Yuku free message boards

Beloved wrote:

---

Hello Always and Zachary

Although I've been around I feel like I'm jumping in midstream on your recent dialogue with each other. But jump in I am going to do anyhow.

Here is what you said a few replies ago Always:

All I am trying to get at is the claim that Judaism must be rejected IF one were to claim the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the One sent by God to save all Israel. I am sure that many people MUCH more knowledgeable then us must have surely looked at all the expectations the Jewish people had for their messiah. If the "proofs" you say are needed were not fulfilled in Jesus then how have "christian" folks explained these issues to date? Are their explanations so far fetched?

I haven't read anything you've written yet that forces the rejection of Jesus as Israel's Messiah, only the rejection of some of the pat concepts of the christian church as we are taught them [and many of them are the very topics we have wrestled with here in this community in the past]

And here is your reply (to this portion) Zachary:

I guess what I should ask is what are your expectations regarding who Messiah is? And what did Jesus accomplish in your eyes as you see him in this role? I have no issue with your opinions, I'm just trying to get to the heart of our different perspectives. If one accepts Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, then obviously he did something to gain that title in your eyes. On the other hand, if one does not believe in original sin, or in the necessity of blood atonement for forgiveness, and Israel as a people is still waiting to be redeemed, then from that perspective one is still in the waiting stage for someone to meet the criteria laid out in scripture.

Beloved: Okay, here are a few of my comments on these exchanges (just the ones above, however).

The issue here seems to be "Messianic Expectations" and, Can I be candid enough to admit that reading this exhange is a little frustrating for me? Mind you, it is not what either of you have said that is frustrating to me. But if we were all three to sit down at a coffee table, have one of our favorite beverages and just converse about these things, it would be a lot more satisfactory experience (at least for me). I am not going to claim that I've studied as extensively as I would like to on this subject of Messianic Expectations, but I've done a fair share of it, as time permits and events allow. Perhaps my thoughts will at least add "more food for thought"

On the one hand, I've seen how many "Christians" have taken various Biblical Passage in the Hebrew Scriptures, called The Old Testament, as both Prophetic and Messianic. Examples would be the types of "Messianic Prophecies" (as they are termed) found in various portions of the book of Isaiah. These passages are taken to demonstrate how Jesus/Yeshua is the Messiah. Right now I am not trying to present this in any type of a "biased" way, I'm just trying to present the facts as I've seen them play out. On the other hand, those very passages might not be taken as Messianic at all, by the Hebrew People (I'll just use "Jewish People" from here out in this reply, with the understanding that we are dealing with Hebrew Scripture). The reason I say that they "might not" be understood to be Messianic, even if they are taken to be Prophetic, is that there is at least strong discussion as to whether some of Isaiah's Prophecy is not about a Messiah (especially a specific singular Messianic Individual) but rather about Israel, the collective group identified as "Israel." This is just one example of a difference of opinion as to the nature of what some might consider to be a clear Messianic Prophecy. My point is, this is not as clear cut of an issue as one might expect coming from a certain background. Again,I am not making an accusation about improper use of Scripture on the one hand, nor about incorrect interpretation of Scripture, I am just stating the viewpoints that I find very often are not understood. I could say more, but allow me to move on.

Another issue is that even with the Messianic Expectation which some, perhaps even many, "Jewish People" have regarding an actual Messiah figure, there is discussion, nay even argumentative debate (a great Jewish sport) about the Role of Messiah. So great is the debate that there have been many conclusions that there will actually be TWO MESSIAHS. Now, whether this sounds strange or not, I am on firm ground in bringing up this consisderation of TWO Messiahs. The Expectations were such that it seemed quite "impossible" for ONE MESSIAH to fulfil all the Expected Roles of Messiah. Many "Jewish People" who seriously study would not be unfamiliar with what I am saying, but many, or most "Christians" wouldn't have a clue, possibly never even hearing of such a thing, or it never even entering into their mind that such a thought was possible. But, as you can imagine, if Messiah had such diverse Roles as to lend itself to the "Jewish Debate" that there might be TWO MESSIAHS, can't we easily see how ONE MESSIAH might not fulfill "all" the Messianic Roles or Functions?

Can you see why Beloved claims to be frustrated when reading exchanges on this topic, although he is not frustrated with anyone's comments?

Am I Boring You to Tears? or Would you like me to continue and tell you how the lack of understanding regarding this has lead to "poor preaching" and "teaching"?

Nobody ought to feel bad if they aren't aware of this, even one who is said to be the Greatest Prophet who ever lived asked for a little clarification.

Beloved

Beloved wrote:

---

Hello Glen,

Glen, your said:
"Two Messiahs?"

Beloved's Reply:
Yep, that's what I said. I didn't say I agreed with it (or not), because that's not the issue. The question was "Jesus" and whether He has fulfilled the Messianic Expectations (plural). Without getting into what all of those are, I've provided a little bit of history as to how some view this, that there very well could be "Two Messiahs." This at least has been argued. Given your reply "Two Messiahs" I take that you were unaware of this proposal, so in that I have informed you of something you were not aware of. So far, so good, "we're learning then."
Now here is the Example you've provided -

Glen-I have heard of it before that some Rabbis thought this way, I have not found that to be the case from scripture.

Glen, You Said:
The fact that he was called the second Adam shows His ministery covered all the bases, if we start there and go forward as far as the kingdom promised since and from the foundation is concerned, He fulfilled it all from the singular and plural types, shadows, similitudes, figurative, His role as a kinsmen redeemer which was taught in the law was missed by the Jews, as was His death, burial, and resurrection it was hid from them for reason explained in 1Cor 2:7-but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8-Which none of the princes of this world knew; for had the known it, they would not have cruicufied the Lord of glory. Christs work reconciled it all, Colossians 1:20-And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. One Messiah. One kinsmen Redeemer, One Adam, ect.....................

Glen-I think that pretty much explains why it was missed.

Beloved's Reply:
The Example is that you have provided a string of "theologically charged phrases" - "Second Adam" and "singular and plural types, shadows, similitudes, figurative, etc. etc. etc." Which doesn't necessarily help in our search for clarity. First, does everyone, or "most people" understand what you are talking about when you string together a lot of terms like this? You can't just string these phrases out, then say "There's One Messiah" end of story! Well, you can, but it's not convincing - except perhaps to those who "already believe."

Glen-I figured you had enough scripture under your belt that I wouldn't have to explain in detail every thing Christ was fulfilling, you know the different titles prescribe to Him, and what they mean in relation to His role has a kinsmen redeemer for the sons of adam.


We can not let the "theological jargon" which flows freely from a memorized standard set of doctrines etched deeply into the mind undercut or kill our creative examination of matters at hand. Once our "theology" becomes set in concrete, and should I say often "traditional" viewpoints, they have a tendancy to hinder our dynamic thinking process.

Glen-Sorry to side track your creative examination by all mean carry on, I am sure some find it interesting.


Look, if we take "Jesus' own words" - didn't he talk about "Elijah Coming First"? Was this in response (whether stated or not in the text) to the concept that there would be Two Figures Ushering In "The Messianc Age"? I know what "Jesus said" in response to this, but my consideration is whether this statement was occassioned by some common or popular idea that there would be another Figure arising along with Messiah, and ushering in the Messianic Age. Oh, I know those reading this with any type of New Testament Biblical exposure are thinking (Yeah, it's John the Baptist). And, if we recall, some thought him to be the Messiah. John, however, literally fingered "Jesus" in a exclamatory declaration. Yet, even after this, some well meaning Christian Preachers argue that John himself had his doubts about Jesus being The Messiah! Wouldn't it be strange that "the one" who ushered in the Messiah as "his forerunner" had such doubts? In light of this, I think we all could offer Zachary (the name of John The Baptists Father BTW) a little heartfelt space.

Beloved

Glen-The obvious foreknowledge of God comes into play here.