Does Jeremiah 22:28 and Matthew 1:11 Negate Adon Y'shua as Mashiach?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Yochanan Levine on January 10, 2011 at 9:45pm

Shalom Anders,

We'll have to agree to disagree on this verse. I see absolutely nothing in that chapter that is messianic . The sign is for those present and lacking in faith.

 

---- Anders: Yes,unfortunately everyone doesn’t teach what the Tan’’kh including  real-world historical and logical Halakhah teaches in this forum!

 

Everyone here is sincere in their positions. Sincere people do not always agree.

 

---- Anders: ...Ribi Yehoshua is alive in ha-olam haba,

 

RY: Rebbe Y'shua is alive in ha-olam haza as well.

 

Shalom

 

 

Anders Branderud said:

“Shalom Anders,”

 

Shalom to you as well! : )

 

You wrote:“So many people so little consensus hehe.”

Yes,unfortunately everyone doesn’t teach what the Tan’’kh including  real-world historical and logical Halakhah teaches in this forum!

 

You wrote: “I agree with you about dual prophecies. I've shared a few here as well. There are several. However the one at Isaiah 7 is not one of them. For a prophecy to have a dual meaning there must be at least an indication of that in the text. There are no such indicators in that section. We can't just make evidence up. It must be supported by the context of the Scriptures.

Isaiah 9 is one of the messianic prophecies. That is clear from the text. I do not see this as a dual prophecy however because it was fulfilled by Rebbe Y'shua and will never be fulfilled by anyone else. Y'shua is still alive.”

There are no valid reasons for separating Yeshayahu 7 and Yeshayahu 9. It is the same prophecy.

“It's essential to understand that this passage was originally interpreted in its historical setting. That understanding remained unchanged for nearly a millennium and Scripture informs us that ha-Sheim doesn't change. The original meaning is the only true understanding.

Theprophet Yeshayahu  wrote this passage ca. BCE 720 relative to the king Âkhâz (7.1). The child Yeshayahu names in 9.5 prophesies a wonderful and righteous son of the disappointing and evil Akhaz: theking Khizqiyâh (see Melâkhim Beit 18.3-8; 20.2ff; Divrei ha-Yâmim Beit 31.1-4). Nor was Yeshayahu  the only Nâvi prophesying about the blasphemou srule of Âkhâz and the cleansing of Israel by his son, the king Khizqiyâh . the prophet Hosheia (see 1.1ff) and the prophet Mikhah (see 1.1ff) were proclaiming parallel prophecies.“ [1]

Ribi Yehoshua is alive in ha-olam haba, just like everyone that has been included in the different pacts described in the Tana’’ch. 9:5 was about the king Khizqiyah; and had another fulfilment by Ribi Yehoshua.

Verse 6 has its ongoing fulfilment. It is fulfilled more and more as people find the authentic reconstructed teachings of Ribi Yehoshua; and this leads them to start doing their utmost in keeping Torah including real-world historical and logical Halakhah non-selectively. I was one of those devoted Christians that found the reconstructed teachings of Ribi Yehoshua [note 2] and this led me to start practising Torah, instead of Christianity. It is a directive of Torah to subordinate to a beit din, and the only beit din for followers of Ribi Yehoshua is the beit din ha-Netzarim in Ra’anana inIsrael [3]. So if you want to practise Torah I endorse you to study [3] and to subordinate to the beit din ha-Netzarim. It would be a mistake for you to assume that the research and Tana''ch studies on the website of Netzarim aren’t correct and to ignore to study them.

You wrote: “But other times using too much Hebrew can be confusing”

I cannot understand why. If you know Hebrew, then there cannot be much work to translate the terms?

You wrote: “I think it was-- pointed out, quoting someone else's website is fine when its relevant to apoint, but we want to read your words”

I quote only that which is my views. I don’t see the reason to rewrite anything I think is well written. If you want to read my writings you can check out my blogs. It includes quotes,but also much of my writings.  My quotes have been relevant to demonstrate points.

You wrote: “Personally I don't now much about your group but I do know (and more assume) that many of those who focus on the term "netzarim" are aligned withthe pseudo Ebionites and modern "Essene"”'

Here is some information about the Netzarim in Ra’anana in Israel and about imposter-Netzarim-groups “In1972, when Yirm^әyahu Ben-Dawid was concluding his research and began teaching about the Netzarim no one had heard of the original Hebrew term, "Netzarim,"since 135 C.E.when the gentile Roman Hellenists displaced the Jewish Netzarim Paqid with the first gentile — and firstChristian — "bishop" (the true birth of Christianity and the Church)and thereafter substituted the Greek transliteration, "Nazarene."

The same research that had enabled Yirm^әyahu Ben-Dawid to discover the term after it had been concealed for nearly 2,000 years also demonstrated that being a Netzarim necessarily implied being recognizedby a Pharisaic (today's Orthodox) Beit-Din. All of those who now claim to be Netzarim but aren't affiliated with the authentic Netzarim in Raanana, Israel and recognized by an Orthodox Beit-Din, have plagiarized the term (and, sometimes,even the title) from Paqid Yirm^әyahu Ben-Dawid and are fraudulent imposters promulgating Displacement Theology in the same tradition of syncretism as theRoman Hellenists after 135 C.E.See the Imposters' Gallery for the current list of fraudulent and illegitimate imposters who are practicing Displacement Theology and plagiarizing the Netzarim.“ [4]

 

‘Ribi’ is the first century Hebrew term for a Ribi with semikhah by Raban Jamliyeil and the beit din ha-Jadol. There are also many other things that you don’t know about first century Judaism , including Halakhah, which the Creator requires of you and all of mankind to follow [6]

What are your conclusive proofs that ‘Yehoshua’ wasn’t used in the first century? In fact there is a prophecy of Tan’’kh declaring the name of the Mashiakh to be ‘Yehoshua’.

You wrote:“By my reading of the Tanakh prophets, Y'shua's virgin birth is the only waythe curse could have been circumvented.”

However, you ignore the arguments that I have presented about the curse. Please reread the arguments that I have presented and comment on them! It is impossible that the Orderly Creator breached His Orderly laws of nature [7]. The Creator doesn’t breach His Ordery laws of nature, but uses His Orderly laws of nature in order to accomplish His Will, which He did in all of the miracles of the Tana’’ch.

You mention the Peshita. It seems to me that you didn’t know that it is a translation from Greek to Aramaic [8].

 

Yes, I don’t accept the “gospels”, nor the “NT”. How can you rely on the “NT”, when Paul clearly didn’t teach in accordance with Torah [note 9]

 

While Torah-observers don’t accept the “gospel of Matthew” for doctrines, one can filter out historical facts from it by a formal logical analysis based on well documented premises, such as Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee and about the conception of Ribi Yehoshua.

An explanation in accordance with the Orderly laws of the Orderly Creator – which He impossibly would breach as I documented earlier in this post - to how Miriam became pregnant is that Miriam and Yoseiph both used the same pool of water [my adaption of a quote by Eliyahu Konn]

 

The issue of virgin birth was known to the rabbi's and dealt with in thecase of a daughter of a priest who possible became pregnant in a mikveh. Since Miriam according to the narrative doesn't know how she became pregnantand she certainly would have known if she had had a man penetrated her; and it was the by Ruach HaKodesh, which is a synonym for keeping Torah (keeping the laws of niddah) it matches the description of the  reconstructed account in Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu.

 

The emission in the water ahead of her could happen spontaneously and without masturbation. It can happen and is cited by Ben Zoma. Reference: Artificial Insemination in Jewish Law, by Fred Rosner.

 

“Shalom,Have a great Shabbat,“

Thanks! Have a great week!

 /Anders

Notes

1. http://www.netzarim.co.il/ ; History Museum (left menu); Mashiakh (top menu); Documentation found in the page, including the section “Mâshiakh of Tana"kh Subverts Tana"kh to be the Mâshiakh?”;

2. Foundon http://www.netzarim.co.il/

3.Note: Link

4.Website in note 2; Who are the Netzarim (in the top section of the first page)

5. WebsiteI note 2; Glossaries; Ribi

6. Documentationon this link: Link

7.Documentation: Link

8.Documentation on the website in note 2; Glossaries; P^әshi•t^ә•tâ′

9. Documentation: Link

Permalink Reply by Nick Price on January 11, 2011 at 10:19pm

What proof is there that Jesus rose from the dead? 

*serious question*

Permalink Reply by Jeff on January 11, 2011 at 10:24pm

Hmm, I guess nick- couldn't we also ask whats the proof that Enoch? was carried up by fiery chariot? or of Noah or of moses? at some point dont all my questions come down to "well x ppl saw it"?? (sort of my simply answer, but you see what im getting at?)



Nick Price said:

What proof is there that Jesus rose from the dead? 

*serious question*

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Yochanan Levine on January 11, 2011 at 11:18pm

What proof is there that Moshe parted the Sea, that HaShem gave him the tablets? That Avraham lived? That he sacrifice Isaac? That the sun stood still while Israel fought on...

 

There are however many very early references to his resurrection. Its inconceivable to me that such a story, if not true, would have been accepted by so people, both those present at the time and those who heard with the first few years.

 

Many things come down to faith.

~ Yochanan

Nick Price said:

What proof is there that Jesus rose from the dead? 

*serious question*

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Yochanan Levine on January 11, 2011 at 11:19pm

True enough it seems to me.

 

When studying the Tanakh and contrasting the the New Testament and related accounts if these things didn't happen it was a scam beyond imagining.

Jeff said:

Hmm, I guess nick- couldn't we also ask whats the proof that Enoch? was carried up by fiery chariot? or of Noah or of moses? at some point dont all my questions come down to "well x ppl saw it"?? (sort of my simply answer, but you see what im getting at?)



Nick Price said:

What proof is there that Jesus rose from the dead? 

*serious question*

Permalink Reply by Nick Price on January 11, 2011 at 11:47pm

Actually, the only proof one needs is for Moses and the Torah.  And the proof there is in the accounts of 4 million+ people, not 1 man on a road to Damascus.  If Moses is wrong, so is Christianity.

 

I do see what you're getting at Jeff and that's why I side with the 4 million+.  I love the questions though!

Jeff said:

Hmm, I guess nick- couldn't we also ask whats the proof that Enoch? was carried up by fiery chariot? or of Noah or of moses? at some point dont all my questions come down to "well x ppl saw it"?? (sort of my simply answer, but you see what im getting at?)



Nick Price said:

What proof is there that Jesus rose from the dead? 

*serious question*

Permalink Reply by pilgrim on January 12, 2011 at 10:34am

RY said: There are however many very early references to his resurrection. Its inconceivable to me that such a story, if not true, would have been accepted by so people, both those present at the time and those who heard with the first few years.

Actually RY, the resurrection was not accepted by many early references. The only place this is attested to is the NT. And all the witnesses are only in the NT. We have already proved the NT as a fallacious, or, a totally unreliable document; so one cannot accept this as truth. The NT cannot be used as proof of anything that is not corroborated by external sources.

 

Again, ,that is like me proving magic beans by using the book about Jack.

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 15
• 16
• 17
• Next ›
• Page