Home (Netzarim Logo)

Updated: 2024.04.10 


masc . n.mã•shiꞋakh (pl. מְשִׁיחִים),משיח,משחה,mashiakh,mishkhah,mashakh,messiah an anointee in olive-oil, by a community authority, consecrating and designating the anointee for a specific purpose; e.g., a kō•heinꞋ or mëlꞋëkh.

fem. n. מִשְׁחָה, pure olive-oil tinctured by at least a Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ-specified minimum of pure-olive oil that has been properly dedicated for sacred use. (This is how a small amount of sacred olive-oil stretched for 8 days, inspiring Kha•nūkh•ãh.)

Across the ancient Middle East, anointing with olive-oil, aside from its cosmetic and medicinal uses, was used to commission and recognize legal and special events, items, people and purposes. "[I]n Israel symbolic unction took place in the cult but not in legal proceedings. The attribute מָשִׁיחַ came to designate the [mëlꞋëkh] and the [Kō•hænꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ] and, by extension, other divinely appointed functionaries who were not anointed at all, e.g., the [Nᵊviy•imꞋ], the patriarchs, and even foreign [monarchs]. This … use  of מָשִׁיחַ is not a late development since it is already attested in Ugaritic (76:II, 22–23; cf. [Tᵊhil•imꞋ 89.21 & 25). Eventually it was applied to the מָשִׁיחַ (the very word being taken from the Hebrew 'מָשִׁיחַ')."

מָשִׁיחַ In AvᵊrãmꞋic Middle-East

From earliest times, across the Middle-East, people looked to their anointed leader, the מָשִׁיחַ, to deliver them; to save them. (Ergo, no reason to be surprised that the Persian Ma•gū•ū•shã were interested in the approximated birth of a מָשִׁיחַ predicted—in Persia by Dãn•i•ælꞋ in their own annals—40 years before his predicted כָּרֵת.

In ancient Israel, the first מָשִׁיחַ was Mōsh•ëhꞋ—the Nã•sikhꞋ "out of Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim", who became the initial paradigm for the next מָשִׁיחַ Nã•sikhꞋ.

There would not be another מָשִׁיחַ Nã•sikhꞋ until Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh—who still serves as the מָשִׁיחַ Nã•sikhꞋ pattern for Israel today.

Into The Future—The מָשִׁיחַ Nã•sikhꞋ Of Beit-Dã•widꞋ 

Following the death of ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh, the Ma•lᵊkh•ūtꞋ collapsed. The Nᵊviy•imꞋ began to prophesy in terms of a next מָשִׁיחַ patterned after Dã•widꞋ.

Initially, this מָשִׁיחַ Dã•widꞋ simply reflects the foresight that there would be recurrences among yō•khas•inꞋ-documented descendants of the מָשִׁיחַ Dã•widꞋ.

Post-BCE 722, however, the Nᵊviy•imꞋ gradually began to realize that what יְהוָׂה {The Eternal Existant} had in Mind for Yᵊhūd•imꞋ was unimaginably grander Plan: Yᵊhūd•imꞋ transcending the physical universe, leaving behind all physicality (including our physical body). At death Yᵊhūd•imꞋ will transcend into the eternal, post-world (post-physical, extra-universe) Realm of יְהוָׂה {Existant}; joining in the non-physical eternal Realm—where an eternal, post-mortal, מָשִׁיחַ Dã•widꞋ interfaces between יְהוָׂה {Existant} and Yᵊhūd•imꞋ, eternally; Yᵊhūd•imꞋ who are forever-after untouchable (non-physical) by any worldly (physical) threat! With the end of physicality, no more resources, land or temples to fight over, there will be no more wars, no more other peoples and no more enemies.

What Christians Missed

"Post-mortal" in the preceding paragraph. Simple as that! Like Orthodox rabbis, Christians, Muslims and other religions only understand 2 states: mortal and divine. Like most Homo sapiens, they are incapable of relating to post-death, non-Homo sapiens, or transcendence of the nëphꞋësh sans physical body with our physical death, leaving the body behind, being the metamorphosis. So, in their minds—as in The Apostate Paul's ἐπιφάνεια, prophecies about מָשִׁיחַ Dã•widꞋ present in the Eternal Realm of יְהוָׂה {Existant} must be the Divine One. (Wrong!)

Once again I will reiterate: no one needs rabbinic endorsement to become a Jew! As Hi•lælꞋ ha-Za•qænꞋ, ha-Nã•siꞋ taught: you need only treat others as you wish to be treated AND go learn and practice the Original Principles (necessarily compatible with the Omniscient, ergo science-compatible, not Tōr•ãhꞋ-forbidden mysticism and magical incantational-prayers from Stone Age Bᵊn•æꞋ-KhōꞋshëkh) upon which Tōr•ãhꞋ is based (e.g., ë•mëtꞋ, tzëdꞋëqMikhꞋãh 6.6-8); NO added books of "authority" nor ignoring any Original Principle of Tōr•ãhꞋ (Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 13.1-6)!

Development Of מָשִׁיחַ Concept In Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ

Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bã•vᵊl•iꞋ, interpreting ZᵊkharᵊyãhꞋ 12.10, recognizes two Mᵊ•shikh•imꞋ (see PësꞋakh Ha•gãd•ãhꞋ: יַחַץ):

  1. מב"י•shiꞋakh Bën-Yō•seiphꞋ, i.e. the Riyb"y &

  2. מב"ד•shiꞋakh Bën-Dã•widꞋ.

Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bã•vᵊl•iꞋ (Ma•sëkꞋët Yᵊvãm•ōtꞋ 16a.2–8) demonstrates that some teachings attributed to רַבִּי דּוֹסָא (a famous 1st century C.E. Pᵊrūsh•iꞋ חֲכַּם Tan•ãꞋ) בֶּן Ἀρχῖνος  were, instead, arguments of his Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Beit Sha•maiꞋ brother, Yō•nã•tãnꞋ, citing their Zūg•ōtꞋ-era Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ father—before Hi•leilꞋ ha-Za•qeinꞋ, "the Babylonian" (BCE 28).

In addition to the confusion between the CE Tan•ãꞋ, his brother and his father, the time frame is also confused: from a contemporary of Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ, Shi•mᵊōnꞋ ha-Tza•diqꞋ (cBCE 310–273) to 1st century CE Tan•ãꞋ Yō•khãn•ãnꞋ Bën-Za•kaiꞋ. Clearly, some of these were citations from prior Zūg•ōtꞋ, rather than live polemics with a living contemporary.

The mention of two mᵊshikh•imꞋ in Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bã•vᵊl•iꞋ presents an argument that is clearly from a 1st century CE (ergo, from a post-BCE 28) Pᵊrūsh•iꞋ Tan•ãꞋ (asserting that an End-Time Eulogy is for the death of the מב"י, who was killed in the war with the [1st century CE] Gōg (i.e. Rome) & mã•GōgꞋ (i.e. Romans, those "from Gog")—not the lame-brained Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ argument that it was a eulogy for the death of Sã•tãnꞋRoll eyes

רַבִּי דּוֹסָא is clearly citing an earlier argument from the Zūg•ōtꞋ period of Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Rabãn•ãnꞋ (cf. link)—predating the Pᵊrūsh•iꞋ Hi•leilꞋ ha-Za•qeinꞋ, "the Babylonian" becoming Nã•siꞋ; closing the Zūg•ōtꞋ era in BCE 28.

Only when this time-frame is correctly understood is the text illuminated: רַבִּי דּוֹסָא disputes an argument of an earlier, pre-BCE 28, Rab•ãnꞋ (Rab•ãnꞋ is explicitly stipulated in Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bã•vᵊl•iꞋ ) of the Zūg•ōtꞋ—who were exclusively Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ authorities over the Συνέδριον—including the last Zūg headed by Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Sha•maiꞋ Sr.! Further, this distinction is further contrasted when the discussion is live between רַבִּי דּוֹסָא and his contemporaries, where Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bã•vᵊl•iꞋ, significantly, addresses his Pᵊrush•imꞋ colleagues "in [his own] time" not as Rab•ãn•ãnꞋ, but as חֲכָמִים

While interpretations (and translations) correctly interpret the obvious רַבִּי in Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ as a Pᵊrush•imꞋ, they obfuscated history when they asynchronously interpret the use of רַבָּן as "Sages" before the first Pᵊrūsh•iꞋ Nã•siꞋ, Hi•leilꞋ ha-Za•qeinꞋ, "the Babylonian" (cBCE 28)! This led to the RabꞋis silly rabbinic dictum that, although frequently the (Pᵊrush•imꞋ) RabꞋis intractably contradict(ed) the (Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ) Rabãn•ãnꞋ (including the final Zūg, Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Beit Sha•maiꞋ Sr.), they are both right! rofl (rolling on the floor laughing)

In Ta•na״khꞋ revered by Riyb"y, it is the legacy (מב"ד), that symbolizes a heavenly commemoration of the historical earthly ceremony, in contrast to ki•purꞋ, which is conferred:

  1. exclusively and directly by י‑‑ה and

  2. only to those doing their best to live according to Tōr•ãhꞋ and

  3. only when making tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ from every shortcoming.

Lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, in Christianity (i.e. the Displacement Theology of the Apostate Paul), by contrast, "Jesus" is proclaimed to be the ki•purꞋ-god, that grants expiation.

Especially in the first three centuries following 135 C.E., goy•imꞋ Roman Hellenist followers of the Apostate Paul and his Καινής Διαθήκης succeeded in Hellenizing this concept to "Christ" and their "Jesus"-god-on-a-stick idol.

Recently discovered and published Qum•rãnꞋ Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT confirms all other Judaic literature describing the first-century religious Jewish community in demonstrating with absolute certainty that the historically-accurate RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was a Tōr•ãhꞋ teacher and that neither he nor his original Nᵊtzãr•imꞋ Jewish followers (Hellenized to "disciples") could possibly have espoused the anachronistic, post-135 C.E., Roman-redacted (Hellenized) Christianity.

The discovery that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa taught Tōr•ãhꞋ and not Christian doctrines invalidates arguments against his fulfillment of the Biblical Messianic Issues concerning the Mã•shiꞋakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ—many of which can no longer be fulfilled by anyone, ever! Because he was a teacher of Tōr•ãhꞋ and not the founder of an anti-Tōr•ãhꞋ religion, the restoration of his Tōr•ãhꞋ teachings in concert with the restoration of Israel enables the completion, in our day, of the remaining prophesies concerning the Mã•shiꞋakh Bën-Dã•widꞋ.

2,000 years after he lived the entire world overwhelmingly confirms in the primary-calendar numbering of its years that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa is, indeed, the world-changing Mã•shiꞋakh. Together, this is an overwhelming weight of evidence that has successfully withstood and overcome 2,000 years of attempted disputations.

What is left now is for those who carry on his Tōr•ãhꞋ teachings to complete his mission in the spirit of his Tōr•ãhꞋ teachings—his return in spirit (!!!), fulfilling the remaining prophecies of the Mã•shiꞋakh Bën-Dã•widꞋ and bringing about the prophesied messianic world.

Pay it forward (Quote & Cite):

Yirmeyahu Ben-David. Ma­shi­akh (2024.04.10). Netzar­im Jews World­wide (Ra'anana, Israel). https://www.netzarim.co.il/ (Accessed: MM DD, YYYY).

Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Rainbow Rule
Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzãr•imꞋ… Authentic