B"H"
Is Jesus the one or just another failed messiah?
And what are the criterias for being the anointed?
In this page the discussion will be about the inconsistancies people have regarding the concept of Moshiach which most have aquired by generations of false advertisments, and challange the views of those who read [out of context] the book which I call "Safer hashluchim". Why I call it this way and not the NT will be explained further along this discussion but for now lets look into this most interesting topic.
Melech HaMoshiach
- The Moshiach must be Torah observant
- The Moshiach will be a man and not be acknowledged as a diety
- The Moshiach will rule the world with rightouseness & justice
- The Moshiach will also bring peace to the whole world
- The Moshiach will be of King David's protogy
- The Moshiach will have part in the rebuilding of the Temple
- The Moshiach will end our exile
As you can see, I can continue about what the Moshiach is suppose to accomplish and what his duties are, but for now let's look at the variety of questionable conclusions people have about Yeshua.
Pru' urvu
Pru' urvu is a mitzvah expressed in safer Bereishit in order to expand life upon the earth. It's considered to be one of many positive commandments expressed to us in the Torah.
Now, as we delve into this topic of Yeshua who is called the Moshiach, there arises many accusations about him which can challange our faith, but most of you know the saying "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free".
My hope is, that it does make you free! Free from any negativity attached to you by dougbt because the teachings that are being brought to you contained in my arguments are based in the technicalities of mitzvot hashem.
The Torah is filled not only with instructions as to how mankind is suppose to conduct itself but it contains the integrity of each other coresponding laws, giving mankind no precedance in order to go outside it's boundaries and live abundantly as Hashem desires us to live.
So, If Torah is disobeyed judgment follows, it's as simple as that! You ask, why am I including this issue along with this topic of Mosiach? Let me explain, it's so that you may understand that the Torah is all about technicalities & legal applicatons and that it cannot be bent neither to the right nor to the left but must maintain itself in a perfect balance because interestingly enough, it is the source by which all the world sustains itself habitable and also because every human being is affected by his or her conduct transpired towards it or against it.
Physics was not invented or conjured up but discovered, it has always been a part of the human condition in the rhelm of this world and everyone should know that for every action there is always an equal an aposing reaction same as, cause and effect.
This same application however, is found in the rhelm of spirituality because for every level reached in kedusha there also exist the same descent in levels in reshut. Holiness & wickedness two aposing forces yet both have the ability to grow in levels, one upwards and the other one downwards.
So, now that I made that clear let us begin the issue of Melech haMoshiach and what are the aposing groups expressing against Yeshua and why their ideals are flaud at best.
One of the many things that's said about Yeshua which prevents him for the considerable roll of Moshiach is, that he did not place himself in the path to fulfilling the mitzvah of pru' urvu, "to be fruitful and multiply". Meaning, that he was not a complete tzaddik [a completly rightouse person] because he didn't place himself in the path to getting married in order that he would be able to fulfill this commandment. We know that the De oraisa as held by the rabbanim is to fulfill the mitzvah of getting married.
However, one problem arises with this interpretation, the mitzvah is pru urvu, [not] about getting married. Hashem gave Adam [mankind] the command to be fruitful and multiply only after [he made Chava] and brought her before Adam. In other words, only when you have aquired your spouse it is only then when you are required to fulfill this mitzvah. Not before either because then adultery, fornication and rape might be justified.
You can say that she was imposed upon him since he didn't have the choice of picking out a woman for himself, this would be logical enough wouldn't you agree? However, the Torah sets in motion a tone to which G-d desided to make him a help mate.
When all of G-d's creatures were brought before Adam in order for him to name them, the Torah states: "but for Adam there was not found a mate compatible to him", which gives us the impression that within Adam there was an emotion of unfulfillment and was noticable enough that would merrit the special creation of another being to cause him to be complete.
Let me take you around another angle, another flaued interpretation of those who question Yeshua's rightousness would be to say, that it wouldn't have played any part in his mind about getting married and perhaps this was so who's actually to say that it was or was not?
However, just try to follow me for a moment here while I give you some reasoning behind this position. For him wanting to get married wouldn't have been an issue. How so? Well, he was still young and getting married is not a sin, so who's to condem him if it did turn out he did want to get married? How would we know? But, we do know his life was snuffed out before anyone could legally accuse him of him purposefully avoiding to get married. If however, marriage is a command and a requirement.
Many rightouse men of old did not get married or had children till very late in their lives such as Noach 500 when he had his children shem ham and Japheth. Yitzchak himself was older then 33 years old when Avraham sent his manservant to find his son a wife. Shmuel haNavi never got married. Eliyahu haNavi never got married, certainly the Torah does not allude to it and if there is any talmudic references explaning so I have not seen nor heard of one.
Now, to those who believe that Yeshua hamoshiach avoided marriage, I'd like to say that marriage is actually much a part of his future accomplishment rather than his past. There will most deffinately be a marriage which he will indeed play a roll later in the upcoming future, but the marriage that he will be a part of will be of a higher order than that which we are accustomed to having, since everything in Moshiac's life is on a higher level then ours so to his wedding will be of a higher order. For this, read the L'cha dodi in your sidurs [prayer books].
He will leave his chambers and like a bridegroom he wiil come to meet his bride. The marriage in this wedding however, will only happen in it's apointed time with the son of the root of [Jesse] who we know to be the father of King David and the bride is b'nei Yisroel.
Anyone claiming that it is G-d who will be our bridegroom coming to meet b'nei Yisroel [the bride], have a "partial" observation to this text. It will not only be G-d, as he will deffinately be behind this whole event but it will actually be G-d's anointed whom G-d has given all authority to as it is written: "untill He has made his enemies his footstool". So, it is actually Yeshua haMoshiach who will come to meet his "bride" [b'nei Yisroel] in it's appointed time.
The rabbinical view at that time however [before the common era] and perhaps held by some today, were of the rule that if a person didn't get married soon enough he would've been considered a rasha "a wicked person". However, this view can easily fall under scrutiny because although, Hashem echad hakodesh baruch hu said: "it is not good that man should be alone" he did not call Adam a wicked person before he made him the woman.
You can say, if He [echad hakodesh baruch hu] said that it's not good, than it means that it's bad. However, he was not calling man bad, he was saying that the cituation of man not having a woman was bad and what may be bad for one however, might not be for the other. This is one other feezable approach since he is only generalizing here.
He is not entering into any specifics since the word Adam can apply to one person as well, and not just to all mankind. So, it can be reasonable to sugguest that it could be left up to the individual to "choose" a wife for himself if he feels the need for one, but than required to fulfill the mitzvah of pru' urvu if he does choose to have one. There is no palpable mention of a commandment stating that you aught to get married. There is no mention [in the Tenach] that says "G-d said you shall get married". None whatsoever!
If there is no mention of it in all of the Tenach there should be no rabbi stating so! Having said that, we must remember the text saying "You shall not add to the words of this law".
Picking corn on shabbos
We all know the story as it is written in safer hashluchim stating, that Yeshua and his disciples walked thru a corn field on shabbos, they than began plucking up corn and eating it because they were hungry, and when some of the men from the sect of the Pharasees saw this, they than confronted him because it was something which was forbidden to do so on shabbos. However, the text goes like this,
And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”
And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
So now we need to find out if "lechem panim" which litterally means (bread of presence) actually was forbidden to everyone except the High priest and to see wether this person named Abiathar actually lived at the time of this occurance Jesus is saying he gave David the bread of presence to the men.
The incident that Jesus refers to here is recorded in 1 Samuel, but the priest there is not Abiathar but his father, Ahimelech.
And he arose and departed; and Jonathan went into the city. 2 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said unto him: 'Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?' 3 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest: 'The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me: Let no man know any thing of the business where about I send thee, and what I have commanded thee; and the young men have I appointed to such and such a place. 4 Now therefore what is under thy hand? five loaves of bread? give them in my hand, or whatsoever there is present.' 5 And the priest answered David, and said: 'There is no common bread under my hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.' 6 And David answered the priest, and said unto him: 'Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days; when I came out, the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was but a common journey; how much more then to-day, when there shall be holy bread in their vessels? 7 So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away. [mechon mamre edition] 1 Samuel 21:1-7
So which priest gave David the bread of the Presence to eat, Abiathar or Ahimelech? If it was Ahimelech then either Jesus got it wrong or Mark 2:26 contains an error. If it was Abiathar then 1 Samuel 21:2-3 contains two errors.
Not at all, let me explain why: Acts 11:28 tells us of the fulfilment of a prophecy by the prophet Agabus, who had said that there would be a severe famine over all the world. Acts tells us that this famine "took place during the reign of Claudius". The words translated "during the reign of Claudius" clearly mean that the famine took place "in the time of" Claudius.It is therefore reasonable to translate in Mark 2:26 not as "when Abiathar was high priest" but as "in the time of Abiathar the high priest".
When David entered the temple and ate the bread of the Presence, Ahimelech was high priest, as 1 Samuel makes clear, but Ahimelech's son Abiathar had been born. David therefore did enter the temple "in the time of" Abiathar, as Jesus said. Jesus probably chose to refer to Abiathar rather than Ahimelech because Abiathar was better known.
So in actuality Yeshua was not breaking the shabbos but bringing an ethical equation to the proper ideals pertaining to shabbos observance. We all know that we are to observe shabbos but when your life is in danger or someone has a medical emergency etc., we are to break away from the customary rules relating to the shabbos performance in order to take care of that need but none of that was occuring here, there was no life in danger no medical emergency of any kind so what is the problem with this scenerio? The need that Yeshua saw of importance was to show the world chen "grace".
The Torah states: And Noach found grace in the "eyes" of hashem. Noach in hebrew is spelled with the letters nun & chet. Grace on the otherhand, is the name of Noach spelled backwards chet & nun. So you ask yourself, what is the Torah trying to teach us with these words? Hold that thought, we'll get back to it further along this study.
Now, there is another way in which this occurance may be viewed as, let us say, what if it did occur that Yeshua's students were breaking the shabbos and several strict religouse Jews did observe them doing so [breaking the shabbos that is], why didn't they apprehend them or reported them before the sanhedrin? There were certainly enough eyewitnesses for a legal prosecution. I mean come on let's be rational about this people, breaking the shabbos is a serious offense one that carries the death penalty.
If they were breaking the shabbos why didn't they do what they were suppose to do by bringing them before the court? We know Jesus wasn't picking corn with them only the students but he could have been charged for idleness since he stood by and did nothing. I'll tell you why! Because there was something else at play here, something illusive which we are not all aware of by just this small paragragh.
We can't make a conclusive determination to what really transpired there and why nothing was done to bring them before the Jewish court, all we know is that the students of Yeshua were hungry and they started eating corn from the fields.
Let's not forget the fact, that if he was breaking it does it mean that all of his disciples were ignorant in Torah? Really? I mean come on now people you know the saying, "You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".
However, we must keep in mind that these men were Jews from birth and closer to the source then we are at this present era. Closer to the source meaning, that they had the Bet hamikdash before them and the giving of the Torah at Sinai was closer [timewise] to them then it is to us at this present age.
Now, do you really think that they were so unknowledgable in the shabbos laws in such manner that they were going to be misled in breaking it unknowingly and couldn't identify a danger when they saw one? I don't think so!
Not to mention the words that were spoken of by Yeshua saying: "I came not to abrogate the law but to fulfill it". By these phrazes expressed by him he could not have handle all of the scrutiny that would have arisen by all of the declarations he's made publicly that being one of them, don't you think?
So what is the problem with this story that seems to provoke so much contraversy? None whatsoever! It is only provoking those who want to intangle unlearned people into believing that there is a flaw with Yeshua, in order to discredit him before many nothing more nor less.
The messiah is a man so was Jesus, wasn't he?
Eventhough this topic has been discussed many times before, we seem to always come back to the same issue. If anyone calls Jesus G-d, I would like to let them know that they are commiting a great sin! Jesus himself has never told anyone to worship him but his father whose abode is in heaven.
All of his responces that were directed at those who were learning from his messages was the same every time "When you pray say our father who is in heaven etc etc," and again "If you do not forgive your brother his offenses, neither will your father who lives in heaven will forgive you. etc etc...
You will never find it anywhere in safer hashluchim Yeshua nor any of his followers teaching these things, such as Yeshua giving glory to himself, but always to the one he calls his father who abides in heaven. Even when he performed his miracles he stated "Of myself I can do nothing but the father who abides in me is he who does them". So what's to say about these people who pray, sing and do all kinds of nonsense towards Jesus and those who continually accuse Yeshua and his followers of saying such blasphemous remarks? Keep in mind, it is a blasphemy to call another human being G-d! Well... I call it just that... nonsense! They are ignorant people confusing the truth who are unaware of their own folly!
Jews seem to jump on the band wagon agreeing with me on the subject but would not attempt to acknowledge that he is the one. It is only to defend their cause of Judaism and apose Yeshua on the basis that by doing so they are winning points in shamayim. However this is not so because he is the moshiach and they are rejecting him.
Christians who ignorantly argue the fact of Yeshua's existance clearly violate the commandment regarding idolatry unaware that what they have adopted goes contrary to biblical rational. Jesus has a form but G-d does not yet they call him god. We the children of Israel understand the implications of the command "Hear O Israel the L-rd our G-d is one L-rd" and no one can create a refutable debate against the words of Hashem given to us in Sinai.
Why Is Yeshua the anointed?
He was a complete tzaddik fulfilling every aspect of the Torah precisely as it should. Observed rigorously 24 hrs a day 365 days a year by his closest freinds and family who were also his diciples later to be his emeseries, who also wrote all that could be written in a book for our learning. How than can he be the messiah if he did not accomplish any of what I wrote at the top of this webstie?
This question has an answer but it will take a very interesting twist to what we have learned about the concept of Moshiach. This is a very interesting issue and I'd like full attention now, so put your cup of coffee away and let's do some analyzing.
We have a record of 2 types of messiah's, one of which was to come and die in a war somewhere who is called the Moshiach ben Yoseph, The other was a man of war the one who is to be the descendant of David this messiah is called Moshiach ben David. Not every rabbi believes in the concept of Moshiach ben Yoseph, while every religuose Jew believes in the concept of Moshiach ben David.
However, the concept behind these 2 types of Moshiach, Moshiach ben Yoseph is that he would've come if the children of Israel wouldve merrited him to come visa vee Moshiach ben David.
So opening the discussion as to who was this Moshiach that died in a battle somewhere, was actually none other than Yeshua hamoshiach who was ben Yoseph because interestingly enough, he did die in a battle although, not like the kind of battle we are acustomed to fighting or even fully understanding.
Now, this battle was in the rhelm of spirituality. It is mentioned in the talmud that Moshiach ben Yoseph will be raised from the dead by Moshiach ben David but what seems like 2 occurenses is actually 1 because they are the same person. How so? Yeshua hamoshiach died yes, but rose again and is now at G-d's right hand as Tehillim 110:1,2 says: "untill He makes his enemies his footstool". And yes, this Psalm is not only speaking of Avraham avinu but also the Moshiach. Now, when the appointed time comes, he will leave his place of seclusion and fight against his enemies like the man of war David hamelech was.
So, let me conclude with this message by giving you the answer to why I believe Yeshua is the Moshiach eventhough ofcourse he did not accomplish what I wrote for the criterias at the begining of this website.
His ressurection, what does it imply to us? His ressurection teaches us, that what he did not accomplish in this world will be accomplished in it's appointed time just before the olam haba the world to come. If his word was emet as G-d is emet who also raised him from the dead, all that he predicted will surely come to pass in it's apointed time.
We must understand that his ressurection also reminds us that he is not dead but alive. So, if he is alive all of the prophecies which are in the Torah that he has not yet accomplished in fulfilling will eventually finds it's way in being fulfilled in due time.
Do I believe the book that everyone calls the NT part of the bible?
No! I consider the book called the new testament actually to be called the writtings of our emeseries the new covenant is what suppose to be written in the heart not in a written code of anykind. The word new testament was never named so by our emeseries and we are not well informed who came up with this name since we have no record of it ever being given by any partiqular person[s] and it could've actually been given by idoloters, who are blind to the truth and have no understanding of anything holy.
We know if the aposltes [who were Jews] would have named the book in such manner they would've been found in violation to a precept of G-d, stating "You shall not add to the words of this law" but this is exactly what has occured by the gentiles deffinition of what they believe to be the bible. By combining these books or letters written by the emeseries along with the Torah it is viewed as an addon to the words that were originally given to us in Mt. Sinai. The Torah is a uniquely inspired book given to us by our creator in Mt. Sinai.
However, I would consider renaiming the book to be called Safer haShluchim "book of the emeseries" or even Safer haMoshiach "book of the Messiah" and have it archived seperately from the Torah just as our Talmud and other rabbinical commentaries are seperated, so too should be Safer ha Shluchim [eventhough the book itself can be supported totally by the Torah nevertheless, it should be archived seperately] because as I made mention before the new testament is what should be written in our hearts not in a book. Safer haShluchim by the way is a book not easily understood and can easily be misunderstood by anyone who reads it, just as it is said about the kabalah "Jewish esoterics".
Example of this is written in our historical data. Many people have killed Jews in the name of the new testament and in the name of Jesus, eventhough we all know Jesus forbade Peter from killing the High priests servant as they were coming to apprehand him. If anyone remembers, Peter wounded the servant of the High priest Caifas in his ear but his intention was actually to kill him but Jesus healed him and said: "Enough! He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword". but in these times we can still see these types of erred followers of their so called "Jesus" in the form of the white suprimist movement and lets not forget their leader Hitler who had this same pholosphy.
These people actually believe what they stand for is actually coming from the truth but we know fully well it is from a delusional mind. It almost seems ironic though, that we profess to follow the same person yet we have a totally different depiction of character about the person that we name so much as being the anointed one. Nevertheless, this is why learning Safer haMoshiach should be taught by a reputable G-d fearing and law abiding person. So, now you see how interesting it is that 2 people can read the same book but one understands it one way while the other in another totally different way. It is the very same book but one individual takes a different path then the other in the way he or she interprets it.
The reason for this, is the Law of G-d. One person has more understanding of G-d's law than the other giving him or her an advantage over the other of knowing the path of truth. Why is the law of G-d so important to be understood? Because the Torah is the measuring stick to all doctrine, if it does not mesh with Torah it should not be believed, simple as that and let's not forget the scripture which says: G-d's word is a lamp unto my feet.
ENJOY THIS VIDEO!
There are 10 parts to this video I started with the last, so if you have the patiance to see them all I recomend it highly!