|
© 1972-2012 Yi•rәmәyâhꞋ u Bën-Dâ•widꞋ
While there are compelling reasons to reject many Christian interpretations about Jzeus (e.g. its supposed divinity and even its idolatrous Hellenist derivation), prophecies about the Jewish Mâ•shiꞋ akh remain solid. Jews cannot deny them out of a knee-jerk hate-mongering just because Christians quote them and attempt to apply them to their man-god, Jzeus. None of the prophecies below describe the Christian Jzeus — who is invalidated from the outset by Dәvâr•imꞋ 13.1-6. But they do apply validly to its polar opposite: the first-century Tor•âhꞋ -observant RibꞋ i Yәho•shuꞋ a Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ Bën-Dâ•widꞋ from Nâtz•ratꞋ .
Consequently, to smear a Tor•âhꞋ -observant Orthodox (Pәrush•iꞋ ) RibꞋ i in the feculent image (cloak) of the idol concocted by Hellenist Roman gentiles over a century after his death (in 135 C.E.; see Zәkhar•yâhꞋ 3) constitutes si•natꞋ khi•nâmꞋ , lәshonꞋ hâ-•râꞋ and khi•lulꞋ é--ä!
As a result, Jewish "anti-missionaries," who are nothing but hate-mongering crusaders, cannot justify their current practice of contorting or perverting Jewish Scriptures simply to avoid Christian claims, which are invalid from the start.
 |
 |
Aleppo & Masoretic Text: |
ðÇùÌÑÀ÷åÌ-áÇø, ôÌÆï-éÆàÁðÇó |
Tar•gumꞋ :Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project (Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A. Mss.: (Lagarde, Paul de. Hagiographa Chaldaice. Osnabrück: O. Zeller, 1967. ) |
÷ÇáÌÄéìåÌ àåÌìÀôÈðÈà ãÌÄéìÀîÈà éÄøÀâÌÇæ |
The meaning of áÇø is confirmed in the earliest extant and most pristine source for Halakhic discussion on the planet, preserved in Mәnorat ha-Mâor by Yitzkhâq Abuhav. In section ô"ç, we find the context of áÇø [son who is spiritually an uncultivated field] and fetus in the [empty] stomach of its mother [the nation] inescapable in Mi•shәl•eiꞋ ShәlomꞋ oh 11.26:
"Rav Yәhudâh said, Rav said: "Anyone who withholds Halâkhâh from the mouth of a talmid, even fetuses in their mother's stomach curse him." As it is said: "One who withholds a áÇø [an open field, from being cultivated] will be cursed by the nation" (Mi•shәl•eiꞋ ShәlomꞋ oh 11.26).
"There is no nation, except for fetuses. As it is said: "And, [alternating] nation from nation, [the offspring of each fetus] shall be tough" (bә-Reishit 25.23). There is no áÇø except for Torâh. As it is said: "Kiss the áÇø lest it be angry" (Tәhilim 2.12).
An infant said…"
Contrary to the ancient Sages, modern Jewish commentators pervert translations of Tәhilim 2.12 to erase the original intent. The meaning of áÇø is also confirmed in Mi•shәl•eiꞋ ShәlomꞋ oh 31.2.
The Ivrit term áÇø is a cognate of the Aramaic áÇø meaning "son [of…]."
In 7 passages, áÇø means "clear": Tәhilim 19.9; 24.2; 73.1; Mi•shәl•eiꞋ ShәlomꞋ oh 14.4; Iyov 11.4 and Shir ha-Shirim 6.9-10.
In 7 passages, áÇø means "clarity," which is a cognate of "clear" above: Shәmueil Beit 22.21,25 (not 'cleanness'); Yәshayâhu 1.25 (not 'purity'); Tәhilim 18.21,25; Iyov 9.30; 22.30.
There are a 14 passages in which áÇø refers to grain (not limited to corn or wheat, as KJV translates): bә-Reishit 41.35,49; 42.3,25; 45.23; Yirmәyâhu 28.28; Yo·eil 2.24; Âmos 5.11; 8.5-6; Tәhilim 65.14; 72.16; Mi•shәl•eiꞋ ShәlomꞋ oh 11.26; Iyov 39.4.
Rendering the passage kissing "purity" (more accurately kissing "clear" or "clarified") or "product" (more accurately kissing clarified-grain) is convoluted. Both suggestions are ridiculous ploys – no has ever kissed (or can kiss) "clearness" or "clarified." Anyone going around kissing clarified-grain would be certifiably insane and described as an idolater worshipping grain. Such renderings are nothing more than a clumsy attempt to avoid the accurate translation, for no other reason than to avoid messianic implications – grinding a theological axe.
As mentioned above, the Aramaic áÇø (bar) is widely accepted to mean "son [of]…" In Mi•shәl•eiꞋ ShәlomꞋ oh 31.2 there's also no doubt that, in Hebrew, áÇø (bar) also means son. In all of the other passages, there's no doubt that the meaning is "clear" or "clarified" (in the sense of carefully culling out the bad and leaving the best). Most compelling, there is no case in which the term doesn't mean "clear" or "clarified." This strongly suggests that even in the cases of Mi•shәl•eiꞋ ShәlomꞋ oh 11.26 and Tәhilim 2.12 the meaning of "clear" or "clarified" remains consistent – but describing a "clarified-son."
Further, correlating áÇø with Torâh confirms that the messianic "clarified-son" must be 100% compatible and synonymous with – not contradictory to – Torâh.
|
|
(Mikhâh 2.12; Tzәphanyâh 3.20; Yәkhëzqeil 11.17; 20.32-38, 40-42; 28.25-26; 34.10-16; 36.23-38; 37.1-28; 39.21-29; Yirmәyâhu 29.14; Tәhilim 107.1-3, 8-9)
The Mâshiakh will inspire many assimilated and estranged Jews to make tәshuvâh to Torâh as well as gathering them to Israel (Tәhilim 107.1-3, 8-9; Tzәphanyâh 3.20; Mikhâh 2.12; Yirmәyâhu 29.14; Yәkhëzqeil 11.17; 20.32-38, 40-42; 28.25-26; 34.10-16; 36.23-38; 39.21-29) after the Holocaust (Yәkhëzqeil 37.1-10 with 11-14) under the Mâshiakh Bën-Dâwid (Yәkhëzqeil 37.15-19 with 20-28).
|
|
First, read the overview to Talmudic references to Yësh"u.
The date given for the "hanging," the eve of Pësakh, agrees with the Gospel of John (19.14). This proves that the Talmudic discussion is based on Christian polemic entirely unrelated to historical Ribi Yәhoshua – since:
26.20 with notes). Several proofs, including astronomical data and constraints of the Judaic calendar, demonstrate that the historical Ribi Yәhoshua was executed on ërëv of the 7th Day of Khag ha-Matzot – 3:15 P.M. Yәrushâlayim Time (1315 UCT)
Yom Shәlishi, Firstmonth (Babylonian "Nisan") 20, 3790 (0030 C.E.; NHM 27.45 with notes).
Although we know it was no longer true by medieval times, there is no assurance that, in Talmudic times, the acronym Yësh"u was even limited to one of who-knows-how-many apostate leaders named Yәhoshua. The acronym Yësh"u, meaning "may his name be blotted out," could easily have applied to any apostate leader by any name. After a few years, people would have gotten the word who (this apostate leader, in a long string of apostate messiahs) "Yësh"u" was, and instead of continuing to call him by his name, "blotted out" his name by referring to him thenceforth solely by the acronym, Yësh"u. (By medieval times, this seems untenable since the primary example, Shabtai Tzvi, is nowhere (that I know of) called Yësh"u.)
Thus, either this passage in Talmud is rife with errors and unreliable or, most probable, a later redaction in response to Christian polemics and, therefore, directed at the Hellenized anti-Torâh Roman counterfeit and having no connection to the pro-Torâh Pәrushi Ribi Yәhoshua.
|
|
Hover the cursor over a word to see the modern Hebrew letters, then click on the word for further translation and explanation. Clicking in other areas of the scroll (that display the scroll citation) will open a window with a 100% scale view for closer examination. | |
 |
 |
 |
Re: Yәshayahu 43.5-8; 54.6-9 — According to Sanhedrin 91b: "Let no one think that in the days of the Mâshiakh anything of the natural course of the world will cease or that any innovation will be introduced into creation, [which, by the way, would introduce a logical contradiction of the Perfect and Immutable Creator; ybd]. Rather, the world will continue in its accustomed course. The words of Yәshayâhu: 'The wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the panther shall lie down with the kid" (Yәshayâhu 11:6) are a parable and an allegory which must be understood to mean that Israel will dwell securely even among the wicked of the heathen nations who are compared to a wolf and a panther. For they will all accept the true faith and will no longer rob or destroy.
|
|
Khajai ha-Nâvi prophesied (2.7-9): "âãåì éäéä ëáåã äáéú äæä äàçøåï îï-äøàùåï (Greater shall be the Kâvod of this latter House than the First).
Torâh documented the withdrawal of the Shәkhinâh from the Beit ha-Miqdâsh hâ-Rishon in Yәkhëzqeil 9.3; 10.4, 19; 11.22-23. It never returned to the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini.
While the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini had "a" Mizbeiakh, it lacked the Eish mi-liphnei ha-Sheim that would have made it the legitimate ùìçï (see Artscroll Yechezkel not, p. 650, to Yәkhëzqeil 41.22 with Malâkhi 1.12). Five essential elements of kâvod, contained in the First Beit ha-Miqdâsh were never in the Second Beit ha-Miqdâsh: the Aron Bәrit ha-Sheim, the Kaporët, the Kәruvim, the Eish mi-liphnei ha-Sheim and the Shәkhinâh (Masëkët Yomâ 21b; Artscroll Yechezkel p. 691).
Yet, "this latter House" was destroyed in 70 C.E. without any of these five missing elements of kâvod ever having been in it!!!
Therefore, since "this latter House" no longer exists and these five essential elements of kâvod were never in it, the only possibility that this prophecy can ever be true is if the Mâshiakh was the Greater kâvod in the Second Beit ha-Miqdâsh.
Ribi Yәhoshua, who taught in the Second Beit ha-Miqdâsh, is the only possible candidate to fulfill that prophecy.
|
|
Talmud Sanhedrin-91b (2)
Likewise, all similar scriptural passages dealing with the Mâshiakh [which would include those passages sometimes interpreted as his rebuilding the physical Beit-ha-Miqdâsh and Eiliyâhu ha-Nâvi; ybd] must be regarded as figurative. Only in the Days of the Mâshiakh will everyone know what the metaphors mean and to what they refer. The sages said: 'The only difference between this world and the Days of the Mâshiakh is the subjection of Israel to the nations.'" (Sanhedrin 91b; see Scholem, p. 28f).
|
|
"It is told of Rabi Hiyyâ and Rabi Shim·on that they walked in the valley of Arbela early in the morning and saw the dawn breaking on the horizon. Thereupon Rabi Hiyyâ said: 'So, too, is Israel's redemption; at first it will be only slightly visible, then it will shine forth more brightly, and only afterwards will it break forth in all of its glory.'" (Midrâsh Shir ha-Shirim Rabâh, VI, 10).
|
|
24.37ffRibi Yәhoshua said, "Yet, as it was in the days of Noakh, so shall it be in the Shәkhinâh of the person [i.e., Mâshiakh]. For so they were in the days which were before the Mabul — eating and drinking, being fruitful and multiplying until the day Noakh went into the Teivâh. They did not know until the Mabul came and picked them all up. Thus shall the Shәkhinâh of the person [i.e., Mâshiakh] also be" (NHM 24:37ff).
All over the world, for the first time since 135 C.E. significant numbers of born Jews who had been following Christianity are being won back from Christianity & Jesus to Torâh through the Shәkhinâh and (pre-135 C.E. pro-Torâh) teachings of Ribi Yәhoshua reconstructed from the earliest extant sources and published by the Nәtzârim of Ra·ananâ(h), Israel.
Nәtzârim books expose the deception of Jesus — the arch-antithesis of Ribi Yәhoshua — which was perpetrated by the post-135 C.E. pagan Roman Hellenists through their allies, the Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoqim Kohanim (aka Kohanei hâ-Rësha), who had predominated the Beit-ha-Miqdâsh since Yәhoshua Bën-Shimon II Bën-Tzâdoq (ca. B.C.E. 170). As these estranged and assimilated Jews discover how they've been duped by the Hellenists into Christianity, they are abandoning the Roman counterfeit, Jesus, to instead follow the exact opposite, Ribi Yәhoshua in non-selective Torâh-observance.
Our generation has already witnessed the prophesied re-establishment of the State of Israel which marks the end of the dispersion (the NT 'Times of the Gentiles') marking the beginning of the Messianic Era. Moreover, this generation has witnessed the 'regathering' of the people Yisra·eil to the land of Yisra·eil from the four corners of the earth.
|
|
Shәmot 32.32; Dәvârim 8.16; Yәkhëzqeil 4.4; Yәshayâhu 53.4b, 53.10, 12; 64.4; Mi•shәl•eiꞋ ShәlomꞋ oh 3.12
"20:40 Since one who truly mourns the righteous is forgiven all his sins, the death of the righteous is an atonement for their entire generation. Many righteous individuals therefore voluntarily accepted suffering and death for the sins of their generation. In doing so, they followed the example of Moses himself who pleaded for his people after the sin of the Golden Calf, "Now, if You would, please forgive their sin. If not, You can blot me out from the book that You have written (Exodus 32:32). It was in this spirit that G-d told His prophet, "You shall bear their sin" (Ezekiel 4:4). Regarding the type of righteous individual who gives his life for his generation, it is also written, "Surely he bore our sickness and suffered our anguish… he was wounded because of our transgressions, crushed because of our sins, his injury was a healing for us" (Isaiah 53:4). When the innocent joyfully accept suffering, they hasten the redemption, as it is written, "You struck the one who rejoiced in doing righteousness… and now we are delivered (Isaiah 64:4)." — Aryeh Kaplan, "Handbook of Jewish Thought," (Jerusalem: Moznaim & Wagshal, 1979), chapter on "Apparent Injustice."
Hover the cursor over a word to see the modern Hebrew letters, then click on the word for further translation and explanation. Clicking in other areas of the scroll (that display the scroll citation) will open a window with a 100% scale view for closer examination. | |
 |
"20:44 There are times when G-d afflicts a person who is completely blameless and undeserving. Such afflictions are intended to attenuate the material barriers that obscure his light and strengthen him spiritually. He can then attain moral and spiritual heights beyond anything he was capable of realizing by his own efforts. These afflictions are called "sufferings of love" (éñåøéï ùì àäáä), regarding which it is written, "ha-Sheim corrects those whom He loves, just like a father [corrects] a child whom he cherishes" (Proverbs 3:12). If accepted with love, such suffering can bring a person to the loftiest spiritual heights, as the prophet said, "But G-d preferred to crush him with disease, [to see] if he would offer his soul as compensation… Surely, He will grant him a portion among the great" (Isaiah 53:10,12)." — Aryeh Kaplan, "Handbook of Jewish Thought," (Jerusalem: Moznaim & Wagshal, 1979), chapter on "Apparent Injustice."
"20:47 At times, G-d brings undeserved suffering to the righteous to test them and make them realize their true potential. Similarly, it may be to demonstrate their greatness to others and thereby sanctify G-d's name by showing how the righteous do not serve G-d out of any thought of reward but accept suffering and still do not depart from Him. However, in all such cases, such suffering brings about a greater future reward, as we find, "He may have sent hardships to test you, but it was so that He would eventually do [all the more] good for you" (Deuteronomy 8:16)." — Aryeh Kaplan, "Handbook of Jewish Thought," (Jerusalem: Moznaim & Wagshal, 1979), chapter on "Apparent Injustice."
Next (Suffering Mâshiakh): Rut Rabbah-5.6
|
|
Yirmәyâhu 23.1-12
Now we see a polyfractured (sectarian) fratricidal people, too many of whose religious shepherds take bribes, extort, wallow in lәshon hâ-râ (each other as well as non-religious Jews, Reform Jews, Christian Jews, those they perceive to be 'Christian missionaries', etc.) and fester in internecine sinat khinâm. Concerning these shepherds who, by such khilul é--ä, "lose and scatter [His] sheep" é--ä has also prophesied: Yirmәyâhu 23.1-12.
|
|
Zәkhar•yâhꞋ 14.16 and:
Hover the cursor over a word to see the modern Hebrew letters, then click on the word for further translation and explanation. Clicking in other areas of the scroll (that display the scroll citation) will open a window with a 100% scale view for closer examination. | |
 |
  |
 |
 |
(Yәsha•yâhꞋ u 56.8 & 11.10, 12; 66.23; Zәkhar•yâhꞋ 14.16; as well as the •leiꞋ nu) — As the historically accurate, pro-Torâh, Ribi Yәhoshua is becoming known again for the first time since 135 C.E., he is being widely recognized as the "emblem of the kindreds" and turning significant numbers of goyim toward Torâh. Most certainly, it is Ribi Yәhoshua, more than any other in all of history, whom the goyim seek—and the only figure who can persuade Christians and Muslims, both of whom claim to follow his teachings, abandon the counterfeit apostasy to follow the genuine historical RibꞋ i Yәho•shuꞋ a in practicing Tor•âhꞋ in harmony–and eventual, inexorable peace–with Yi•sә•râ•eilꞋ .
|
|
Ramb"m states of the Mâshiakh, "He will then arrange the whole world to serve only [Elohim], as it is said, 'For then I shall convert the lips of the kindreds to a áøåøä (bәrurah; clarified, clear) language for them all to call upon the Name of 'ä, and, as one, to serve Him" (Tzәphanyâh 3:9 with Sanhedrin 91b; see Scholem, p. 28f).
The leadership of the legitimate followers of Ribi Yәhoshua can only be found where he and the leadership of his original Nәtzârim followers were: within the legitimate Torâh-observant Jewish community in Israel. Today, the Nәtzârim are headed by an Israeli Orthodox Jew in good standing in the Israeli Orthodox Jewish community who is a member of the board of an Israeli Orthodox Jewish Synagogue — in Ra·ananah, a suburb 15km north of Teil Aviv.
The Nәtzârim have students in various stages of progress on every continent… more than 40 countries — from Africa, Asia and the Middle-East to several provinces of Canada; from Europe and Scandanavia to South America and several provinces of Australia and more than 38 states of the US; too many countries to list exhaustively, going completely around the world — a sampling shows students of the Nәtzârim in Israel and Far East countries including Japan, Singapore, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and the Philippines to Nigeria, Namibia and South Africa, Jordan, Finland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Greece, Austria, Britain and the Netherlands, to Washington, D.C., to Mexico, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Puerto Rico and the Antilles, to Argentina, Brazil, Columbia and El Salvador to Hawaii to Guam, New Zealand, Australia and more!
|
|
Mikhâh 5.1 (1)
(Mikhâh 5.1) Beit Lekhem — which is now an Arab village!
It is well documented that Ribi Yәhoshua was born in Beit Lekhem. Today, only Arabs are born in Beit Lekhem. The Israeli government has given Beit Lekhem to the Arabs! Therefore, only Ribi Yәhoshua can ever fulfill this messianic prophecy!
|
|
Hosheia 3.5; Nәkhëmyâh 7.63; Yirmәyâhu 30.9
See Hosheia 3.5, Yirmәyâhu 30.9; et al. From the time this original prophecy was issued (ca. B.C.E. 465) this required documentation in the public genealogical registries.
"According to Hegesippus, Vespasian [69-79 C.E.], Domitian [81-96 C.E.] and Trajan [98-117 C.E.] hunted down all Jews of Davidic descent and executed them in order to extirpate the royal line on which the Jews had set their hopes" (Emil Schürer, The History Of The Jewish People In The Age Of Jesus Christ," I:528).
"It was not without reason…" (Salo Baron, "A Social and Religious History of the Jews," II:121). "The authorities searched out the Jewish families descended from the house of David in order to destroy them and thus eradicate the last remnant of the nation's hope of restoration of the Davidic kingdom" ("Israel," EJ, 9:238).
The sole surviving exceptions are the two genealogies of Ribi Yәhoshua.
Only after the Romans destroyed all of the Davidic genealogies except two (paternal and maternal genealogies of Ribi Yәhoshua) have some ventured that the public genealogical registries weren't required for validation of Kohanim and the Mâshiakh.
However, even for valid Kohanim Scripture makes it explicitly clear that the required documentation by public genealogical registries cannot be circumvented (Nәkhemyah 7.63) (Kohanim today are ceremonial; honored as having traditional descent; but none would qualify for service in the Beit ha-Miqdash.)
The only historically authentic genealogies of the Davidic family from the public registries that survive today are those of Ribi Yәhoshua.
Therefore, Ribi Yәhoshua is the only possible candidate for Mâshiakh that there can ever be!
|
|
"If a scion of Dawid… "
According to Ramb"m, if a scion of Dawid advocates "repairing the breaches in Torâh" and "prevails upon Israel to walk in the ways of Torâh… then one may properly assume that he is the Mâshiakh… "
"And if there arise a [scion] from the House of David who meditates on the Torâh and practices its commandments like his ancestor David in accordance with the Written and Oral Law, prevails upon Israel to walk in the ways of the Torâh and to repair its breaches [see discussions in Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-LinkT (WAN)], and fights the battles of é--ä, then one may properly assume that he is the Mâshiakh" (Ramb"m Mâshiakh, last two passages of his code of laws, in the eleventh and twelfth paragraphs of the "Laws Concerning the Installation of Kings," Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, Schocken, 1971, p. 28).
Rambam rightly ruled out the arch-antithesis Jesus, but he was never presented with the authentic, historical and Torâh Ribi Yәhoshua and, so, never referred to him at all.
Unlike Jesus (the Christian antithesis), Ribi Yәhoshua is a documented scion of Dawid who advocated, and through his legitimate Nәtzârim followers continues to advocate, and will always continue to advocate, "repairing the breaches in Torâh" and "prevailing upon Israel to walk in the ways of Torâh."
Rambam also wrote: "The Mâshiakh will arise and restore the kingdom of David to its former might. He will rebuild the sanctuary and gather the dispersed of Israel. All the laws will be reinstituted in his days as of old [see discussions in WAN Live-LinkT Technology]. Sacrifices will be offered and the Sabbatical and Jubilee years will be observed exactly in accordance with the commandments of the Torâh. But whoever does not believe in him, or does not await his coming denies not only the rest of the prophets, but also the Torâh and our teacher Mosheh" (ibid.).
"Do not think that the Mâshiakh needs to perform signs and miracles, bring about a new state of things in the world, revive the dead, and the like. It is not so… Rather it is the case in these matters that the statutes of our Torâh are valid and forever and eternally. Nothing can be added to them or taken away" (ibid.).
|
|
Yekhezqeil 44.1-3
Yәkhëzqeil 44.1-3 — Not only is the East Gate closed, and controlled by Muslims, the Muslims have deliberately established a cemetary there to make it impossible for a human Jew (whom the Jewish Mâshiakh must be) to pass through without being defiled. No candidate for Mâshiakh can possibly fulfill the cited requirement — except Ribi Yәhoshua who already fulfilled this requirement!
|
|
To read the ms., hover your cursor over a word and it will display in Modern Hebrew letters. Click on the word for translation and further explanation–and often additional links to even further, and complete, explanations.
Hover the cursor over a word to see the modern Hebrew letters, then click on the word for further translation and explanation. Clicking in other areas of the scroll (that display the scroll citation) will open a window with a 100% scale view for closer examination. |
 |
(Sections missing or illegible in the scroll designated by ellipses.)
ìëï éúï é--ä äåà ìë[í…]
[…] äòìîä äøä åéìãú áï å÷øà ùîå òîðåàì
(Therefore, é--ä Himself shall give to yo[u…]
the young-woman is pregnant and shall give birth to a son and call his name "With-us-[is]-Eil)
The Masoretic reads:
ìÈëÅï, éÄúÅï àÂãÒðÈé äåÌà, ìÈëÆí àåÒú; äÄðÌÅä äÈòÇìÀîÈä, äÈøÈä åÀéÒìÆãÆú áÌÅï, åÀ÷ÈøÈàú ùÑÀîåÒ òÄîÌÈðåÌàÅì:
(Lâ•khein′, yi•tein′ A•don•ai′ Hu, lâ•khëm′ ot: Hin•eih′ hâ-alәm•âh′, hâr•âh′ wә-yo•lëd′ët bein, wә-qâ•rât′ shәm•o′ Im•â′nu•Eil′; Therefore, shall A•don•ai′ Himself give, to you a sign: Behold, the young-woman, she is pregnant and will give birth to a son, and his name shall be called, "With-us-[is]-Eil.")
The Aleppo Codex differs from the Masoretic only in separating the name into two words: òÄîÌÈðåÌ àÅì (Im-â′nu Eil; "With-us-[is] Eil").
There is an accurate term in Hebrew for "virgin"—áÌÀúåÌìÈä (bәtul•âh′). Of course, a "young woman" or "maiden" of Israel is expected to be a virgin until she is married! The Egyptian Hellenists of Alexandria undoubtedly assumed this passage referred to an unmarried "young woman" or "maiden" who would subsequently marry and become pregnant by her husband. Accordingly, interpreting the pâ•suq′ as describing the "young woman" / "maiden" before she was married, they rendered LXX, παρθενος (parthenos; virgin).
The error intrudes not in the translation of òÇìÀîÈä as "virgin," which (despite being not the most accurate rendering) is acceptable and true of unmarried "young women" / "maidens" of Israel, but in the introduction of the strictly-Hellenist, idolatrous notion that the virgin-maiden wouldn't get pregnant in the natural way—through the virgin-maiden marrying and subsequently becoming pregnant by her husband. This idolatrous notion of impregnation of a human woman by a divine god is well documented in Egyptian and the Hellenist theology of the Romans (who filtered—"redacted"—ALL of the post-135 C.E. Christian literature), but was never even remotely conceived in the Judaic community of Rib′i Yәho•shu′a and the Nәtzâr•im′.
Tar•gum′ Yo•nâ•tân′ reads:
áÀëÅéï éÄúÅéï éåé äåÌà ìÀëåÉï àÈúÈà äÈà òåÌìÅéîÀúÈà îÀòÇãÀéÈà åÌúìÄéã áÇø åÀúÄ÷øÅé ùÀîÅéä òÄîÈðåÌ àÅìÓ
(vәkhein′ yi•tein′ ha-Sheim′ hu lәkhon ât•âh′ hâ u•leiy•mәtâ′ mәadәyâ′ u-tliyd var wә-tiq•reiy′ shәmeiyh I•mâ•nu•Eil′; So, A•don•ai′ Himself shall give, to you this sign: a young-woman with child; she will give birth to a son, and she shall call his name, "With-us [is] Eil.")
In contrast to LXX (which interprets a young woman prior to marriage), the Aramaic interprets a young married woman.
It becomes easier to see how Hellenist Romans, anxious to inject the traditions of (Egyptian) Horus through (Hellenist) Zeus, took advantage of the Judaic interpretations to syncretize their own idolatry.
|
|
Citing 9.6 for this passage shows that the person uses the Christian OT, not a Bible. In the Bible, this passage is 9.5.
While Christian interpretations distort the pasuq to support the pagan mythological notion of a divine Christ, some Jewish interpretations contradict the constraints imposed by the cantillation.
Hover the cursor over a word to see the modern Hebrew letters, then click on the word for further translation and explanation. Clicking in other areas of the scroll (that display the scroll citation) will open a window with a 100% scale view for closer examination. | |
 |
I've additionally included pâ•suqꞋ 6 because the primary divergence of later mss. changes äÇîÀùÒåÌøÈä to äÇîÌÄùÒÀøÈä; and 1QIsa repeats, and corrects to äÇîÀùÒåÌøÈä a second time in pâ•suqꞋ 6.
The constraints of cantillation require, in an English parallel, the insertion of a pause (e.g. a comma, dash or semi-colon) at a spot that Jews have, apparently, found difficult to harmonize with Judaic concepts. The following resolves, finally, all of the aforementioned problems. The traditional Masoretic reading of the phrase under discussion is supported by both IQIsa (the 'Great Isaiah Scroll' from Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls) and the Aleppo Codex. The latter also supports the Masoretic cantillation. (The cantillation wasn't committed to writing in the days of IQIsa.)
The cantillation requires a short pause, roughly equivalent to a comma in English, after the word Jibor. Since other commas are needed in the English to separate adjectives, I'll use semi-colons (red in the transliteration) to indicate the cantillation mark. Thus, the cantillation forces the following phrasing:
åé÷øà ùîå ôìà éåòõ àì âáåø; àáé-òã ùø-ùìåí:
(wa-yiqrâ shәmo Pëlë yoeitz Eil Jibor; avi-ad sar- shâlom;
"and he called his name 'Wonder,' a counselor of Eil Jibor; My Father is until [i.e. forever], a minister of peace").
According to the Tei•mân•i′ "ëúø úåøä úàâ'", Tar•gum′ Yo•nâ•tân′ reads:
àÂîÇø ðÀáÄéÈÌà ìÌÀáÅéú ãÌÈåÄã, àÂøÅé øÈáÅé àÄúÀéÀìÅéã ìÇðÈà, áÌÇø àÄúÀéÀäÅéá ìÇðÈà, åÀ÷ÇáÌÅéì àåÉøÈéúÈà òÂìåÉäÄé ìÀîÄèÌÀøÇäÌ, åÀàÄúÀ÷ÀøÄé ùÑÀîÅéäÌ îÄï ÷ÃãÈí îÇôÀìÄéà òÅéöÈà àÁìÈäÈà âÌÄáÌÈøÈà ÷ÇéÌÈí òÈìÌÀîÇéÌÈà, îÀùÑÄéçÈà ãÌÄùÑÀìÈîÈà éÄñâÌÅé òÂìÇðÈà áÌÀéåÉîåÉäÄéÓ
(a•mar′ nәvi•yâ lә-veit Dâ•wid′, a•reiy′ râv•eiy′ i•tәyәleiyd′ la•nâ′, bar i•tәyәheiyv′ la•nâ′, wә-qa•beiyl′ o•rây•tâ′ al•o•hiy′ lә-mi•tәrah, wә-i•tәqәriy′ shәm•eiyh min qâ•dâm′ ma•phәliy′ eiy•tzâ′ ël•â•hâ′ ji•bâr•â′ qa•yâm′ â•lәma•yâ′, mәshikh•â′ di-shәlâm•â′ yis•jeiy′ al•a•nâ′ bә-yom•o•hi′; Said the Prophet to the House of David, "Behold a boy child is born to us, a son is given to us; and he will accept the Tor•âh′ upon himself for rain, and his name is to be called (since [he is] a wonder of counsel, of the Ël•oh•im′ Almighty, Who endures forever): 'The Mâ•shi′akh of peace' [who] will grow on us in his days.")
Popular translations render ìÀîÄèÌÀøÇäÌ as "to keep it." However, there is no basis in the Aramaic text for such rendering. ìÀîÄèÌÀøÇäÌ comprises the prepositional prefix ìÀ (lә; to, toward, for) + îÄèÌÀøÇäÌ (mi•tәrah; rain). This may be understood either as [a] "to precipitate," as the Mâ•shi′akh accepting—and then precipitating—Tor•âh′ upon the land like rain, or [b] likening Tor•âh′ to rain that gives water (sustenance and life) to the land.
Some charlatans argue that ùÑÀîÅéäÌ is a feminine noun —and, therefore, refers to Yi•sәr•â•eil′ rather than the Mâ•shi′akh. First of all, this is a conspicuously admission of ignorance of the well-known usage in the Qa•dish′. It also contradicts the related masculine endings in this same pâ•suq′ that modify the Mâ•shi′akh.
Both Christians and Jewish polemicists seem to agree on an error, rendering the noun îÇôÀìÄéà as an adjective (wonderful). The phrase îÇôÀìÄéà òÅéöÈà comprises two nouns, meaning "a wonder of counsel."
îÄï ÷ÃãÈí means "since, because" according to Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (Judaica Treasury, 1971, 2004; p. 1317).
Relative to the original Hebrew text, "Counselor of Eil Ji•bor′" refers to one who counsels others in the Spirit of Eil Ji•bor′—just as I, and other Orthodox Jews, are servants (and, as we follow His Spirit, counselors) of Eil Ji•bor′. This does not remotely suggest one who deigns to counsel Eil Ji•bor′, Who is in no need of any man's counsel.
Notice also that most of the hyphens some interpretors use to string it all together as if it has to be one name are not only absent in the Hebrew, but precluded by the cantillation!
It's essential to understand that this passage was originally interpreted in its historical setting. That understanding remained unchanged for nearly a millennium and Scripture informs us that ha-Sheim doesn't change. The original meaning is the only true understanding.
Yәshayâhu ha-Nâvi wrote this passage ca. BCE 720 relative to Âkhâz ha-mëlëkh (7.1). The child Yәshayâhu names in 9.5 prophesies a wonderful and righteous son of the disappointing and evil Âkhâz: Khizqiyâh ha-mëlëkh (see Mәlâkhim Beit 18.3-8; 20.2ff; Divrei ha-Yâmim Beit 31.1-4). Nor was Yәshayâhu the only Nâvi prophesying about the blasphemous rule of Âkhâz and the cleansing of Yisrâ·eil by his son, Khizqiyâh ha-mëlëkh. Hosheia ha-Nâvi (see 1.1ff) and Mikhah ha-Nâvi (see 1.1ff) were proclaiming parallel prophecies.
These prophecies about Khizqiyâh ha-mëlëkh were seen as harbingers of the role of the Mâshiakh. However, no one in Yisrâ·eil regarded Khizqiyâh ha-mëlëkh as divine!!! Before 135 CE, neither did anyone in Yisrâ·eil associate this prophecy with a "divine son." This pagan concept wasn't associated with this Scripture until the Roman Hellenists introduced their pagan idea into their budding Christianity some time after 135 CE.
Yәshayâhu 9.5 was understood by the Sages as a general vision of the role of the Mâshiakh, but has never been regarded in Yisrâ·eil as suggesting divinity of the prophesied son / Mâshiakh. This is confirmed in that all three of these nәviyim clearly prophesied within the teachings of Torâh (or they would have been stoned to death as heretics, not recognized as Nәviyim and included in the Bible). Dәvârim 13.2-6, along with a plethora of other Scriptures from Torâh, absolutely prohibits this post-135 CE pagan Roman, Hellenist-Christian, goyim fabrication.
Ha-Sheim doesn't change (Malâkhi 3.6; Tәhilim 89.35). The meaning of this passage from BCE 720 cannot have changed. For more than 8 centuries after Yәshayâhu proclaimed this prophecy, Messianic implications remained strictly within Torâh constraints, envisioning a mortal human king patterned after Khizqiyâh ha-mëlëkh – whom NO one regarded as a 'divine son savior'!!! For these first 8 centuries, NO one in Yisrâ·eil would have even imagined that this prophecy by a Torâh-teaching Nâvi patterned his prophecy after the Egyptian Isis and Horus!!!
The implications of Christian claims is unavoidable: if the passage prophesies a 'divine son savior' then Khizqiyâh ha-mëlëkh HAD to have been the first 'divine son savior'!!! (Well, after Horus anyway.)
The idea of a divine son savior doesn't predate 135 CE in the Judaic community. The conclusion is therefore unavoidable: The post-135 CE Christian innovation of a divine son savior, contradicting Torâh, cannot be true.
Confirming this, the concept of a divine son savior tracks back to the Roman religion of Zeus and the Roman pantheon and, before that, the Greek gods and, before that, Isis and Horus in the Egyptian religion.
The 'divine son savior' concept has NO documentation in Tana"kh, is prohibited by Tana"kh, yet DOES track back to Roman, Greek and Egyptian religions. Hello?
Therefore, the Christian concept of a 'divine son savior' is nothing more than yet another repackaging of the religion of the pagans deriving from the Egyptian, Greek and Roman religions, explicitly prohibited by Torâh.
|
|
According to Talmud (Sukah 52a), the coming of the Mashiakh Ben-Yoseiph is described as one "whose coming precedes that of the Mashiakh Ben-Dawid, and who will die in combat with the enemies of é--ä and Israel" (see also "Messiah," Ency. Jud., 11.1411).
|
|
The Midrash also declares that the Mâshiakh was prophesied to suffer for his people. Ruth Rabbah 5.6 explains that Rut 2.14 refers to the Mâshiakh. "Come here," Ruth Rabbah 5.6 explains, refers to approaching the royal Davidic palace. "Eat of the bread" refers to the bread of the royal palace and "dip your morsel in the vinegar" refers to the sufferings of the Mâshiakh, as it is said, "and îçìì (mәkholal; he is pierced) îôùòðå (mi-pәsha·einu;as a result of our felonious-transgressions-of-Torâh)" — commentary to Yәshayâhu 53.5 in Midrash Rabbah.
|
|
As Khab"d (anglicized to Chabad) argued in defense of their belief in Rebbe Schneerson as the Mâshiakh (www.moshiach.net/blind/count.txt): "Many Torah sources refer to Moshiakh rising from the dead, starting with the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b): "Rav said 'If he [Moshiakh] is from the living, [then he is] like Rabbeinu ha-Qadosh [Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi]; if he is from the dead, [then he is] like Daniel, the delightful one.'"
In Hebrew, significant elements of Khab"d continue to argue that Rebbe Schneerson is the Mâshiakh, as evidenced on the cover of their magazine "Beis Moshiach" (Beit Mashiakh Magazine, Issue #360, 2002.03.08; also their website at www.beismoshiach.org):
éçé àãåððå, îåøðå, åøáéðå, îìê äîùéç ìòåìí åòã
(Yәkhi Adoneinu Moreinu u-Rabeinu Melekh ha-Mashiakh lә- Olam wa-ed; Long live our Lord, our Instructor, and our Rabbi, the King Mâshiakh, forever and ever).
To avoid English-speaking Christian flak, they conveniently omit the translation of Adoneinu (our Lord) entirely in their English translation of their Hebrew cover.
Next (Resurrection of Mâshiakh): Dâniyeil 7.13-14 & Talmud Masëkët Sunedrion 98a and 98b (2)
|
|
"So it states in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b) 'If the Moshiakh comes from the dead it will be etc.' The great and holy scholar Rabbi Khiam Midini in his work Sdei Khemed (Peyat ha-Sadeh, Maarekhet 'Alef', os Eyin), connects this Talmudic statement to an earlier one (ibid 98a) referring to the prophecy of [Daniyeil 7.13-14]: "If the generation is fortunate the Moshiakh will come from the dead, i.e. on 'clouds of heaven' and then everyone will accept him with no reservations, but if not he will come from the living, i.e. riding on a donkey (lit. 'khamor' which also means 'physical' in Hebrew)."
"Rashi, the basic Talmudic commentary, explains: "If Moshiakh is from those who are alive now, [then] surely he is Rabbeinu Hakadosh [Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi], who suffers sicknesses and is an absolute saint… If he is from those who have already died, [then] he is Daniel, the delightful one, who was condemned to suffer in the lions' den and was an absolute saint."
"In the second to the last Rashi, (the foremost explainer of the scripture and the Talmud, printed in every text) in the book of Daniel he writes: 'The Moshiakh will reveal himself and then be concealed… and then revealed once more, and so it says in the Midrash on Ruth and in the poems of Rabbi Eliezer ha-Kalir'"
|
|
Mehlmann Collection, Mehlmann Library, Tel Aviv University. (Written in RashꞋ "i script, the much-abused quotation begins on line 4.) Hover the cursor over a word to see the modern Hebrew letters, then click on the word for further translation and explanation. Clicking in other areas of the scroll (that display the scroll citation) will open a window with a 100% scale view for closer examination. | |
 cropped 973x503.jpg "Quotation from îøàåú äöåáàåú (Marot Tzovot) by Mosheh al-Sheikh (p. 47, col. 2; photograph © 2005 Yael Ben-David)") |
"Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, are of one mouth, they have preserved and accepted that [the passage] shall speak about MëlꞋ ëkh ha-Mâ•shiꞋ akh; and we shall pull along [following] after those [Rabbis], of blessed memory, that it is because he is Dâ•widꞋ , he is the Mâ•shiꞋ akh, that is known, and the full Scripture of ha-Nâ•viꞋ spoke in the Name of é--ä: 'And My servant David shall be over them, for a king.' " 1
"Therefore, it is right that we say this concerning [the phrase] "Judicious shall My servant be" because that which is enigmatic is taught from that which is commented. Then look, too, that we won't make comments that are in the Scriptures, revealing absolutely [everything] for the eyes of everyone. The introduction — [the Prophet's] saying — isn't too inaccessible for any heart: "Look, judicious shall My servant be," and not saying 'Thus says ha-Sheim,' like the beginning of every parashah except this.
"Indeed look, Sages of blessed memory say that of all the torment that comes into the world, one third was for David and the Patriarchs, the second third was for the generation of the Decree (of oppression), and the third is for the King Messiah. He prophesied regarding this matter, and [that prophecy] is that there is torment for a deliberate misdemeanor and there is torment that, out of love, the Tzadiq shoulders for a deliberate misdemeanor by the generation.
"Look, the man who is appalled by this [undeserved torment] is [the one who] doesn't realize the extent of the reward truly being given to [the Tzadiqim], as it is said: Would ha-Sheim desire that one man should be the (yekhateh [pieil]) misstep-sacrifice? Or that the whole generation [be the misstep-sacrifice] for a just and innocent man who didn't misstep much?
"This will be the reward for Israel in the Exile, for [the innocent man] delivered himself to death by the gentiles. Therefore, the psyches [of Israel] are subsumed under his psyche and the mamon (a tallied-belonging) [of Israel], which [the Israelis] took while in the Exile, is subsumed under his mamon.
"This [principle of subsuming psyches], they said, is [learned from the verse]: "subsumed under which he poured out his psyche to die." 2 … Subsumed under which [the principle of subsuming of mamon is also learned from this same verse]: "with rebelious-felons he was nimnah (tallied-as-a-belonging)." (Rabbi Mosheh Ben-Khayim al-Sheikh, Marot Tzovot, Tzәphat member of the Sanhedrin, ca. 1507, Mehlmann Collection, Mehlmann Library, Tel Aviv University, p. 47, col. 2)
Yәkhëz•qeilꞋ 37.24. 
Yәkhëz•qeilꞋ 53.12.
|
|
The various and conflicting earliest extant ms. of Ma•sëkꞋ ët Avod•âhꞋ Zâr•âhꞋ 17a demonstrate that the association with Christians and YeshꞋ "u was still being formulated in the 3rd-5th centuries C.E. and, correspondingly, against the venomously misojudaic Christian image being propagated by the Church against Jews during that period; not with the original experience of R. Eliezer.
This is proven by Josephus' record that the Pәrush•imꞋ were busy defending the Nәtzâr•imꞋ (against the Hellenist-Tzәdoq•imꞋ who had murdered Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ ha-Tza•diqꞋ (the brother of RibꞋ i Yәho•shuꞋ a) before the Roman tribunal during this time!!! The Pәrush•imꞋ (who included the Nәtzâr•imꞋ ) were in the same conflict, and being persecuted together by, the Hellenist-Roman Christian Church. See Oxford scholar and historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism.
This is further proof that the first-century Pәrush•imꞋ RibꞋ i – having sәmikh•âhꞋ from the Nâ•siꞋ of the Sanhedrin (the only way he could have been addressed as such and taught as such in synagogues within Judea), and his Nәtzâr•imꞋ followers, were the polar opposite of the 3rd-4th century anti-Tor•âhꞋ image (idol, feculent cloak of Zәkhar•yâhꞋ 3) counterfeited by Christianity and the Church. AZ 17a rightly condemns any assimilation of Christianity, the Church, their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) or their idol, YeshꞋ "u.
|
|
"The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabba 11:3) says that the future Redeemer will be revealed, then concealed, then revealed again. This is quoted by Rabbeinu Bakhayei and by the Khasam Sofer on the Torah (both at end of Parshas Shmos). The latter writes: "This is a great test that the Redeemer is concealed [Moshe] . . . and so it will be at the time of our righteous Moshiakh [that] he will be concealed after [his] revelation, as mentioned in the Midrash." [This is also corroborated by the symbolism of the Matzah and aphiqoman in the Pesakh Seider. YBD]
|
|
Mikhâh 5.1, with commentary quoted from NHM note 26.23.1.
Mikhâh ha-Nâvi clearly speaks of the Mâshiakh when he prophesies, "And you, Beit-Lëkhëm Ëphrâtâh, though you are to be junior among the thousands of Yәhudâh, from out of you shall come forth to Me he who shall be the ruler of Yisrâ·eil, and his goings forth are from antiquity, from past eternity."
Mikhâh ha-Nâvi wrote åîåöàúéå (u-motzâ·otâv; "and his goings forth" or "issuings forth") – in the plural!!! – of the Mâshiakh. Thus, the Mâshiakh would go forth shәtei-pә·âmim – two times. Here we have the concept of the Mâshiakh Bën-Yoseiph and the Mâshiakh Bën-Dâwid in one person – "his [singular] goings-forth" [plural]!!!
Like the first dipping of karpas (Biblical hyssop = fresh sprig of Syrian oregano) in red wine vinegar recalling hyssop in the blood of the Pësakh lamb at the Seidër, so that the destroyer would pâsakh (skip-over) obedient Jews, so, too, with the blood of His Mâshiakh, é--ä has provided a permanent Pësakh lamb for those who keep Torâh non-selectively according to Halâkhâh.
From this, we see that the second "going forth" of the Mâshiakh will be like the second dipping – Mâror, the bitterness, into Kharosët, sweetness. The bitterness and suffering of the first going forth of the Mâshiakh as the Pësakh lamb shall be dipped into the sweetness of his second going forth as the Mâshiakh Bën-Dâwid. This also symbolizes the merging in one person, Ribi Yәhoshua Bën--Yoseiph Bën--Dâwid ha-Mâshiakh, the role of Pësakh lamb and the eternal king as it is said (Yәkhëzqeil 37:25), "And My servant Dâwid shall be their Nâsi forever."
Next (Suffering Mâshiakh): Yәshayâhu 60
|
|
"From the Zohar (Shmos 8b) — as explained in Zohar Harakiya and Shaar Hagilgulim (ch. 13, both by the ARI-Zal, Rabbi Yitzkhak Luria, one of the greatest Kabbalists) — it is clear that the man designated to be Moshiakh is born naturally in this world, then the soul of Moshiakh in the heavenly "Garden of Eden" is bestowed upon him so that he realizes that he is Moshiakh, then he becomes concealed, ascending to heaven, and only afterwards is he revealed to the full extent, the whole Jewish people recognizing him as Moshiakh.
|
|
"The Zohar in Parshat Balaq (pg 203b) states that the Moshiakh will have to 'die' i.e. go to a higher spiritual level, and return again with the new level he has attained."
Next (Resurrection of Mâshiakh): Shaar ha-Kavanot
|
|
(For original Aramaic text of this passage, with translation, click on title.)
Hear, O Israel, Y--H Elohenu Y--H is one. These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of Faith: in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eyes alone. The mystery of the audible voice is similar to this, for though it is one yet it consists of three elements – fire, air, and water, which have, however, become one in the mystery of the voice. Even so it is with the mystery of the threefold divine manifestations designated by Y--H Elohenu Y--H – three modes which yet form one unity.
Is this an accurate quotation and interpretation? I'm never satisfied relying on a Christian's translation / interpretation. Even Christian scholars have a Christian orientation that emerges in their interpretations.
For decades, I've seen this quotation purported to be a commentary on the MishꞋ nâh, which was written by Ram•ba"mꞋ . Countless (non-Christian) Jews, who were well educated in Tor•âhꞋ , have long argued with me over the years that Ram•ba"mꞋ , despite being a well-documented #1 adversary against the irrationalists ("Kabbalists" – which implies opposing the Qa•bâlists' core source text: the Zo•harꞋ ), was an advocate of the Zo•harꞋ (not realizing that this implied that Ram•ba"mꞋ advocated this purported quotation). While this always seemed a near-certain contradiction and impossibility, I never felt confident to dispute their contention—until now.
After decades of searching for the source text, to translate it for myself and get to the bottom of the matter the same way I've managed to deal with everything else, I have finally obtained the source text underlying these quotations.
The first point to clear up is that there is no indication in the source text of any connection whatsoever to Ram•ba"mꞋ 's Commentary on the MishꞋ nâh. Ram•ba"mꞋ had no connection to this quotation. Accordingly, finally, this misperception should be edited out of notes 3.17.2 and 26.23.1 of NHM.
The second point to clear up is that "modes" isn't the best English translation of the Aramaic âÌÇåÌÈåðÄéï.
See the source text for further details.
While we share Ram•ba"mꞋ 's rejection of the irrationalists' heresy (Qa•bâl•âhꞋ and the 10th-century C.E. Zo•harꞋ ), the quotation does prove two things:
The Trinitarian concept of "three facets Unified in One Singularity" is herein documented to have concrete roots in medieval Qa•bâl•âhꞋ , and
Even more importantly, the large segment of the Jewish world that accepts Qa•bâl•âhꞋ and the Zo•harꞋ (which is not all of the Jewish world by any means) unavoidably embraces the Trinitarian principle of "three facets comprise the Singularity" – making any criticism on their part of Trinitarianism completely self-contradicting, hypocritical and sanctimonious.
However, unlike the Zo•harꞋ departure from the punctuation of the Masoretic Text, the Nәtzâr•imꞋ read the Shәm•aꞋ as punctuated in the Masoretic Text:
| Shәm•aꞋ Yi•sә•râ•eilꞋ — | é--ä is Ël•oh•einꞋ u | é--ä is àÆçÈã |
In terms the earliest Israelis, breaking away from idolatry, understood: "Hearken Yi•sә•râ•eilꞋ : é--ä is sing. our gods! é--ä is One!"
While the number three is found often in Tor•âhꞋ numerology – including the three matz•otꞋ in the PësꞋ akh SeiꞋ dër, the onerous "three facets is One" conundrum is found, contrary to the Kabbalists and their Zo•harꞋ , not to occur in the Shәm•aꞋ .
While scholars acknowledge that "Judaism" was originally called "The Way," the void of any explanation or derivation in the literature attests that they have no idea of the origin of that phrase. There are two letters in the Shәm•aꞋ that are enlarged in the SeiphꞋ ër Tor•âhꞋ : the ò in ùÑÀîÇò and the final letter, the ã in àÆçÈã. These two letters form an acronym: ò"ã, the acronym for, inter alia, òÇì ãÌÆøÆêÀ (al dërꞋ ëkh; The Way; lit. "on the way")!
|
|
"So writes the famous Rabbi Yitzkhak Luria in the eleventh chapter of his work 'Sha·ar ha-Kavanot,' that after the Moshiakh arrives he will be hidden in heaven like Moshe was hidden on mount Siani and then he will appear again.
"We see here three stages in the revelation of Moshiakh: a) revelation, b) concealment, c) final full revelation.
Next (Resurrection of Mâshiakh): Yәshayâhu 60; Midrash Pesikta Rabbasi 37; Yalkut Shimoni 499
|
|
"The Midrash Pesikta Rabbasi (37, quoted in Yalkut Shimoni 499 on [Yәshayahu] 60) states: "At that time G-d will raise Moshiakh up to the highest heavens and spread over him the radiance of His glory" — after Moshiakh has already suffered in this world, as is clear from the context.
|
|
Yeshuot Meshikho, Talmud Sanhedrin-98b (3)
"The great Torah commentator and philosopher, Don Yitzkhak Abarbanel (1437-1508), who wrote three lengthy works about the Scriptural prophecies and our Sages' sayings concerning Moshiakh and the Geula, writes in Yeshuos Meshikho (Jerusalem, 5753, p.104) that it is possible that Moshiakh will be taken from this world and brought into the heavenly "Garden of Eden," continuing: "You should not find it difficult [to understand] that the King Moshiakh will be among those who arise in the Resurrection," quoting the above Talmudic passage (Sanhedrin 98b) as proof that this can be so. Here we see the same three stages of revelation, concealment and revelation.
Next (Resurrection of Mâshiakh): Rambam, Tzemakh-Tzedeq, Derekh Mitzvotekha 88
|
|
"Note that Abarbanel (whom the Tzemakh Tzedek, 1789-1866, called "the great sage who is perfect in his opinions" — Derekh Mitzvosekha, p. 88) wrote this long after Rambam's aforementioned ruling concerning the identity and rise of the Moshiakh, proving that he did not see that ruling as any contradiction to the possibility of the Moshiakh rising "from the dead."
|
|
"If he is then successful in rebuilding the sanctuary on its site and ingathering the dispersed of Israel, then he has in fact [as a result of his success] proven himself to be the Mâshiakh" (Scholem, p. 28f).
Those who fathom Tәhilim 118:22 can see that the sanctuary (comprising souls of Torâh-observant Jews and geirim, not stone), too, is virtually complete, the breaches in Torâh are being addressed and redressed… and the sacrifices of halakhically Torâh-observant Jews have been, and continue to be, offered by the Kohein ha-Jadol and Tzemakh (plant) described by Yәkhëzqeil 34.23-24; 37.24-25; 46.2-12; 44.1-3; 45.16-22 and Zәkharyah 3 since even before the destruction of the Beit-ha-Miqdâsh.
The Tana"kh attests that a Ben-Dâvid was a Kohein (Shᵊmu•eilꞋ Beit 8.18; 20.26). Redemption, though still being realized, was completed a long time ago (see Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant').
|
|
According to the foremost authoritative Ëvën-Shoshân New Concordance of the Ta•na"khꞋ (1990, 1993, p. 508), the masc. noun éÅùÑÇò, found twice in Kha•va•quqꞋ 3.13 (written ca. B.C.E. 600, both times prefixed by the preposition ìÀ), in fact equates to the noun yᵊshu•âhꞋ, and not a verb as deliberately mistranslated in Jewish-English translations to elide Christians' tendency to confuse yᵊshu•âhꞋ with their YeshꞋ"u. Thus, according to the foremost authoritative Ëvën-Shoshân New Concordance of the Ta•na"khꞋ, the correct translation is: "You went forth to the national-salvation of Your m.s. am, to the national-salvation of Your m.s. anointed" (which can refer to any ancient ko•heinꞋ or mëlꞋëkh of Israel as well as "the" Mâ•shiꞋakh.
|
|
Morever, in Sanhedrin 98b, we find: "Rav said, The world was created only on Dawid's account. Shmu·eil said: On Mosheh's account. R. Yokhanan said: For the sake of the Mâshiakh. What is his [the Mâshiakh's] name? … The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he has born our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of Elohim, and afflicted." — confirming that this famous passage from Yәshayahu 53 was understood to refer to the Mâshiakh!
|
|
Talmud Sanhedrin-98b (5); Yeshuot Meshikho 2.2.1
"Finally the Abarbanel in his book 'Yeshuot Moshikho' (Part 2, topic 2, chapter 1) that 'the Moshiakh will have to die in order to purify the generation (necessarily implying the providing of kipur) and he will wait in a spiritual state in "heaven" until it he rises from the dead,' as it says in the Talmud Sanhedrin (98b).
|
|
Purification equates to kipur! Contrary to many modern arguments that contradict the Mәsorah, this is entirely consistent with Torâh teaching: "… As a result of this principle, suffering and pain may be imposed on a tzadiq as kipur for his entire generation. [According to the Mәsorah], the tzadiq must then accept his suffering with love for the benefit of his generation, just as he accepts the suffering imposed upon him for his own sake. In doing so, he benefits his generation by providing kipur for it, and at the same time is himself elevated to a great degree. For a tzadiq such as this is made into one of the leaders of the Community of the future world, as discussed earlier… In addition, there is a special, higher type of suffering that comes to a tzadiq who is even greater and more highly perfected than the ones discussed above. This suffering comes to provide the help to bring about the necessary chain of events leading to the ultimate perfection of mankind as a whole." (Ramh"l — R. Moses Hayyim Luzzatto, Italian Qabalist, 1707-1746 — Derekh ha-Sheim 2.3.8).
Talmud thus demonstrates the most ancient and authentic mainstream view: that Yәshayahu 53 was universally understood among mainstream religious, Orthodox, Jews to refer to the Mashiakh Ben-Yoseiph, also called the "Suffering Servant of Elohim."
Only in the 16th century, countering the emergence of apocalyptic-messianist Jews, rival rationalist-messianist Jews reinterpreted the Mâshiakh of Yәshayâhu 53 specifically to forestall their mystical and Qabalist apocalyptic rivals who were dependent upon a charismatic Mâshiakh. These rationalist-messianists resurrected an interpretation which had previously been of alien — Origen — origin: that Yәshayâhu 53 referred to 'the entire people of Israel' (Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, p. 47-48).
First, it should be remembered that this innovation was contradictory to mainstream religious, Orthodox, Judaism demonstrated from Talmud (for additional Talmud passages, see Scholem, p. 33). Second (for which see below), Origen;s is a hearsay report of one non-Jew quoting a second non-Jew who claimed to have heard it from what the latter non-Jew regarded a "Jewish authority" — who was probably a Hellenist and, in any case, such a report is never acceptable for determining halakhah.
|
|
The sole extant pre-Middle Ages mention of one isolated clause of Septuagint Yәshayâhu 53, along with another uncertain and questionable passage, being interpreted as referring to the Jewish people rather than the Mashiakh Ben-Yoseiph is found in "Origen Contra Celsum" (Chadwick, Henry; Cambridge University Press, 1965 Book 1.55, p. 50). It is well known that the Septuagint is a source quoted by gentiles — Hellenists, not by Jews. Moreover, this mention is by a non-Jew who quotes a non-Jew who, in turn, purported to quote a Jew.
"I remember that once in a discussion with some whom the Jews regard as learned, I used these prophecies. At this, the Jew said that these prophecies referred to the whole people as though of a single individual, since they were scattered in the dispersion and smitten, that as a result of the scattering of the Jews among the other nations, many might become proselytes. In this way he explained the text: 'Thy form shall be inglorious among men'; and 'those to whom he was not proclaimed shall see him.'
Origen (aka "Origenes") lived from c. 185 — 254 C.E. He is believed to have been either Egyptian or Greek, though there is some speculation that his mother may have been of Jewish descent (not necessarily a Jewess) or had some familiarity with Hebrew based on the following: "Is it possible that she was of Jewish descent? Origen is said to have learnt Hebrew so successfully that in singing the psalms 'he vied with his mother' (Hier. Ep. 39 (22), §1)" ("Origenes," William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography (New York: AMS Press, 1974), IV.96-142).
In his Books Against Celsus, Origen frequently quotes the arguments of Celsus who "places his arguments in the mouth of a Jew" (p. 123). However, Origen knew Celsus as either an Epicurean (Greek philosophy of hedonism) or a Platonist (Greek philosophy of theoretical idealism), not a Jew. Moreover, Celsus, while anti-Christian, was equally anti-Judaic ("Celsus (1)," William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography (New York: AMS Press, 1974), I.435-437). "The form of Celsus' work, the αληθης λογος [aleitheis logos; true word, lit. "manifest saying"] is well known. He begins with a dialogue between a Jew and a Christian, in which the Jew sets forth the objections to Christianity which [Celsus understood] come from his point of view. It must not, however, be inferred from this that Celsus had any partiality for Judaism; much the reverse." (ibid.).
Previous mention of the interpretation of Yәshayâhu 53 as referring to 'the entire people of Israel' was then Hellenist-Greek and gentile (apparently first mentioned by Origen), and certainly didn't reflect mainstream Judaism as described in Talmud (above). In fact, it is likely that this departure from the mishpatim (Oral Law) that derived from Har Sinai was originally fabricated by Roman-Christians to justify their misojudaic view that Jews as a people should — according to 'their own Bible' (NT) — properly suffer.
In any case, it is indeed ironic that, like removing the Aseret ha-Dibrot from the head tәphilin, shaving ("clipping" the beard, monogamy and perhaps head-covering, many Jews have internalized foreign elements which are alien to Har Sinai, introduced by imposition and persecution perpetrated upon Jews by misojudaic goyim.
Moreover, interpreting the subject of Yәshayâhu 53 as 'the entire people of Israel' is oxymoronic:
In this reinterpretation, the 16th century rationalist-messianists also perverted the original, pre-Renaissance Middle Ages, champion of rationalist messianism, Ramb"m, who understood, and consistently referred to, the Mâshiakh explicitly as a Torâh-observant mortal Jew (cf., inter alia, the last two passages of his code of laws, quoted in Scholem, p. 28-29).
|
|
Danieil (9.24-27) Prophesied…
That the Mâshiakh Would be Killed in 30 C.E.
In an especially ludicrous attempt to avoid the following pinpoint prophecy, a prominent 'anti-missionary,' Rabbi Singer, actually had no alternative but to resort to the khutzpah of publishing that Danieil (rather than himself) was mistaken!!!
has demonstrated that, according to the record, Ribi Yәhoshua was "cut-off" the 20th of Firstmonth (Nisan) in 30 C.E. (NHM 27 note 28.1.2 and related notes)!!! Obviously, no candidate for Mâshiakh can ever go back in time to satisfy this messianic prophecy. Only Ribi Yәhoshua can, and has, fulfilled this messianic prophecy!!! |
|
Zәkharyah 3 describes a scene that couldn't possibly refer to the then-current, physically living, Yehoshua who was Kohein ha-Jadol — "standing before the angel of ha-Sheim, and the Satan was standing on his right" — actually names Ribi Yәhoshua!
|
|
Torâh Prophecy of the Mâshiakh
While some are aware of the messianic prophecy in Torâh made by Mosheh himself (Dәvârim 18.15, 18), few are aware that Torâh explicitly ruled out Yehoshua Ben-Nun in Devarim 34.10.
Thus, the following refers to Ribi Yәhoshua: "And it shall be that the man who will not hearken to My words that he [whom we have shown is Ribi Yәhoshua] shall speak in My Name, I ['ä] will prosecute him" (Devarim 18.19).
|
|
Zekharyah 12.1 – 13.1 (Parallels Yo·eil 2 and Yirmәyâhu 3.14ff with 4.5-6 & 19-23. See also NHM 24-25 with notes and my book The 1993 Covenant Live-LinkT .)
The nәviyim pinpointed the window in which the Mâshiakh is to come, among other things, relative to events in Yәrushalayim which we see happening now on Fox News, CNN & BBC (Zәkharyah 12.1- 13.1):
"Behold I will make Yәrushalayim a staggering-drunk's cup to all of the surrounding kindreds, and so it will be for Yәhudah in the siege against Yәrushalayim.
And it shall become in that day that I will set Yerushalayim to be a grievous stone of burden on [the necks of] all of the kindreds; all who have this burden shall be absolutely slashed up, even all of the goyim [who] shall be gathered against her… And Yerushalayim shall be resettled again where she belongs — in Yerushalayim. Then é--ä will first save the tents of Yәhudah…
In that day, é--ä shall shield the settlers of Yerushalayim.
In that day, even [the settler of Yerushalayim who] stumbles shall be like Dawid; and the House of Dawid shall be like Elohim, like a malakh of é--ä confronting [the kindreds].
In that day it shall become that I will request them to destroy all of the goyim who have come against Yerushalayim. But I will pour upon the House of Dawid and upon the settlers of Yerushalayim a Spirit of Graciousness and Supplication,
åäáéèå àìé àú àùø ã÷øå
(wә-hibitu eilai eit asheir daqaru; and they shall gaze toward Me,
"In that day there shall be a fountain opened [i.e., the Mâshiakh] for the House of Dawid and for the settlers of Yerushalayim, for a çèàú (khatat; misstep-sacrifice) åìðéãä (ulә-nidah; and for the menstruant)."" ( Zәkharyah 13.1)
Two Mâshiakhs
Until Paqid Yirmәyahu researched the Nәtzârim name and sect and began publishing about it in 1972 in NHM
Because we teach and practice the authentic Judaic teachings of Ribi Yәhoshua — not Displacement Theology — we are the only group who have restored the Nәtzârim to its pristine original teadchings and position, accepted in the legitimate Jewish community in Israel — genuinely like Ribi Yәhoshua and the original Nәtzârim. Consequently, the 'Nәtzârim Quarter' (NQ) is the only web site of legitimate Nәtzârim / Nazarene Judaism.
Give all the friends you've ever known the chance to know about this exciting site; send them our web site address (www.netzarim.co.il) that opens modern eyes for the first time to the Judaic world that Ribi Yәhoshua and his original Nәtzârim knew, practiced and taught.
If you came to this page via the "Messianic Issues" link from our the 'Nәtzârim Gate' (Home Page) just click your "Back" button. If you came directly to this page from a search engine or some other site, you can click on our logo (below) for an exciting visit to the 'Nәtzârim Quarter' where you'll learn about historical Ribi Yәhoshua and his original, Jewish, followers before the great Roman-Hellenist apostasy of 135 C.E. — and even more importantly, how you (whether Jew or non-Jew) can follow the historically true, Judaic, Ribi Yәhoshua. In Hebrew, his original followers were called the Nәtzârim (Hellenized to "Nazarenes").
Masëkët Gitin 57a
Misojudaic Christians and Muslims cite this page of the Talmud as proof that Jews view Yësh"u as "being boiled alive in excrement."
This allegory "of Onkelos the proselyte who raised Titus, [Bilâm] and [Yësh"u] from the dead to ask their advice whether he should become a proselyte· can only be understood in the context of an era in which such a warning was already important, namely the fourth century" (EJ 10.15). One cannot comprehend this without first understanding the Earliest Rabbinic Traditions in Talmud.
While this 4th-century allegory relates to the Hellenized Yësh"u (not Ribi Yәhoshua), Talmud nevertheless argues, in contrasting Yësh"u against Bilâm, that even the gentile Hellenist Yësh"u image "warned against persecuting Jews and forbade their oppression" (ibid.).
àæì àñ÷éä {ìéù"å} áðâéãà [ìôåùòé éùøàì]
à"ì, Who is important in that olâm? à"ì, Israel. à"ì, What about sticking with them? à"ì, Seek their good; don't seek their wrong. Anyone who touches them is tantamount to touching the Iris of His Eye. à"ì, What is the sentence for that man? à"ì, in boiling öåàä as âmar an instructor: Anyone who mocks the Sayings of the Sages is sentenced to boiling öåàä.
This is certainly based on the prophecy of the Kohein-Mâshiakh named Yәhoshua in Zәkharyâh 3.3, in which he is described as having his reputation sullied by slander – dressed in "áâãéí öåàéí." This is exactly what happened to Ribi Yәhoshua, as his reputation was perverted to that of the gentile, Hellenist (i.e. idolatrous) man-god, Yësh"u.
Overview To Talmud References
"Statements in rabbinic literature that explicitly mention [Yësh"u] by name or that allude to him and to his actions are few. Nothing has been transmitted in the names of the rabbis from the early half of the first century" (EJ 10.14). In fact, by the time anything is transmitted regarding any aspect of this topic, the mutually-exclusive dichotomy between the pro-Torâh Ribi Yәhoshua and, lә-havdil, the anti-Torâh 4th-century gentile Roman Hellenist man-god Yësh"u-idol was so complete and instilled that references subsequent to 135 C.E. refer only to the latter, the former having faded from memory. Thus, it can be no surprise that "Even those statements dating from the second century are to be regarded as reflecting the knowledge and views of Jews of that time [emphasis added] about Christians and [Yësh"u as distinguished from Ribi Yәhoshua], which derived [exclusively, not "in part"] from contemporary Christian sources. They were … a reaction to the image of [Yësh"u] as it had crystallized in the Christian tradition" (loc. cit., emphasis added).
Proof is confirmed in the statement that "They hanged [Yësh"u] on ërëv Pësakh" (the 14th of Firstmonth). This dating can only reflect the Christian tradition. It has been proven that according to Judaic tradition that the execution could only have occurred on the 20th of Firstmonth (cf. NHM
The muddling between the historical figure and the post-135 C.E. mythicized Hellenist man-god idol of the gentile Romans resulted in often-contradicting accounts about which century he lived, who his teacher was (e.g., Masëkët Sunedrion 107b), who his father (cf. Masëkët Sotâh 47a) and other relatives were, who his talmidim were and conflicting descriptions ranging the gamut from a rabbinical student to a mәshumâd. It should be no surprise that, as early as the second century, especially as redacted through the 5th century and later, reactions address " the image of [Yësh"u] as it had crystallized in the Christian tradition." This is the case with the declaration "May we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself like Yësh"u the Nazarene" (Masëkët Bәrâkhot 17b; Masëkët Sunedrion 103a; cf. Diq. Soph. ad loc.).
Indeed, this is true of Yësh"u! However, that has nothing to do with Ribi Yәhoshua.
|
|
|
