Messiah - King and Priest - Like Moses

[Melchizedek]

Moses served as the function of a king of Israel, and as a priest teaching the Torah. So then, if the Messiah is like Moses...

[ShirChadash]

:thumbsup: there ya go -- when you can't get anywhere with you other posts, spam the forum. :thumbsup: nice!

[Melchizedek]

:thumbsup: there ya go -- when you can't get anywhere with you other posts, spam the forum. :thumbsup: nice!

Typically when someone wishes to take a thread into a different tangent not guided by the Original Post, they will open a new thread. Would you rather I break forum etiquette and skew the topics of your threads instead?

With that in mind, back on topic:

Is the Messiah like Moses, who himself was in the role of king and priest for Israel?

[ShirChadash]

:wave: what does the Tanach (Scripture) tell you in answer to this query?

[Melchizedek]

Is it not written, "a prophet like me?"

[ShirChadash]

So now, you think that a prophet is the same as you assert in your thread title:
Messiah - King and Priest -- Like Moses

[Melchizedek]

So now, you think that a prophet is the same as you assert in your thread title:
Messiah - King and Priest -- Like Moses



No, not just a prophet, but one that "The LORD your God will raise up for you" and "a prophet like me from among your own brothers." and "You must listen to him." That prophet.

Who is like Moses? Do the 13 principles come to mind? There is none like Moses. So then, who is like Moses? The Messiah.

[ShirChadash]

No, not just a prophet, but one that "The LORD your God will raise up for you" and "a prophet like me from among your own brothers." and "You must listen to him." That prophet.

Who is like Moses? Do the 13 principles come to mind? There is none like Moses. So then, who is like Moses? The Messiah.
A prophet like Moshe from among the brethren...

HEH HEH and you see the words "priest", "king" and even "HASHEM" in there as well. You are one confused pup, Mel.

[Torah613]

A prophet like Moshe from among the brethren...

HEH HEH and you see the words "priest", "king" and even "HASHEM" in there as well. You are one confused pup, Mel.

its enough to make one want to rip their shirt and scream blasphemy.

Yochanan

[Melchizedek]

A prophet like Moshe from among the brethren...

HEH HEH and you see the words "priest", "king" and even "HASHEM" in there as well. You are one confused pup, Mel.


As a prophet, what did Moshe do? Taught Torah. Judged Israel. Made atonement.

[Torah613]

ok, I'm with you so far. now what on earth makes you think that HaMoshiach will be HaShem despite all the evidence in Torah to the contrary?

Yochanan

[Melchizedek]

ok, I'm with you so far. now what on earth makes you think that HaMoshiach will be HaShem despite all the evidence in Torah to the contrary?

Yochanan

There is no place in the Torah that our redeemer and savior will be a man.

HaShem is manifested as a man. How is this possible? As it is said in the Talmud concerning Simon the Righteous, that there was a man with him during Yom Kippur for each of the 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, and that man, according to the Talmud, was HaShem.

Usually the evidence "to the contrary" is where it is written "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind."

Well that is precisely the point. A man can not be the fullness of who God is. At all. So what is our claim? Yeshua is not the fullness of all that God is. He is, born of a woman, not of a man. Is Yeshua a man? You bet. Is he HaShem? Yes.

How so?

The aspect of the Messiah NOT being HaShem is not found anywhere in the Torah.

I come from the position that HaShem is our Redeemer. Don't we say this every shacarit? We have no redeemer, no savior, but HaShem! HaShem has to be the Messiah in order to be Israel's savior!

In fact, everything I have read, siddurim, machsurim, Baal Turim, the Torah, Nevvim, Kevutvim, Talmud, etc., all say that HaShem is our Savior and Redeemer. We have no Savior but HaShem! Who is it then that is the vessel of that redemption, who is the Messiah?

So then this is what I believe Yeshua is. He is the vessel of HaShem who makes redemption for us.

How so?

In the Torah Avraham and Moshe offer themselves for the redemption of Israel. So does Isaac. In all cases, HaShem rejects Avraham and Moshe, as He will provide a savior. David also offers himself as a sacrifice of redemption for Israel, and HaShem rejects his request (but let's stick to the Torah). Only Isaac was offered, yet too was rejected (although some of the midrashim imply his soul left him the moment the knife touched his neck, but this would only serve to confirm that the Messiah was to come and die and rise to life again anyways). That "on the mountain HaShem is seen" points to WHO is it that is seen on the mountain in the Akeidah - the offering of Isaac. So then, HaShem will do the same on that same mountain. Just like Isaac, who was offered up, who carried his own wood, was the same age, and represents the closest actual picture to the act of Messiah's redemption for Israel.

The reason that they were not the Messiah, in that they did not bring redemption to Israel (though their death atoned for Israel), is they are not righteous enough; which also includes Aaron, and Moses, and if no one is like Moses - no one is as righteous as Moses who spoke with HaShem face to face; who then is the Messiah who is more righteous than Moses who can offer redemption for Israel?

Same too with Seth, and Abel. When Abel died, and Eve has a son, Seth is looked at by Eve to be the "seed" in place of Abel. Yet he too is not righteous enough (for the redemption did not come by Seth or Abel). Midrash Rabbah on Genesis and Ruth both state clearly that the seed of the woman, "her seed" refers to the Messiah. So what of this seed, when Eve realizes Seth is not the Messiah? In the last verse of Genesis 4, "all men began to call upon the name of HaShem." HaShem then is the seed.

How so? Abel did not rise to life after he died and did not provide redemption. Just as Isaac was expected to raise to life, as Abraham states "we will return to you," Abel did not. Why then "at that time?" Since Seth was not righteous enough, and had a son after him, mankind finally realized that the Messiah comes in the future, and does not come through human effort (circumcision as a reminder of this!?); that the Messiah is not through Adam - not through man, it was realized, that the Messiah was to come. Who then is it that does not come from Adam, who is "not a man," but still dies and offers redemption? Only that Who Adam was made in the image of. HaShem. The Messiah, as it is written in the Targumim, the Word of the Lord made everything, and made Adam. So then we know that the Word of HaShem, the Messiah, the seed, "her seed" was to be born of a woman, was to die, and was to provide redemption by His death, proving it had been made by his rising to life "returning" to us.

We could go on with the Memra: who is it that created the earth? Who is it that is interacting with Moses? According to Judaism, its HaShem, it's Memra.

The aspect of HaShem we interact with is the Word, and it is that aspect of HaShem that is capable of interacting with us without consuming us, and thus through Him we are able to interact with HaShem (and this is also who Moses spoke with face to face).

This is who the Messiah is: HaShem. For if no one is like Moses, then no one is like the Messiah who is like Moses! So then, is Moses the Messiah? No, for God rejected him when he offered himself for Israel's redemption on the mountain. So then, who redeems Israel? Who does the Torah say is Israel's redeemer? HaShem! HaShem, Our Redeemer. And if we do not listen to Him, He will not forgive our sins, for then how can one make true teshuvah if one rejects HaShem?

Going back to Gen 4, the interpretation that they "profaned" calling on the name of HaShem in Gen 4, is wrong to a point since it relates to Joel 2:32 - where it is written "all who call upon the name of HaShem will be saved." Joel is certainly not saying that one is profaning the name when calls to HaShem for salvation!

In fact, those who profane the Name, do so when they reject HaShem's salvation! So if one says they dont need salvation, what then? Then its profaning the Name. The rejection of salvation is the worst form of idolatry since its self deification! Elevating oneself to a position of God is to have fallen for the idolatry of self - and Rashi agrees.

From Eve's perspective, the messiah was going to come in the future, as the seed of the woman is of the woman, and not of Adam. At that point they realized it was through the seed of the woman, and that He will come in the future, is thus why they call on the name of HaShem.

So two immediate Torah proofs for HaShem and the Messiah: Gen 4:26, and the Akediah.

Furthermore, the death of Aaron points us to the fact that the death of the High Priest, atones for Israel.

So then, who is a more righteous High Priest than Aaron, and thus provides not just atonement, but also redemption for all Israel because of His righteousness? HaShem. Another argument: if the Tabernacle on earth was made in the pattern of the one in heaven, then who is the High Priest of the heavenly Tabernacle? HaShem. The Memra. Our Redeemer, Our Savior, Our King, The Messiah.

[Torah613]

oy gevalt. nowhere in Torah or Talmud is HaShem depicted as a man. In fact it says there, right in Torah that HaShem cannot be a man. Think about it. If HaShem is a humang being, he cannot be omnipresent, omniscent, omnipotent, etc. for the period of a lifetime. Meaning in short, that for that lifetime either 1. G-d cannot be G-d (Chas V'Shalom) or 2. that HaShem would be split, thus ending up with polytheism (chas V'Shalom).

Either way, you end up with a position completely outside the box of Judaism.

Yochanan

[Melchizedek]

oy gevalt. nowhere in Torah or Talmud is HaShem depicted as a man. In fact it says there, right in Torah that HaShem cannot be a man. Think about it. If HaShem is a humang being, he cannot be omnipresent, omniscent, omnipotent, etc. for the period of a lifetime. Meaning in short, that for that lifetime either 1. G-d cannot be G-d (Chas V'Shalom) or 2. that HaShem would be split, thus ending up with polytheism (chas V'Shalom).

Either way, you end up with a position completely outside the box of Judaism.

Yochanan


Yoma 39b

Our Rabbis taught: In the year in which Simeon the Righteous died, he foretold them that he would die. They said: Whence do you know that? He replied: On every Day of Atonement an old man, dressed in white, wrapped in white, would join me, entering [the Holy of Holies] and leaving with me, but today I was joined by an old man, dressed in black, wrapped in black, who entered, but did not leave, with me. After the festival [of Sukkoth] he was sick for seven days and [then] died. His brethren [that year] the priests forbore to mention the Ineffable Name in pronouncing the [priestly] blessing.

Menachoth 109b

In the year in which Simeon the Just died, he foretold them that he would die. They said to him, ‘Whence do you know it?’ He replied. ‘Every Day of Atonement there met me an old man, dressed in white and wrapped in white, who entered with me [into the Holy of Holies] and left with me; but this year there met me an old man, dressed in black and wrapped in black, who entered with me but did not leave with me’. After the Festival [of
Tabernacles] he was ill for seven days and then died.


[I]What man is allowed in the Holy of Holies according to the Torah, except the High Priest? Who is the man in the Holy of Holies with Simeon?


Siddur pg 17 "By the End of Days He will send our Messiah to redeem those longing for His final salvation."

In the same Siddur we repeatedly say we have no redeemer or savior but HaShem, so then the Messiah is HaShem if he is our only redeemer and only savior.

Some of my friends are Chabadnicks and I found this while reading the Tanya:

Tanya, Likute Amarim Chap 4, pg 13-17
"Now these three "garments," deriving from the Torah and its commandments, although they are called "garments" of the nefesh, ruach and neshamah, their quality, nevertheless, is infinitely higher and greater than that of the nefesh, ruach and neshamah themselves, as explained in the Zohar, (Part I, 24a; II, 6oa) because the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are one. The meaning of this is that the Torah, which is the wisdom and will of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His glorious Essence are one, since He is both the Knower and the Knowledge, and so on, as explained above in the name of Maimonides. And although the Holy One, blessed be He, is called En Sof ("infinite"), and "His greatness can never be fathomed," and "No thought can apprehend Him at all," and so are also His will and His wisdom, as it is written: "There is no searching of His understanding," and "Canst thou be searching find G-d?) and again: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts" - nevertheless, it is in this connection that it has been said: "Where you find the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He, there you also find His humility...
Therefore has the Torah been compared to water, for just as water descends from a higher to a lower level, so has the Torah descended from its place of glory, which is His blessed will and wisdom: {for} the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are one and the same and no thought can apprehend Him at all. Thence [the Torah] has progressively descended through hidden stages, stage after stage, with the descent of the worlds, until it clothed itself in corporeal substances and in things of this world, comprising almost all of the commandments of the Torah, their laws and in the combinations of material letters, written with ink in a book, namely, the 24 volumes fo the Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographa: all this in order that every thought should be able to apprehend them and even the faculties of speech and action, which are on a lower level than thought should be able to apprehend them and be clothed in them."...
... But as for the essence of the Holy One, blessed be He, no thought can apprehend Him at all, except when it apprehends, and is clothed in, the Torah and its Mitzvot; only then does it truly apprehend, and is clothed in, the Holy One, blessed be He, inasmuch as the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are one and the same. For although the Torah has been clothed in lower material things, it is by way of illustration, like embracing the king. There is no difference, in regard to the degree of closeness and attachment to the king, whether while embracing the king, the latter is then wearing one robe or several robes, so long as th royal person is in them. Likewise, when the king, for his part, embraces one with his arm, even though it is dressed in his robes; as it is written, "And His right hand embraces me," which refers to the Torah which was given by G-d's right hand, which is the quality of chesed and water."

This is awesome as it shows how when we embrace Yeshua we can be embracing HaShem according to Tanya. It shows that HaShem can be corporeal without BEING corporeal and that the Torah and HaShem are one.

So then, to say that God is not a man, means all his fullness is not a man. But that which we interact with, the face of HaShem that Moses saw, is none other than the Word, who is the Messiah, and since only HaShem is our redeemer, then the Messiah, our redeemer, is HaShem.

HaShem can choose to manifest himself as a man but not be man, and still be HaShem.

It can be comparable to a King, who wanted to see if his subjects loved him, and wrapped himself in pauper's clothes to dwell among his subjects. He is not a pauper, although he choose to look like one. He is still the King, even if he looks like a pauper.

So too HaShem is still God, and not a man, even though he can choose to manifest himself as a man.

[kivi]

Typically when someone wishes to take a thread into a different tangent not guided by the Original Post, they will open a new thread. Would you rather I break forum etiquette and skew the topics of your threads instead?

With that in mind, back on topic:

Is the Messiah like Moses, who himself was in the role of king and priest for Israel?


Moses was not a king. His childern were never considered to be his policial successors. Moses was not a Kohan. Aaron and his family were the Kohanim. Moses temporarily filled the functions of a political and ceremonial status until the permanent people could fulfill their assigned duties. But his temporary asumption did not make him either Melech or Kohan. What he was was a teacher and a prophet.

[kivi]

There is no place in the Torah that our redeemer and savior will be a man.
kivi says: Correct.

HaShem is manifested as a man. How is this possible? As it is said in the Talmud concerning Simon the Righteous, that there was a man with him during Yom Kippur for each of the 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, and that man, according to the Talmud, was HaShem.
kivi says: That is not true.

Usually the evidence "to the contrary" is where it is written "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind."

that is precisely the point. A man can not be the fullness of who God is. At all. So what is our claim? Yeshua is not the fullness of all that God is. He is, born of a woman, not of a man. Is Yeshua a man? You bet. Is he HaShem? Yes.
kviv says: God said that He was not a man. Therefore anything to do with Jesus Christ is forbidden because Jesus Christ was a man. This is a matter of G-d's integrity. If G-d said that he is not a Man, for G-d to keep His word, the Jesus Christ does/can not count. And G-d specifically points out His inability to lie is one of the prime things that makes Him not a man.

How so?

The aspect of the Messiah NOT being HaShem is not found anywhere in the Torah.
kivi says: Wrong. The Torah is very clear. G-d is not a man. Moshciah is a man. Therefore, Moshiach is not G-d.

I come from the position that HaShem is our Redeemer. Don't we say this every shacarit? We have no redeemer, no savior, but HaShem! HaShem has to be the Messiah in order to be Israel's savior!
kivi says: It is one of the fundamental mistakes of Christianity to say that Moshiach is our Redeemer. Only G-d is our Redeemer. No human can be our Redeemer. Moshiach is our annointed. Redeemer and annointed are not the same thing.

In fact, everything I have read, siddurim, machsurim, Baal Turim, the Torah, Nevvim, Kevutvim, Talmud, etc., all say that HaShem is our Savior and Redeemer. We have no Savior but HaShem! Who is it then that is the vessel of that redemption, who is the Messiah?
kivi says: Christian gibberish. G-d does not use 'vessels' for His redeemption. He comes Himself, in His own person, to Redeem us. He does not need to kill Himself, Heaven forbid, to do this


So then this is what I believe Yeshua is. He is the vessel of HaShem who makes redemption for us.

How so?

In the Torah Avraham and Moshe offer themselves for the redemption of Israel. So does Isaac. In all cases, HaShem rejects Avraham and Moshe, as He will provide a savior. David also offers himself as a sacrifice of redemption for Israel, and HaShem rejects his request (but let's stick to the Torah). Only Isaac was offered, yet too was rejected (although some of the midrashim imply his soul left him the moment the knife touched his neck, but this would only serve to confirm that the Messiah was to come and die and rise to life again anyways). That "on the mountain HaShem is seen" points to WHO is it that is seen on the mountain in the Akeidah - the offering of Isaac. So then, HaShem will do the same on that same mountain. Just like Isaac, who was offered up, who carried his own wood, was the same age, and represents the closest actual picture to the act of Messiah's redemption for Israel.

The reason that they were not the Messiah, in that they did not bring redemption to Israel (though their death atoned for Israel), is they are not righteous enough; which also includes Aaron, and Moses, and if no one is like Moses - no one is as righteous as Moses who spoke with HaShem face to face; who then is the Messiah who is more righteous than Moses who can offer redemption for Israel?
kivi says: More Christian gibberish. It is not the righteousness of Moshiach that is the problem, every generation has a potential Moshiach. The problem is the righteousness of the generation. No generation has been worthy of Moshiach. All of the Christian gibberish of 'M' is a waste of time because it wrongly states the spiritual reality of B'nai Israel and all of Mankind.

Same too with Seth, and Abel. When Abel died, and Eve has a son, Seth is looked at by Eve to be the "seed" in place of Abel. Yet he too is not righteous enough (for the redemption did not come by Seth or Abel). Midrash Rabbah on Genesis and Ruth both state clearly that the seed of the woman, "her seed" refers to the Messiah. So what of this seed, when Eve realizes Seth is not the Messiah? In the last verse of Genesis 4, "all men began to call upon the name of HaShem." HaShem then is the seed.

How so? Abel did not rise to life after he died and did not provide redemption. Just as Isaac was expected to raise to life, as Abraham states "we will return to you," Abel did not. Why then "at that time?" Since Seth was not righteous enough, and had a son after him, mankind finally realized that the Messiah comes in the future, and does not come through human effort (circumcision as a reminder of this!?); that the Messiah is not through Adam - not through man, it was realized, that the Messiah was to come. Who then is it that does not come from Adam, who is "not a man," but still dies and offers redemption? Only that Who Adam was made in the image of. HaShem. The Messiah, as it is written in the Targumim, the Word of the Lord made everything, and made Adam. So then we know that the Word of HaShem, the Messiah, the seed, "her seed" was to be born of a woman, was to die, and was to provide redemption by His death, proving it had been made by his rising to life "returning" to us.

We could go on with the Memra: who is it that created the earth? Who is it that is interacting with Moses? According to Judaism, its HaShem, it's Memra.

The aspect of HaShem we interact with is the Word, and it is that aspect of HaShem that is capable of interacting with us without consuming us, and thus through Him we are able to interact with HaShem (and this is also who Moses spoke with face to face).

This is who the Messiah is: HaShem. For if no one is like Moses, then no one is like the Messiah who is like Moses! So then, is Moses the Messiah? No, for God rejected him when he offered himself for Israel's redemption on the mountain. So then, who redeems Israel? Who does the Torah say is Israel's redeemer? HaShem! HaShem, Our Redeemer. And if we do not listen to Him, He will not forgive our sins, for then how can one make true teshuvah if one rejects HaShem?
kivi says: More Christain gibberish. It is Christain gibberish when a Missionary says that a human sacrifice is necessary for Redeemption. G-d forbids and rejects human sacrifice.

Going back to Gen 4, the interpretation that they "profaned" calling on the name of HaShem in Gen 4, is wrong to a point since it relates to Joel 2:32 - where it is written "all who call upon the name of HaShem will be saved." Joel is certainly not saying that one is profaning the name when calls to HaShem for salvation!

In fact, those who profane the Name, do so when they reject HaShem's salvation! So if one says they dont need salvation, what then? Then its profaning the Name. The rejection of salvation is the worst form of idolatry since its self deification! Elevating oneself to a position of God is to have fallen for the idolatry of self - and Rashi agrees.
kivi says: Yes and as long as a Missionary teaches that Jesus Christ is a god, then they are rejecting HaShem's salvation.

From Eve's perspective, the messiah was going to come in the future, as the seed of the woman is of the woman, and not of Adam. At that point they realized it was through the seed of the woman, and that He will come in the future, is thus why they call on the name of HaShem.

So two immediate Torah proofs for HaShem and the Messiah: Gen 4:26, and the Akediah.

Furthermore, the death of Aaron points us to the fact that the death of the High Priest, atones for Israel.

So then, who is a more righteous High Priest than Aaron, and thus provides not just atonement, but also redemption for all Israel because of His righteousness? HaShem. Another argument: if the Tabernacle on earth was made in the pattern of the one in heaven, then who is the High Priest of the heavenly Tabernacle? HaShem. The Memra. Our Redeemer, Our Savior, Our King, The Messiah.
kivi says: Just a reminder after all the false quotes and false examples. No human sacrifice is permitted by G-d. G-d is not a man. G-d only is our Redeemer. No human killed as a sacrifice can provide salvation.

[kivi]

Yoma 39b

Our Rabbis taught: In the year in which Simeon the Righteous died, he foretold them that he would die. They said: Whence do you know that? He replied: On every Day of Atonement an old man, dressed in white, wrapped in white, would join me, entering [the Holy of Holies] and leaving with me, but today I was joined by an old man, dressed in black, wrapped in black, who entered, but did not leave, with me. After the festival [of Sukkoth] he was sick for seven days and [then] died. His brethren [that year] the priests forbore to mention the Ineffable Name in pronouncing the [priestly] blessing.

Menachoth 109b

In the year in which Simeon the Just died, he foretold them that he would die. They said to him, ‘Whence do you know it?’ He replied. ‘Every Day of Atonement there met me an old man, dressed in white and wrapped in white, who entered with me [into the Holy of Holies] and left with me; but this year there met me an old man, dressed in black and wrapped in black, who entered with me but did not leave with me’. After the Festival [of
Tabernacles] he was ill for seven days and then died.


[I]What man is allowed in the Holy of Holies according to the Torah, except the High Priest? Who is the man in the Holy of Holies with Simeon?
kivi says: This is a perfect example of twisting a source so that it conforms to a pre-held error. A vision is not the same as an human and to equate the two puts the integrity of the person so doing so at question.


Siddur pg 17 "By the End of Days He will send our Messiah to redeem those longing for His final salvation."

In the same Siddur we repeatedly say we have no redeemer or savior but HaShem, so then the Messiah is HaShem if he is our only redeemer and only savior.

Some of my friends are Chabadnicks and I found this while reading the Tanya:

Tanya, Likute Amarim Chap 4, pg 13-17
"Now these three "garments," deriving from the Torah and its commandments, although they are called "garments" of the nefesh, ruach and neshamah, their quality, nevertheless, is infinitely higher and greater than that of the nefesh, ruach and neshamah themselves, as explained in the Zohar, (Part I, 24a; II, 6oa) because the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are one. The meaning of this is that the Torah, which is the wisdom and will of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His glorious Essence are one, since He is both the Knower and the Knowledge, and so on, as explained above in the name of Maimonides. And although the Holy One, blessed be He, is called En Sof ("infinite"), and "His greatness can never be fathomed," and "No thought can apprehend Him at all," and so are also His will and His wisdom, as it is written: "There is no searching of His understanding," and "Canst thou be searching find G-d?) and again: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts" - nevertheless, it is in this connection that it has been said: "Where you find the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He, there you also find His humility...
Therefore has the Torah been compared to water, for just as water descends from a higher to a lower level, so has the Torah descended from its place of glory, which is His blessed will and wisdom: {for} the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are one and the same and no thought can apprehend Him at all. Thence [the Torah] has progressively descended through hidden stages, stage after stage, with the descent of the worlds, until it clothed itself in corporeal substances and in things of this world, comprising almost all of the commandments of the Torah, their laws and in the combinations of material letters, written with ink in a book, namely, the 24 volumes fo the Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographa: all this in order that every thought should be able to apprehend them and even the faculties of speech and action, which are on a lower level than thought should be able to apprehend them and be clothed in them."...
... But as for the essence of the Holy One, blessed be He, no thought can apprehend Him at all, except when it apprehends, and is clothed in, the Torah and its Mitzvot; only then does it truly apprehend, and is clothed in, the Holy One, blessed be He, inasmuch as the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are one and the same. For although the Torah has been clothed in lower material things, it is by way of illustration, like embracing the king. There is no difference, in regard to the degree of closeness and attachment to the king, whether while embracing the king, the latter is then wearing one robe or several robes, so long as th royal person is in them. Likewise, when the king, for his part, embraces one with his arm, even though it is dressed in his robes; as it is written, "And His right hand embraces me," which refers to the Torah which was given by G-d's right hand, which is the quality of chesed and water."

This is awesome as it shows how when we embrace Yeshua we can be embracing HaShem according to Tanya. It shows that HaShem can be corporeal without BEING corporeal and that the Torah and HaShem are one.
kivi says: This is another case of willful dis-information. We all know that it was not the intention or content of the writer of the Tanya to endorse Christian theology. To claim otherwise is a matter of identity theft and slander toward the writer of Tanya.


So then, to say that God is not a man, means all his fullness is not a man. But that which we interact with, the face of HaShem that Moses saw, is none other than the Word, who is the Messiah, and since only HaShem is our redeemer, then the Messiah, our redeemer, is HaShem.
kivi says: More Christian gibberish.

HaShem can choose to manifest himself as a man but not be man, and still be HaShem.
kivi says: He can not do so and not be a lier. Since G-d is not a lier, then your claim is false.

It can be comparable to a King, who wanted to see if his subjects loved him, and wrapped himself in pauper's clothes to dwell among his subjects. He is not a pauper, although he choose to look like one. He is still the King, even if he looks like a pauper.

So too HaShem is still God, and not a man, even though he can choose to manifest himself as a man.
kivi says: Christian gibberish. G-d says that He does not lie. Taking on a disguise is lieing. G-d does not lie, so He also does not take on disguises.

[Melchizedek]

Moses was not a king. His childern were never considered to be his policial successors.

If the Messiah is to reign forever, then who are his children who are his political successors?

Moses was not a Kohan. Aaron and his family were the Kohanim.

When I wrote "Priest - like Moses" obviously this doesn't refer to the Messiah being a Kohen. Unless you're gonna say Moses was a Kohen - but that's my point: he wasn't a Kohen, yet did priestly duties. So too the Messiah.

Moses temporarily filled the functions of a political and ceremonial status until the permanent people could fulfill their assigned duties.

But his temporary asumption did not make him either Melech or Kohan.

On the contrary, did he not judge over Israel until the day he died?

What he was was a teacher and a prophet.

And he was that too.

[Melchizedek]

HaShem is manifested as a man. How is this possible? As it is said in the Talmud concerning Simon the Righteous, that there was a man with him during Yom Kippur for each of the 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, and that man, according to the Talmud, was HaShem.

kivi says: That is not true.

You'll find this story in both Yoma 39b, and Menachot 109b. Surely you've read the Hebrew commentary in the Talmud concerning this. Right at the bottom of the page (it's not translated into English in the English translation of the Talmud).

My question to you: Who is it that was with him? Was it HaShem or a man? If a man, then according to the Torah, who has the right to be in the Holy of Holies besides the High Priest?


kviv says: God said that He was not a man. Therefore anything to do with Jesus Christ is forbidden because Jesus Christ was a man.Only if one believes El is a man. I do not believe this. If God is a man, then the rest of the universe is bereft of His omnipresence!

This is a matter of G-d's integrity. If G-d said that he is not a Man, for G-d to keep His word, the Jesus Christ does/can not count.Again, only if one belives El is a man. Since it is written "Lo ish El..." El is not a man.

And G-d specifically points out His inability to lie is one of the prime things that makes Him not a man.And also in addition to the fact that he is not a "ben-Adam," son of Adam. Don't forget that. Before one dismisses the idea of a corporeal form for HaShem entirely, remember it is written "her seed," not "his seed."


The aspect of the Messiah NOT being HaShem is not found anywhere in the Torah.

kivi says: Wrong. The Torah is very clear. G-d is not a man. Moshciah is a man. Therefore, Moshiach is not G-d.First you would make it say "Lo ish HaShem" which is not what the Torah says.

Furthermore of Messiah it is written:

Genesis 28:21-22
so that I come back to my father’s house in peace, then shall HaShem be my God, and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God’s house; and of all that Thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto Thee.’

The stone that Jacob poured oil and wine over is the same stone he calls "God's house," beit-eloheim. The Torah calls this stone later, the Stone of Israel in Gen 49:24:

"by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob, from thence, from the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel,"

How then if the Mighty One of Jacob is God, also called the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel - the stone that Jacob called the "beit eloheim," could this same stone be called a tent, a dwelling for God?

Just as the Beit Mikdash was the meeting place for Israel to HaShem, so too the tent that he prepared for himself, through a body, the seed of the woman, descended from Jacob, is the meeting place for Israel to HaShem - the stone that he anointed, and called "beit eloheim."

Moshiach is not God, scripture does not give us the allowance to say such at all. All we can say is what scripture says: He's the Word of God. The Torah. The Torah is HaShem. The Memra. He is called HaShem. That which Moses interacted with and did not die as a result.

kivi says: It is one of the fundamental mistakes of Christianity to say that Moshiach is our Redeemer. Only G-d is our Redeemer. No human can be our Redeemer. Moshiach is our annointed. Redeemer and annointed are not the same thing.Then moshiach.com makes a fundamental mistake on behalf of Judaism when it says:

Moshiach will not just redeem the Jewish people from exile—he will redeem mankind from meaninglessness, and teach the purpose of life to the universe.

from: http://www.moshiach.com/questions/topten/what_is_moshiach.php


The fact that the Messiah is the redemer of Israel, is undisputed, and I am surprised that you dispute this. Assuming you agree that the Messiah redeems Israel, and assuming you agree that HaShem is Israel's Redeemer (and there is none other), then according to the Torah, how can HaShem be Israel's Redeemer when the Torah clearly teaches redemption is only through a kinsmen, no less than a Jew himself?

kivi says: Christian gibberish. G-d does not use 'vessels' for His redeemption. He comes Himself, in His own person, to Redeem us. He does not need to kill Himself, Heaven forbid, to do this"He comes Himself, in His own person, to Redeem us." You said it. Not me.

"He does not need to kill Himself, Heaven forbid, to do this." According to the Torah, the redemer pays the full redemption price. How then can HaShem go against the Torah and not pay the redemption price on that which caused us to be blotted out of His book?



kivi says: More Christian gibberish. It is not the righteousness of Moshiach that is the problem, every generation has a potential Moshiach.It is said that if Israel is unworthy, her Messiah will come riding on a donkey. I have yet to see any other Messianic claimant in "every generation" do this, so either the saying is false, or your belief in a Davidic Moshiach in every generation is false.

The problem is the righteousness of the generation. No generation has been worthy of Moshiach.If Messiah is like Moses, he comes when the generation of Israel is just as rebellious and stiff necked as they were when Moses came. And if Messiah is like Moses, he will die before the children of that rebellious generation inherits the Land.

All of the Christian gibberish of 'M' is a waste of time because it wrongly states the spiritual reality of B'nai Israel and all of Mankind.All Israel righteous. Yet this didn't save Korach from his fate.

kivi says: More Christain gibberish. It is Christain gibberish when a Missionary says that a human sacrifice is necessary for Redeemption. G-d forbids and rejects human sacrifice.Then tell that to God every time you recite the Akeidah during shacharit, and near the end, when it says "on the mountain HaShem is seen," fit that into your theology on the matter: A human is not sacrificed. Neither in the Akeidah, or anywhere else. Hence, it was not a human that was offered up. It was HaShem, who is seen in the place of Isaac.


kivi says: Yes and as long as a Missionary teaches that Jesus Christ is a god, then they are rejecting HaShem's salvation.I agree.


kivi says: Just a reminder after all the false quotes and false examples. No human sacrifice is permitted by G-d. G-d is not a man. G-d only is our Redeemer. No human killed as a sacrifice can provide salvation.Precisely, no human killed as a sacrifice can provide salvation (but surely you understand that the death of the righteous atones!) And that is the point: HaShem only is your salvation, because of Who he is. The living Torah made flesh.

[Melchizedek]

kivi says: This is a perfect example of twisting a source so that it conforms to a pre-held error. A vision is not the same as an human and to equate the two puts the integrity of the person so doing so at question.

Explain to me where it is that this was a "vision."


kivi says: This is another case of willful dis-information. We all know that it was not the intention or content of the writer of the Tanya to endorse Christian theology. To claim otherwise is a matter of identity theft and slander toward the writer of Tanya.That's avoiding the issue, and poisoning the well. Calling it identity theft is also an emotional response based on these two logical fallacies that completely fail to respond to the text and point presented from the Tanya itself. Just because you (or even the writer) may not believe these words, doesn't mean what is written is not true. The Tanya clearly teaches that the Torah and the Holy One are one, and that the Torah takes on corporeal substances. Anyone who has read John 1:1 at this point would think the Tanya's statements concerning this was borrowed from John 1:1. But clearly it's not - (and neither do I advocate what you call "Christian theology"). So please, feel free to explain to me what the Tanya means when it says the "Torah, and the Holy One, blessed be He, are one," and that the Torah "clothed iteself in corporeal substances" - and how this is possible if the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are in fact one?



So then, to say that God is not a man, means all his fullness is not a man. But that which we interact with, the face of HaShem that Moses saw, is none other than the Word, who is the Messiah, and since only HaShem is our redeemer, then the Messiah, our redeemer, is HaShem.

kivi says: More Christian gibberish.You are avoiding the issue. HaShem is our redeemer alone, and thus if the Messiah is the redeemer, then HaShem is the Messiah.


HaShem can choose to manifest himself as a man but not be man, and still be HaShem.

kivi says: He can not do so and not be a lier. Since G-d is not a lier, then your claim is false.It is written, "her seed," not "his seed."


kivi says: Christian gibberish. G-d says that He does not lie. Taking on a disguise is lieing. G-d does not lie, so He also does not take on disguises.Concerning the Torah, the Word, the Memra it is written: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing (hebrew: Davar, aramaic: Memra); But the glory of kings is to search out a matter."

If "kings," then not Messiah. If not Messiah, then "kings."

Thus we know that Messiah is Davar, Memra, the Word, who is concealed for God's glory, and is the glory of kings to search Him out.

[visionary]

its enough to make one want to rip their shirt and scream blasphemy.

YochananIt has already been done... didn't help... nor change the truth.

[visionary]

The answer having nothing to do with the question is not atypical of Lubavitcher writing nor common jewish tactics in a passive aggressuve style.

[kivi]

As a prophet, what did Moshe do? Taught Torah. Judged Israel. Made atonement.

kivi says: He taught Israel; he acted as the final judge in the hierarchy of the legal system but only during the desert period; he acted as the priest until the Temple in the Desert was set up. He did not make atonement. In fact, you, yourself pointed out that when he tried G-d rejected his offer. He was not the King and he was not the Kohan. he was not Moshiach.

[kivi]

If the Messiah is to reign forever, then who are his children who are his political successors?
kivi says: I don't have their names, as of yet. But Moshiach will be a man and he will be married and he will have children.

When I wrote "Priest - like Moses" obviously this doesn't refer to the Messiah being a Kohen. Unless you're gonna say Moses was a Kohen - but that's my point: he wasn't a Kohen, yet did priestly duties. So too the Messiah.
kivi says: Oh,you can say anything you want. That does not make it true. Moshiach will not have duties in the Temple. That is only a Kohan/Levite function.

On the contrary, did he not judge over Israel until the day he died?
kivi says: A judge is not a King.

And he was that too.
kivi says: You have gotten one out of three correct. One out of three maybe a good average in baseball, it is not a good average in Torah.

[Melchizedek]

kivi says: He taught Israel; he acted as the final judge in the hierarchy of the legal system but only during the desert period; he acted as the priest until the Temple in the Desert was set up. He did not make atonement. In fact, you, yourself pointed out that when he tried G-d rejected his offer. He was not the King and he was not the Kohan. he was not Moshiach.


Moses taught Torah, judged Israel, made atonement, and are functions that Moses did. That these functions define the Messiah is undisputed.

That Moses specifically was rejected as the Messiah, in that his offer to redeem Israel was not accepted by HaShem, does not mean the Messiah too is unable to redeem Israel. It just means he was not the Messiah, who in fact will be able to redeem Israel.

[Melchizedek]

kivi says: I don't have their names, as of yet. But Moshiach will be a man and he will be married and he will have children.

It is written, "HaShem is your father." It is written "I will betroth you to me."


kivi says: Oh,you can say anything you want. That does not make it true. Moshiach will not have duties in the Temple. That is only a Kohan/Levite function.

Duties no, sacrifices to offer, yes. The earthly temple is still not the Beit HaMikdash of heaven. Yeshua is only a High Priest of the tabernacle of heaven, after which the earthly is patterned to.

kivi says: A judge is not a King.

When eloheim = judges.

It is written:
Psalms 145:1 "I will extol thee, my God, O King; And I will bless thy name for ever and ever."

and

Isaiah 33:22 "For the LORD is our Judge, the LORD is our Lawgiver, the LORD is our King; He will save us."

and

1 Sam 12:12 "when the LORD your God was your king"


kivi says: You have gotten one out of three correct. One out of three maybe a good average in baseball, it is not a good average in Torah.

Perhaps you should read more Torah. :)

[kivi]

You'll find this story in both Yoma 39b, and Menachot 109b. Surely you've read the Hebrew commentary in the Talmud concerning this. Right at the bottom of the page (it's not translated into English in the English translation of the Talmud).

My question to you: Who is it that was with him? Was it HaShem or a man? If a man, then according to the Torah, who has the right to be in the Holy of Holies besides the High Priest?
kivi says: It was a vison, an idea in his head put there by G-d.


Only if one believes El is a man. I do not believe this. If God is a man, then the rest of the universe is bereft of His omnipresence!

Again, only if one belives El is a man. Since it is written "Lo ish El..." El is not a man.
kvi says: Therefore, based on your own logic, Jesus Christ is not a man and he is not a god, so he is a fake? It is just spiritually easier to know he is not a god. After all, he did what humans do, he died. Our G-d does not die, even for a second.

And also in addition to the fact that he is not a "ben-Adam," son of Adam. Don't forget that. Before one dismisses the idea of a corporeal form for HaShem entirely, remember it is written "her seed," not "his seed."

First you would make it say "Lo ish HaShem" which is not what the Torah says.

Furthermore of Messiah it is written:

Genesis 28:21-22
so that I come back to my father’s house in peace, then shall HaShem be my God, and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God’s house; and of all that Thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto Thee.'
kivi says: You are making stuff up. I can't discuss with you the truth when you just pull from any part of the Old Testament and claim that it means whatever you want it to mean.

The stone that Jacob poured oil and wine over is the same stone he calls "God's house," beit-eloheim. The Torah calls this stone later, the Stone of Israel in Gen 49:24:

"by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob, from thence, from the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel,"

How then if the Mighty One of Jacob is God, also called the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel - the stone that Jacob called the "beit eloheim," could this same stone be called a tent, a dwelling for God?

Just as the Beit Mikdash was the meeting place for Israel to HaShem, so too the tent that he prepared for himself, through a body, the seed of the woman, descended from Jacob, is the meeting place for Israel to HaShem - the stone that he anointed, and called "beit eloheim."
kiv says: A Torah True Jew is limited by the Torah Tradition, he does not have permission to invent interpertation and text. He is bonded by the already established Torah prescedent. It is obvious you are not. You can invent anything you want and you do so. All I can say is that there is nothing in the Torah Tradition that gives me or any other Jew permission to tell such high falutin' tall tales. In your case, please put out on your shingle: "All Tall Tales Welcomed and Believed".

Moshiach is not God, scripture does not give us the allowance to say such at all. All we can say is what scripture says: He's the Word of God. The Torah. The Torah is HaShem. The Memra. He is called HaShem. That which Moses interacted with and did not die as a result.
kivi says: Not according to the Torah Tradition. G-d's creation, the Torah can not be G-d. G-d made a promise that He is not His creation. Nothing that G-d created is equivalent to Him.

Then moshiach.com makes a fundamental mistake on behalf of Judaism when it says:

Moshiach will not just redeem the Jewish people from exile—he will redeem mankind from meaninglessness, and teach the purpose of life to the universe.

from: http://www.moshiach.com/questions/topten/what_is_moshiach.php
kivi says: I love it when people like you only quote what supports what they are trying to sell rather than the entire truth. And I especially like it when they quote out of context or, better yet, quote against context. You have committed all of those spiritual crimes. The following is what the site really says about Jesus and people like Melchizedek

http://www.moshiach.com/questions/topten/what_is_moshiach.php
"Isn’t the Messiah a Christian belief?
No. It isn’t. Christianity got the idea from Judaism. Because humans are messianic (see above), Judaism is quite messianic, although the very phrase “messianic” scares people, and rightfully so. Judaism does not believe in Jesus in any way, shape or form. Jews know this. The “Jews for Jesus” organization gets around this by employing a smug psychological trap of a title: “you CAN be Jewish and believe in Jesus!” is what is says. “NO, YOU CAN’T!” is the Jewish response—ever heard of a “Christian for Judaism?” How about a “Muslim for Buddhism?”

Of course, to those who are watching, what this means is: by you cheating this once, none of what you say can be trusted in the future.

[kivi]

Moses taught Torah, judged Israel, made atonement, and are functions that Moses did. That these functions define the Messiah is undisputed.

kivi says: You are wrong: These functions define Moshiach:

Look at the actual prophecies:

He will be of the House of David (Ezekiel 37:24).

He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel
(Isaiah 11:12).

He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27).

He will rule at a time of world-wide peace (Micah 4:3).

He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's
commandments (Ezekiel 37:24).

He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve
one G-d (Isaiah 66:23).

All the Jews, living in Israel, and observant (even the former Xians will
return to Judaism); a new Temple, world-wide peace, no wars, no scuffles,
and all the people, all 6+ billion of them, former Muslims, Xians,
Buddhists, atheists, etc., will finally believe in HaShem and serve only
Him. When all this becomes true, will it not be obvious to the world?

Now, you want all these prophecies put together in one place? Look at
Ezekiel 37:24-28:

"And David my servant shall be king over them; and they shall all have one
shepherd. they shall also follow My judgments and observe My statutes, and
do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Yaakov my
servant, in which your fathers have dwelt and they shall dwell there, they
and their children, and their children's children forever; and my servant
David shall be their prince forever. Moreover, I will make a covenant of
peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them, which I will
give them; and I will multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst
of them forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be
their G-d and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am
the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst of
them forevermore."

All the people of the world will know Who is God, and will serve Him, and
they will know without a doubt who His people are and who the messiah is.


That Moses specifically was rejected as the Messiah, in that his offer to redeem Israel was not accepted by HaShem, does not mean the Messiah too is unable to redeem Israel. It just means he was not the Messiah, who in fact will be able to redeem Israel.

[visionary]

A Torah True Jew is limited by the Torah Tradition, he does not have permission to invent interpertation and text.Unless he invented the tradition in the first place. A true Torah Jew is not limited by tradition but by every Word of God.

[kivi]

Unless he invented the tradition in the first place. A true Torah Jew is not limited by tradition but by every Word of God.

kivi says: The Torah True Tradition is the Word of G-d. And a Torah Jew is limited by the Word of G-d.

[Melchizedek]

kivi says: It was a vison, an idea in his head put there by G-d.

God put a vision of a man in the Holy of Holies in Simon the Righteous's head? That's some vision. That's some vision, don't you think? Or do you even believe Simon the Righteous?

kvi says: Therefore, based on your own logic, Jesus Christ is not a man and he is not a god, so he is a fake? It is just spiritually easier to know he is not a god. After all, he did what humans do, he died. Our G-d does not die, even for a second.Yeshua is the Word made flesh.


kivi says: You are making stuff up. I can't discuss with you the truth when you just pull from any part of the Old Testament and claim that it means whatever you want it to mean. Oh so you subscribe to polytheisim now? You believe in an Old Testament and a New Testament - which phraseology Marcion used to promote the idea of the God of the Jews vs Jesus as God, and where Jesus got rid of the God of the Old Testament? I'm sorry to disappoint, but I don't believe in Old and New Testaments, and thus I do not believe in polytheism, so your phraseology is totally lost on me.

I believe in the TaNaKh, not in Old and New Testaments.


kiv says: A Torah True Jew is limited by the Torah Tradition, he does not have permission to invent interpertation and text. He is bonded by the already established Torah prescedent. It is obvious you are not. You can invent anything you want and you do so. All I can say is that there is nothing in the Torah Tradition that gives me or any other Jew permission to tell such high falutin' tall tales. In your case, please put out on your shingle: "All Tall Tales Welcomed and Believed".My hermeneutic comes from the PaRDeS method of interpretation, and all the principles of interpretation assigned to each method. As such, I feel you don't have a good response to many of the points and questions I've raised, and I can only conclude it's because you don't know Torah well enough to respond to them. Of the points you do respond to, the answers to your objections are easily pulled right from the peshat of many verses.


kivi says: Not according to the Torah Tradition. G-d's creation, the Torah can not be G-d. G-d made a promise that He is not His creation. Nothing that G-d created is equivalent to Him. Then please explain to me what the Tanya means when it says "The Torah, and the Holy One, blessed be He, are one."


kivi says: I love it when people like you only quote what supports what they are trying to sell rather than the entire truth. And I especially like it when they quote out of context or, better yet, quote against context. You have committed all of those spiritual crimes. The following is what the site really says about Jesus and people like Melchizedek

http://www.moshiach.com/questions/topten/what_is_moshiach.php
"Isn’t the Messiah a Christian belief?
No. It isn’t. Christianity got the idea from Judaism. Because humans are messianic (see above), Judaism is quite messianic, although the very phrase “messianic” scares people, and rightfully so. Judaism does not believe in Jesus in any way, shape or form. Jews know this. The “Jews for Jesus” organization gets around this by employing a smug psychological trap of a title: “you CAN be Jewish and believe in Jesus!” is what is says. “NO, YOU CAN’T!” is the Jewish response—ever heard of a “Christian for Judaism?” How about a “Muslim for Buddhism?”

Of course, to those who are watching, what this means is: by you cheating this once, none of what you say can be trusted in the future.
If I can prove Judaism is attacking a strawman, and not the real Jesus, I don't think I have to do much at all to not "quote out of context" to prove that the Yeshua I believe in, is in fact the Moshiach. As such, my quotes are very much in context, although the sources may not arrive at the same conclusion I have about their works, nonetheless, truth isn't determined by popular opinion, and isn't limited to only the Sages in the depths of intense Torah study. The truth of HaShem is everywhere, for the Word made everything. It's not my fault that the Sages and our rabbis say and write things that support the Yeshua I believe in.

[Melchizedek]

kivi says: You are wrong: These functions define Moshiach:

Look at the actual prophecies:

He will be of the House of David (Ezekiel 37:24).

He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel
(Isaiah 11:12).

He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27).

He will rule at a time of world-wide peace (Micah 4:3).

He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's
commandments (Ezekiel 37:24).

He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve
one G-d (Isaiah 66:23).

All the Jews, living in Israel, and observant (even the former Xians will
return to Judaism); a new Temple, world-wide peace, no wars, no scuffles,
and all the people, all 6+ billion of them, former Muslims, Xians,
Buddhists, atheists, etc., will finally believe in HaShem and serve only
Him. When all this becomes true, will it not be obvious to the world?

Now, you want all these prophecies put together in one place? Look at
Ezekiel 37:24-28:

"And David my servant shall be king over them; and they shall all have one
shepherd. they shall also follow My judgments and observe My statutes, and
do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Yaakov my
servant, in which your fathers have dwelt and they shall dwell there, they
and their children, and their children's children forever; and my servant
David shall be their prince forever. Moreover, I will make a covenant of
peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them, which I will
give them; and I will multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst
of them forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be
their G-d and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am
the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst of
them forevermore."

All the people of the world will know Who is God, and will serve Him, and
they will know without a doubt who His people are and who the messiah is.

And as I asked before:

Is the Messiah the Messiah before or after he fulfills all the prophecies concerning himself?

Your objection that Yeshua didn't fulfill all of the Messianic prophecies is really worthless in light of the fact that he is Messiah even before he fulfills all the prophecies about himself. But I do not blindly accept Yeshua as the Messiah. I see that he clearly fulflled all the prophecies in the Torah and Prophets concerning the suffering servant - and it is for this reason that I believe he is the Messiah.

[kivi]

kivi says: You cheated on a source. You have no integrity.


God put a vision of a man in the Holy of Holies in Simon the Righteous's head? That's some vision. That's some vision, don't you think? Or do you even believe Simon the Righteous?

Yeshua is the Word made flesh.

Oh so you subscribe to polytheisim now? You believe in an Old Testament and a New Testament - which phraseology Marcion used to promote the idea of the God of the Jews vs Jesus as God, and where Jesus got rid of the God of the Old Testament? I'm sorry to disappoint, but I don't believe in Old and New Testaments, and thus I do not believe in polytheism, so your phraseology is totally lost on me.

I believe in the TaNaKh, not in Old and New Testaments.


My hermeneutic comes from the PaRDeS method of interpretation, and all the principles of interpretation assigned to each method. As such, I feel you don't have a good response to many of the points and questions I've raised, and I can only conclude it's because you don't know Torah well enough to respond to them. Of the points you do respond to, the answers to your objections are easily pulled right from the peshat of many verses.


Then please explain to me what the Tanya means when it says "The Torah, and the Holy One, blessed be He, are one."


If I can prove Judaism is attacking a strawman, and not the real Jesus, I don't think I have to do much at all to not "quote out of context" to prove that the Yeshua I believe in, is in fact the Moshiach. As such, my quotes are very much in context, although the sources may not arrive at the same conclusion I have about their works, nonetheless, truth isn't determined by popular opinion, and isn't limited to only the Sages in the depths of intense Torah study. The truth of HaShem is everywhere, for the Word made everything. It's not my fault that the Sages and our rabbis say and write things that support the Yeshua I believe in.

[kivi]

kivi says: You cheated on a source, you have no integrity.


And as I asked before:

Is the Messiah the Messiah before or after he fulfills all the prophecies concerning himself?

Your objection that Yeshua didn't fulfill all of the Messianic prophecies is really worthless in light of the fact that he is Messiah even before he fulfills all the prophecies about himself. But I do not blindly accept Yeshua as the Messiah. I see that he clearly fulflled all the prophecies in the Torah and Prophets concerning the suffering servant - and it is for this reason that I believe he is the Messiah.

[Melchizedek]

kivi says: You cheated on a source. You have no integrity.

I used the words that moshiach.com published that says the Messiah will redeem Israel to counter your statement that only God is Israel's redeemer, and that the Messiah is not Israel's redeemer - and you accuse me of cheating on a source?

Your non-replies to my posts are nothing but classic avoidance.

How about you not being honest with Judaism, claiming things as if they are universally held, when in fact they are not, and in fact, contradicting (some could say lying) what Jewish sources say. Are you even Jewish? Do you even believe in the Torah? Or are you on a crusade to denounce Yeshua as Messiah at all costs that you nullify the very Judaism you claim to uphold?

[Torah613]

Omayn Kivi, Omayn!

yochanan

[Melchizedek]

Torah613, are you too joining in kivi's avoidance strategy?

[Torah613]

no, I was commenting on an earlier post of his.

Frankly, I don't see the point of spending my time responding to your posts. I am working two fulltime jobs to pay off my dept so that I can make aliyah sooner. With that kind of work load, I really just dont' have the time or energy to put into it, even if I did see it as worthwhile.

Besides, today I'm just too hurt/angry/sad whatever emotion it is this 5 minutes to deal with your posts.

Yochanan

[Torah613]

If I ever had the slightest inclination to believe in an eternal hell, i would today. And I would place Olmert in the bowles of it for he is worse than pharoah.

Yochanan

[Melchizedek]

I understand. I'm upset too over it. Thanks for posting the remembrance thread. Perhaps it would be appropriate to post the mourners kaddish in it.

For Ehud and Eldad:
"Vengeance is mine." and HaShem will.

[ChavaK]

kivi says: The Torah True Tradition is the Word of G-d. And a Torah Jew is limited by the Word of G-d.


:thumbsup:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/static/pictures/_old/11528.jpg

[RebYosef]

kivi says: This is a perfect example of twisting a source so that it conforms to a pre-held error. A vision is not the same as an human and to equate the two puts the integrity of the person so doing so at question.


I do not think it is a twist, as much as it is just ignorance. Both Yoma and Menahot contain the answers to his inquiry in the Baraisas. Shimon HaTzaddik was getting visits from Angels.

It is a Midrash, not to be taken out of it's narrow role, his Chabbadnic friends should have told him that :)

[Melchizedek]

kivi says: You cheated on a source. You have no integrity.

If you keep copying and pasting that enough times, do you think it will make it true?


I used the words that moshiach.com published that says the Messiah will redeem Israel to counter your statement that only God is Israel's redeemer, and that the Messiah is not Israel's redeemer - and you accuse me of cheating on a source?

Your non-replies to my posts are nothing but classic avoidance.

How about you not being honest with Judaism, claiming things as if they are universally held, when in fact they are not, and in fact, contradicting (some could say lying) what Jewish sources say. Are you even Jewish? Do you even believe in the Torah? Or are you on a crusade to denounce Yeshua as Messiah at all costs that you nullify the very Judaism you claim to uphold?

[Melchizedek]

I do not think it is a twist, as much as it is just ignorance. Both Yoma and Menahot contain the answers to his inquiry in the Baraisas. Shimon HaTzaddik was getting visits from Angels.

It is a Midrash, not to be taken out of it's narrow role, his Chabbadnic friends should have told him that :)

Rav Eliezar Berland's understanding of Rebbe Nachman's understanding of it is not ignorance, and they would disagree with your statement above:

from http://www.shuvubonim.org/yort.html

It is written in the Midrash on Vayikra 16:17, #21: “And no man should be in the tent of meeting when he comes to bring atonement in the sanctuary.” Rabbi Abahu asked, “How, then, could the Kohen Gadol enter? If no man can be in the tent of meeting, how could the Kohen Gadol enter? If no man can enter, then it must be that it is forbidden for the Kohen Gadol to enter as well!

...
He might look like a man, but the Kohen Gadol really just has a human form. The Tzaddik of the generation, who is an aspect of Moshiach, is not really a man at all!
...

“And the old man…” It is written that an old man entered—this “old man” was none other than the Holy One, Blessed is He. [“During Shimon HaTzaddik’s final year, he told the Sages that he would soon die. They asked him: How do you know? He answered, ‘Every Yom HaKippurim, I would see a vision of an old man dressed and shrouded in white entering the inner sanctuary with me and leaving with me. Today, I saw an old man dressed and shrouded all in black entering with me, and he did not emerge with me.’ After the Festival, Shimon HaTzaddik fell ill for seven days and died, and his brother Kohanim could not bless the people using G-d’s Name” (Yoma 39b).]
The Tzaddik really is the Holy One descended in the form of a human being. This is what we learn from that Midrash [on Vayikra]. Regarding the Gemara in Yoma about Shimon HaTzaddik, this was said after forty years of serving as Kohen Gadol. Rabbi Abahu said, “Who told you that the old man he saw was really a man?” It was the Holy One, Blessed is He! We see from here that the Holy One can descend in the form of the Tzaddik, and this Tzaddik is not a man at all! “No man shall be in the tent of meeting!” ...



The Rav Eliezer's entire teaching on this is worth the read.


The Tzaddik of the generation is " the Holy One descended in the form of a human being " ? ? ? Notice, I did not write this. How much more so the Messiah, the Tzaddik of all Israel, is the Holy One descended in the form of a human being.

(To my Messianic brothers: and some of you wonder why I'm a Chassid!)

kivi, I suggest now you'll say of Rav Eliezer and of Rebbe Nachman that they too have cheated on a source, and that they too have no integrity? Oy l'cha.

[Torah613]

Rav Eliezar Berland's understanding of Rebbe Nachman's understanding of it is not ignorance, and they would disagree with your statement above:

from http://www.shuvubonim.org/yort.html

It is written in the Midrash on Vayikra 16:17, #21: “And no man should be in the tent of meeting when he comes to bring atonement in the sanctuary.” Rabbi Abahu asked, “How, then, could the Kohen Gadol enter? If no man can be in the tent of meeting, how could the Kohen Gadol enter? If no man can enter, then it must be that it is forbidden for the Kohen Gadol to enter as well!

...
He might look like a man, but the Kohen Gadol really just has a human form. The Tzaddik of the generation, who is an aspect of Moshiach, is not really a man at all!
...

“And the old man…” It is written that an old man entered—this “old man” was none other than the Holy One, Blessed is He. [“During Shimon HaTzaddik’s final year, he told the Sages that he would soon die. They asked him: How do you know? He answered, ‘Every Yom HaKippurim, I would see a vision of an old man dressed and shrouded in white entering the inner sanctuary with me and leaving with me. Today, I saw an old man dressed and shrouded all in black entering with me, and he did not emerge with me.’ After the Festival, Shimon HaTzaddik fell ill for seven days and died, and his brother Kohanim could not bless the people using G-d’s Name” (Yoma 39b).]
The Tzaddik really is the Holy One descended in the form of a human being. This is what we learn from that Midrash [on Vayikra]. Regarding the Gemara in Yoma about Shimon HaTzaddik, this was said after forty years of serving as Kohen Gadol. Rabbi Abahu said, “Who told you that the old man he saw was really a man?” It was the Holy One, Blessed is He! We see from here that the Holy One can descend in the form of the Tzaddik, and this Tzaddik is not a man at all! “No man shall be in the tent of meeting!” ...



The Rav Eliezer's entire teaching on this is worth the read.


The Tzaddik of the generation is " the Holy One descended in the form of a human being " ? ? ? Notice, I did not write this. How much more so the Messiah, the Tzaddik of all Israel, is the Holy One descended in the form of a human being.

(To my Messianic brothers: and some of you wonder why I'm a Chassid!)

kivi, I suggest now you'll say of Rav Eliezer and of Rebbe Nachman that they too have cheated on a source, and that they too have no integrity? Oy l'cha.

Oh you are a Chasid now? Thats interesting. Who is your Rebbe? I know of none, not even satmar, that would support this loshen Hora against the grandson of the BSht, himself one of hte most respected of the Rebbes.

How on earth can a messianic have Chassidus? the two are mutually exclusive.

Sincerely,
a real chasid

[Melchizedek]

Oh you are a Chasid now? Thats interesting. Who is your Rebbe?

R. Yehoshua b. Joseph

How on earth can a messianic have Chassidus? the two are mutually exclusive.

Sincerely,
a real chasidPerhaps in your experience they are, but in mine, the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, some of the greatest messianics I know are Chassidim, although most hold a different rebbe to be Messiah.

Yeshua, like Moses, was the most pious Tzaddik of all, and this is why I also believe he is "the Holy One descended in the form of a human being." Have you not read of his teachings on chesed? If you like, I can show you.

May my words be nothing more than the sayings of our rabbis, and the words of Torah. You draw your own conclusions. I however, actually believe what they wrote concerning these matters. That is why I asked if kivi was a Jew. I find it hard to believe someone is a Jew and doesn't believe what the rabbis say, and instead only hang on to their conclusions that a strawman named "Jesus" isn't the Messiah. Last I checked, a Jew isn't one simply because they believe a strawman named "Jesus" isn't the Messiah. I don't believe the same strawman named "Jesus/Yeshua" is the Messiah either!

As you read this weeks portion,feel free to ask HaShem to show you who Moses is praying for who will "lead the people" into the Land. If Messiah, then who does HaShem say he is? Yehoshua ben Nun. Yeshua, son, Seed of the woman, and he will lead us all into the Land during the Olam Habah.

Good Shabbos.

[Torah613]

You know, reading what you write here, I can see that you are lightyears away from authentic chasidism.

You diss Rebbe Nachman, one of the most universally respected Chasidic Rebbes, and the grandson of the Best. Thats called Loshen Hora. Any Chasidic Jew would tell you that at this time of year we especially avoid Loshen Hora. do you know why?

This is nothing more than an insult to all those who practice authentic Chasidism. Frankly, I think you have alot in common with the Kabbalah center. you are taking one practice, out of context and trying to claim that you are a chasid off of it. You allude to those chabadniks who are meshicist. Yet do you ask the chabadniks on here if they even know of someone who holds this view? You act like its common, and it might be--in a looney bin. However the vast majority of chabadniks will tell you their rebbe was a tzaddik but not Moshiach. Its like less than 1 percent that are actually meshicist IIRC.

So, next time you decide to try and steal a Jewish identity, at least make it believable.

Yochanan

PS: That transliteration is impossible toput intot he hebrew letters. And since your using a transliteration for j*sus, why not for Joseph. And if you believe he's ben Joseph are you then saying Joseph is his biological father? (if Joseph was not his biological father it would have been ben Avraham halachically speaking).

Yochanan

[Melchizedek]

You diss Rebbe Nachman, one of the most universally respected Chasidic Rebbes, and the grandson of the Best. Thats called Loshen Hora.

God forbid I would commit Lashon Hora against my most respected and admired tzaddik, Rebbe Nachman. If I've written anything that is Lashon Hora concerning Rebbe Nachman, please point out specifically what I wrote is Lashon Hora, so I refrain from doing so in the future. As such I never wrote anything that can be even remotely construed as Lashon Hara regarding Rebbe Nachman, or anyone.

[Torah613]

scroll back up a couple posts.

yochanan

[Melchizedek]

scroll back up a couple posts.

yochanan

Which one, which line?

[RebYosef]

Rav Eliezar Berland's understanding of Rebbe Nachman's understanding of it is not ignorance, and they would disagree with your statement above:

I doubt it. They only quote a small portion of the midrash, to advance the lesson.


The Rav Eliezer's entire teaching on this is worth the read.


You do understand, the Hasidic Rebbe lessons, mean very little to mitnagdim?

May my words be nothing more than the sayings of our rabbis, and the words of Torah. You draw your own conclusions. I however, actually believe what they wrote concerning these matters.

You know, Saadia Gaon and Ibn Ezra both disagree with Nachman. Which one do you lend the greater authority to?

[Torah613]

lol.

Reb Yosef, are you Mitnagdish? If so, thats fascinating. dont' have many (or any) of those around here.

Yochanan

[Melchizedek]

You do understand, the Hasidic Rebbe lessons, mean very little to mitnagdim?

There are so many arguments against your opposition to Hasidism that it deserves to be voiced on an entirely different forum.

You know, Saadia Gaon and Ibn Ezra both disagree with Nachman. Which one do you lend the greater authority to?Who do you think? R. Eliezer, and R. Nachman

[RebYosef]

There are so many arguments against your opposition to Hasidism that it deserves to be voiced on an entirely different forum.


I don't think you know the first thing about my opposition to Hasidism or the nature of it.


Who do you think? R. Eliezer, and R. Nachman


In this case, I would take Saadia Gaon and Ibn Ezra over the both of them, but that is a given.