Twin Jewsih Messiahs?

[rrosskopf]

Messiah simply means anointed one. being a messiah doesn't necessarily equate to being the son of God. I'm not sure how a messiah is different from a prophet. Perhaps a messiah is a savior who opens a dispensation of the Gospel. In that respect Joseph Smith would qualify as the Messiah Ben Joseph. The mission of the Messiah Ben Joseph was to restore the truth to the Earth in the latter days. According to prophecy his father would also be named Joseph. Also according to prophecy he would die at the hands of evil men before the age of 40. It isn't a perfect fit to Joseph Smith but it is a very good fit.

 

[rosends]

Messiah simply means anointed one. being a messiah doesn't necessarily equate to being the son of God. I'm not sure how a messiah is different from a prophet. Perhaps a messiah is a savior who opens a dispensation of the Gospel. In that respect Joseph Smith would qualify as the Messiah Ben Joseph. The mission of the Messiah Ben Joseph was to restore the truth to the Earth in the latter days. According to prophecy his father would also be named Joseph. Also according to prophecy he would die at the hands of evil men before the age of 40. It isn't a perfect fit to Joseph Smith but it is a very good fit.

Messiah and prophet are two unrelated concepts. Prophets were not anointed (necessarily) and anointed ones weren't generally prophets.

 

[rosends]

Yeah of course it's subltly stated with room for misinterpretation, or parallel interpretation if you prefer, otherwise how would the prophecy that the Jews would not recognize Jesus be fullfilled?

So even though the text repeatedly says that the suffering servant is the nation of Israel,, you have decided that it subtly says something else (which it never actually says) because you need to explain how the people to whom the text was given and about whom the text was written do not interpret it the way you want them to?

I don't know how to do the emoji thing, but pretend I put one of them facepalms right about here.

 

[Kemosloby]

So even though the text repeatedly says that the suffering servant is the nation of Israel,, you have decided that it subtly says something else (which it never actually says) because you need to explain how the people to whom the text was given and about whom the text was written do not interpret it the way you want them to?

I don't know how to do the emoji thing, but pretend I put one of them facepalms right about here.

I suppose i'm only supposed to see the hand in front of my face. But if you read the bible right Israel is symbolic of Christ. And the Prophets subtly talk about Christ throughout the OT.

 

[rosends]

I suppose i'm only supposed to see the hand in front of my face. But if you read the bible right Israel is symbolic of Christ. And the Prophets subtly talk about Christ throughout the OT.

That statement has the same value as if I said "If you read the bible right, Babylon is symbolic of Voldemort. And the prophets subtly talk about Voldemort throughout the OT."

And, "If you read the gospels right, Jesus is symbolic of Muhammed. And the gospels subtly talk about Muhammed throughout the gospels."

 

[Kemosloby]

That statement has the same value as if I said "If you read the bible right, Babylon is symbolic of Voldemort. And the prophets subtly talk about Voldemort throughout the OT."

And, "If you read the gospels right, Jesus is symbolic of Muhammed. And the gospels subtly talk about Muhammed throughout the gospels."

You know there's no comparison there. Neither of those were called the Son of God. So it's established that Israel is the Son of God, so let that be one indicator that Israel is symbolic of Christ.

Exodus 4:22 Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,

 

[rosends]

You know there's no comparison there. Neither of those were called the Son of God. So it's established that Israel is the Son of God, so let that be one indicator that Israel is symbolic of Christ.

Exodus 4:22 Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,

There is an absolute comparison. The later text needs to find reference to it so it goes to the earlier one and decides that the text is talking about it. But it isn't.

You see, you start by saying "The first text says Israel is God's son."
Then you say "My theology demands that Jesus is God's son, and the second text says that Jesus is God's son."
Then you finish with "Therefore, the first text was referring to Jesus."

But if the second text is written intentionally to exploit the first then the first never intended to be understood that way -- later people created a situation where they could make an empty claim, justified by nothing more than their own second text.

Angels are called sons of God in Job 1:6. So mention of angels prefigures Jesus? King Solomon was also called God's son. So that must mean that the text isn't talking about King Solomon, but about Jesus. And if I write a book tomorrow in which Harry Potter is called God's son, I can then say that the text was subtly talking about Harry Potter.

What you claim as "reading the text right" I say is pure invention driven by a gaping theological flaw.

 

[Kemosloby]

There is an absolute comparison. The later text needs to find reference to it so it goes to the earlier one and decides that the text is talking about it. But it isn't.

You see, you start by saying "The first text says Israel is God's son."
Then you say "My theology demands that Jesus is God's son, and the second text says that Jesus is God's son."
Then you finish with "Therefore, the first text was referring to Jesus."

But if the second text is written intentionally to exploit the first then the first never intended to be understood that way -- later people created a situation where they could make an empty claim, justified by nothing more than their own second text.

Angels are called sons of God in Job 1:6. So mention of angels prefigures Jesus? King Solomon was also called God's son. So that must mean that the text isn't talking about King Solomon, but about Jesus. And if I write a book tomorrow in which Harry Potter is called God's son, I can then say that the text was subtly talking about Harry Potter.

What you claim as "reading the text right" I say is pure invention driven by a gaping theological flaw.

Which of them met the second criteria, of the suffering servant. If Israel suffered God's firstborn Son suffered. It's hardly an empty claim for someone to be crucified in order to fulfill the prophecy of the suffering servant.
What line calls Soloman a Son of God, because he was also a prophet and could have been talking about Jesus in some way or another.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Anyone got info on the twin Messiahs , what happened tot hem why didn't the desciples accept them?

Help accelerate the Messianic Era by unravelling the riddle of the Twin Messiahs – the Josephic and Davidic Messiahs according to the secret teachings of the Gaon of Vilna

Our understanding is there are two Messiahs. Messiah Ben Joseph and Messiah ben David.

They are the Bab and Baha'u'llah according to Bahá'í's.

 

[rosends]

Which of them met the second criteria, of the suffering servant. If Israel suffered God's firstborn Son suffered. It's hardly an empty claim for someone to be crucified in order to fulfill the prophecy of the suffering servant.
What line calls Soloman a Son of God, because he was also a prophet and could have been talking about Jesus in some way or another.

When you write the second SO THAT it conforms with the first, any of them can meet a phantom criterion. Interestingly, there is no prophecy of anyone's being crucified so claiming that the crucifiction satisfied some prophecy is an additional error. Harry Potter suffered. Mohammed suffered. The 1962 Mets suffered, as did all of their fans. In the book I will write tomorrow, the main character will suffer. None of this has anything to do with the bible, just like your gospel stories.

 

[Kemosloby]

When you write the second SO THAT it conforms with the first, any of them can meet a phantom criterion. Interestingly, there is no prophecy of anyone's being crucified so claiming that the crucifiction satisfied some prophecy is an additional error. Harry Potter suffered. Mohammed suffered. The 1962 Mets suffered, as did all of their fans. In the book I will write tomorrow, the main character will suffer. None of this has anything to do with the bible, just like your gospel stories.

None of them suffered like the suffering servant. We're not done yet. How does God, sometimes, communicate with people? He does it in dreams. Lets look for a dreamlike image. The king in Daniel for instance was shown a dream. The wise men couldn't answer it because it wasn't spelling out the message crystal clear, but a prophet could answer it. Or of course hindsight after the dream has been fullfilled would be easy enough to see. Abraham sacrificing his son Issac is an image. At the last minute Issac was replaced by a sheep. Then the Passover lamb takes the place of the sheep, presented as a blood sacrifice to save the people of Israel. Then Jesus, Gods Son replaces the Passover lamb and is sacrificed to save his people. Very dreamlike but visibly connected.

 

[rosends]

None of them suffered like the suffering servant. We're not done yet. How does God, sometimes, communicate with people? He does it in dreams. Lets look for a dreamlike image. The king in Daniel for instance was shown a dream. The wise men couldn't answer it because it wasn't spelling out the message crystal clear, but a prophet could answer it. Or of course hindsight after the dream has been fullfilled would be easy enough to see. Abraham sacrificing his son Issac is an image. At the last minute Issac was replaced by a sheep. Then the Passover lamb takes the place of the sheep, presented as a blood sacrifice to save the people of Israel. Then Jesus, Gods Son replaces the Passover lamb and is sacrificed to save his people. Very dreamlike but visibly connected.

None suffered "like" the suffering servant? And yet they ARE the suffering servant. You, years later, don't get to decide that something fits better to your personal standard than what the text explicitly says. How does God communicate sometimes? Through a day time vision. Through a burning bush. Through a mountain on fire. Through handwriting on a wall while people are awake. Through a prophet's message. So your arbitrary decision that one mode is useful for your argument just excludes all the contrary examples. Then the statement that a lamb takes the place of a sheep has no validity, even in a dream. You are stringing together unrelated ideas and words to create your belief system.

 

[Kemosloby]

None suffered "like" the suffering servant? And yet they ARE the suffering servant. You, years later, don't get to decide that something fits better to your personal standard than what the text explicitly says. How does God communicate sometimes? Through a day time vision. Through a burning bush. Through a mountain on fire. Through handwriting on a wall while people are awake. Through a prophet's message. So your arbitrary decision that one mode is useful for your argument just excludes all the contrary examples. Then the statement that a lamb takes the place of a sheep has no validity, even in a dream. You are stringing together unrelated ideas and words to create your belief system.

There you go, a burning bush. The lamb that Abraham sacrificed came out of a bush. And the Lord who was the preincarnate Jesus, the lamb of God, who was sacrificed, also came out of a bush.

 

[rosends]

There you go, a burning bush. The lamb that Abraham sacrificed came out of a bush. And the Lord who was the preincarnate Jesus, the lamb of God, who was sacrificed, also came out of a bush.

No, Abraham sacrificed a ram, not a lamb, and its horns were caught in a "svach" a thicket, not a "sneh", a bush.

 

[Kemosloby]

No, Abraham sacrificed a ram, not a lamb, and its horns were caught in a "svach" a thicket, not a "sneh", a bush.

Thicket, bush, close enough for a "veiled" meaning. Look at what Abraham says before about the ram.

Genesis 22:8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

Now that looks like another veiled meaning, The more obvious meaning is God provided the lamb for Abrahams sacrifice. But it uses the word ram to clue you in that there is another meaning. That God himself would be the lamb..i.e Jesus on the cross.

 

[rosends]

Thicket, bush, close enough for a "veiled" meaning. Look at what Abraham says before about the ram.

Genesis 22:8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

Now that looks like another veiled meaning, The more obvious meaning is God provided the lamb for Abrahams sacrifice. But it uses the word ram to clue you in that there is another meaning. That God himself would be the lamb..i.e Jesus on the cross.

"Close enough"? Two different animals and two different pieces of shrubbery. Is "tree" close enough? Is any reference to a tree also a "veiled meaning" about Jesus? You know what else is close enough to "thicket"? "Branch" "grass" "leaves" and "vine." So when the text talks about "is a tree the man of the field" it must mean "Jesus." Makes perfect sense.

And then another verse "looks like" a "veiled meaning"? No, it looks like a statement. Abraham expected a lamb and got a ram -- not just different words, different animals. And none of it can mean that God will be a sacrifice. God can't be a sacrifice. You are still grasping at straws and deciding that anything can be a veiled reference to something because you need it to be even if it makes no sense.

 

[Kemosloby]

"Close enough"? Two different animals and two different pieces of shrubbery. Is "tree" close enough? Is any reference to a tree also a "veiled meaning" about Jesus? You know what else is close enough to "thicket"? "Branch" "grass" "leaves" and "vine." So when the text talks about "is a tree the man of the field" it must mean "Jesus." Makes perfect sense.

And then another verse "looks like" a "veiled meaning"? No, it looks like a statement. Abraham expected a lamb and got a ram -- not just different words, different animals. And none of it can mean that God will be a sacrifice. God can't be a sacrifice. You are still grasping at straws and deciding that anything can be a veiled reference to something because you need it to be even if it makes no sense.

It does make sense though. Abraham was fully ready to kill Isaac until the angel stopped him. So when he talked about "God will provide the lamb" He meant Jesus, the savior to resurrect Isaac from the dead.

 

[wizanda]

So even though the text repeatedly says that the suffering servant is the nation of Israel

No it doesn't; if you could prove that systematically without adding, then that would be great, yet if you analyze each 'servant' reference specifically, they've all got their own contexts....

Applying one brush to every 'servant' reference is just sloppy.

I don't know how to do the emoji thing, but pretend I put one of them facepalms right about here.

To get the Smileys, you press the Smiley button in the text editor, and the facepalm is in the second page (Emoji Smiles).

Messiah and prophet are two unrelated concepts.

Prophets also had the Holy Anointing oil.

 

[rosends]

It does make sense though. Abraham was fully ready to kill Isaac until the angel stopped him. So when he talked about "God will provide the lamb" He meant Jesus, the savior to resurrect Isaac from the dead.

When he talked about "God will provide the lamb" he meant that God would provide whatever he was supposed to sacrifice. In fact, what he said was "God will seek out for Himself, the lamb...my son" hinting that Isaac was what God would find. No Jesus, no "savior".

 

[rosends]

No it doesn't; if you could prove that systematically without adding, then that would be great, yet if you analyze each 'servant' reference specifically, they've all got their own contexts....

Applying one brush to every 'servant' reference is just sloppy.

Um, ok, my claim was " the text repeatedly says that the suffering servant is the nation of Israel". Here:

Isaiah 41:8 -- But you, Israel, are My servant; Jacob, whom I have chosen; seed of Abraham, My friend.
Isaiah 43:10 -- "You are My witnesses," says the L-rd, "and My servant whom I have chosen, in order that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He; before Me no G-d was formed, nor shall there be any after Me."
Isaiah 44:1 -- But now hear, O Jacob, My servant, and Israel, whom I have chosen.
Isaiah 44:21 -- Remember these things, O Jacob and Israel, for you are My servant: I formed you, you are My servant; O Israel, you will not be forgotten by Me.

there are more in Isaiah. Show me where the text identifies Jesus as the servant.

Prophets also had the Holy Anointing oil.

They had it, like Samuel, in order to anoint the king. Elijah never actually anointed Elisha, and the text of 1 Chronicles distinguishes between the two categories of "prophets" and "anointed ones."