

That’s not the way many Jews understood it in ancient Israel. They interpreted the two prophecies (7:14 & 9:5-6) to be the same child, only one was Messianic (9) and one was not (7). That simply makes no sense.

A Christian telling a Jew what in Judaism does not make sense! What sense does Christianity make of the whole of itself?

I think your interpretation of these prophecies may be influenced by the “those crazy Catholics believe it ‘this way’, and they can’t be right, so we’ve got to interpret it 'that way’” method of bible study that prevails among Jews (the council in Jamnia) and Protestant reformers.

How about the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex-catedra only after the Cardinals reach a consensus? Can you make any sense out of that?

 

[Danno2281]

NotWorthy;5284602:

**Really! Do you really understand the difference between Paganism and Monotheism? Where in Monotheism you are going to find God conceiving a child with a woman? Only in Pagan Mythology. But you guys invented this idea and now struggle to insert it into Judaism. **

How about the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex-catedra only after the Cardinals reach a consensus? Can you make any sense out of that?

If you look at post # 197 you’ll see where - from the Hebrew scholars of the second century before Christ who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, HEBREW scholars, widely heralded in Jewish circles for their ‘miraculus’ translation.

Before you deride papal infallibility, please learn what it is. No consensu of cardinals is necessary.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

** No, it isn’t. It would be if we did not have freewill. Since we do, we have become responsible for our own shortcomings. Even with the Law, given by the grace of God, it’s still up to us to obey or not as long as we are aware of the consequences of the law of cause and effect.**

Of course we have free will.
Of course we are responsible for our sins.

You are not understanding my point:

We naturally seek to obey God.
As we naturally seek Happiness.
But often fail in our weakness.

Therefore,

Choosing to sin is not an act of freedom.
Because by doing so,
We keep ourselves from that which we naturally seek.
(i.e. we enslave ourselves by sinning)

There is no more sacrifice for insurrection against the Law. The sacrificial lamb is gone. Any insurrection against God’s Covenant reverts the Jew to the condition of a Gentile. Readmitance only through conversion. Paul would be a good example. To return to Judaism, he would have to convert.

You yourself said that Judah is greater than any of it’s individuals.
Therefore,
Judah’s sacrifice would be greater than any of it’s individuals,
But not Israel’s sacrifice greater than any of it’s individuals?

No, the reasons why I believe that the Messiah must not be an individual but Israel, are two. One is Logic and the other is Biblical. The Logic is based on the fact that the Messiah does not die. The individual is born, lives his span of life, and dies. Are we to expect a Messiah in every generation? It makes no sense. The Biblical one is Isaiah the Prophet. He identifies the Messiah with Israel by name so that no one needs to assume that he could be an individual.

I agree that the Messiah has conquered death.
This is a good reason why not to believe the Messiah is simply an individual human being.

 

[Danno2281]

Ben Masada;5284670:

If you look at post # 197 you’ll see where - from the Hebrew scholars of the second century before Christ who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, HEBREW scholars, widely heralded in Jewish circles for their ‘miraculus’ translation.

Before you deride papal infallibility, please learn what it is. No consensu of cardinals is necessary.

The above post is, of course, woefully inadequate, because I am taking for granted what has not been made explicit. A) Virgin birth is a concept held by Jews as well as pagans.
B) Ps. 2:7, not addressed to a nation or a tribe, but to an individual. You may argue about the interpretation, but you cannot deny that the divine paternity is proclaimed. C) Ez :34 God proclaims that He will Himself, not through any surogate, visit and tend to His flock, shepherding rightly, a good shepherd. Ring a bell? Hint - Jn.:10,11.

 

[NotWorthy]

I have never denied that we have and still in the majority, Jews who expect an individual Messiah. But they are part of the unlearnt masses.

Ah, I see, not like our Ben M, here! Good job, brother!

**Really! Do you really understand the difference between Paganism and Monotheism? Where in Monotheism you are going to find God conceiving a child with a woman? Only in Pagan Mythology. But you guys invented this idea and now struggle to insert it into Judaism. **

It didn’t seem to stop the numerous Jews that became the first Christians. St. Paul was one of them, wasn’t he? Yeah, that’s right… I believe he was!

Tell me when you reach the puch line so that I won’t embarrass you with a long face.

No, Ben. Not trying to be funny, here. I usually clue you in with a wink when I’m trying to tickle your funny bone.

Is it the punch line or should I wait for something funnier?

No, that’s actually a very sad commentary on Judaism… the caterpillar that hasn’t turned into the butterfly. it’s what God would have you to do, in my opinion, brother.

A Christian telling a Jew what in Judaism does not make sense! What sense does Christianity make of the whole of itself?

It didn’t stop millions of Jews from converting. They saw the fulfillment of centuries of patiently waiting for the Messiah. Sadly, some haven’t.

How about the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex-catedra only after the Cardinals reach a consensus? Can you make any sense out of that?

I wasn’t aware that he had to wait til the Cardinals reached a consensus. Hmmmmmm…, are you sure about that?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Of course we have free will.
Of course we are responsible for our sins.
You are not understanding my point:
We naturally seek to obey God.
As we naturally seek Happiness.
But often fail in our weakness.
Therefore,
Choosing to sin is not an act of freedom.
Because by doing so,
We keep ourselves from that which we naturally seek.
(i.e. we enslave ourselves by sinning)
You yourself said that Judah is greater than any of it’s individuals.
Therefore,
Judah’s sacrifice would be greater than any of it’s individuals,
But not Israel’s sacrifice greater than any of it’s individuals?
I agree that the Messiah has conquered death.
This is a good reason why not to believe the Messiah is simply an individual human being.

**I am talking about the Messiah that Isaiah identifies him with Israel and not the Pauline Hellenistic Messiah that you identify him with Jesus. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Danno2281;5285166:

The above post is, of course, woefully inadequate, because I am taking for granted what has not been made explicit. A) Virgin birth is a concept held by Jews as well as pagans.
B) Ps. 2:7, not addressed to a nation or a tribe, but to an individual. You may argue about the interpretation, but you cannot deny that the divine paternity is proclaimed. C) Ez :34 God proclaims that He will Himself, not through any surogate, visit and tend to His flock, shepherding rightly, a good shepherd. Ring a bell? Hint - Jn.:10,11.

There is nothing you can do to insert Greek Mythology into Judaism. There is absolutely no indication of virgin birth in the mythological sense of Christianity in Psalms or Ezekiel.