How the rabbinical "Two Messiahs" concept points to a Messiah who is killed and resurrects

rakovsky

Active member
Daniel Boyarin is Conservative, so I doubt many Orthodox Jews would care about his theological views either way. Boyarin is also on record comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, and suggesting that Israel is killing Judaism, so there's that, too.

After Rabbi Kaduri passed away, a note in his handwriting was found, reading:

,בענין הר"ת של משיח
.ירים העם ויוכיח שדברי ותורתו עומדים
באתי על החתום בחודש הרחמים התשס"ה, יצחק כדורי​

The second line's words form an acrostic, the name יהושוע, which, however way you look at it, is not Jesus's name, which is ישוע. Two letter difference.
What makes you say that Boyarin is Conservative?
Daniel Boyarin: Talmudist, feminist, anti-Zionist, only-in-Berkeley Orthodox Jew

Doesn't יהושוע mean Yehoshuah or Joshua, which is considered a version of the name Yeshua?
I have trouble finding יהושוע online, but it does show up in a few places:
jer-31.com/Tenach/Yehoshua/Yehoshua05.htm

Wikipedia says:
Yeshua (ישוע‎, with vowel pointing יֵשׁוּעַ‎ – yēšūă‘ in Hebrew) was a common alternative form of the name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎ ("Yehoshua" – Joshua) in later books of the Hebrew Bible and among Jews of the Second Temple period. ...

The Hebrew spelling Yeshua (ישוע‎) appears in some later books of the Hebrew Bible. Once for Joshua the son of Nun, and 28 times for Joshua the High Priest and other priests called Jeshua – although these same priests are also given the spelling Joshua in 11 further instances in the books of Haggai and Zechariah. It differs from the usual Hebrew Bible spelling of Joshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎ y'hoshuaʿ), found 218 times in the Hebrew Bible, in the absence of the consonant he ה‎ and placement of the semivowel vav ו after, not before, the consonant shin ש‎.
 

rakovsky

Active member
@Open Heart @Harel13

I don't care for the Talmud in the same sense I don't care about church fathers and Bible commentaries. They are people's flawed opinions, often conflicting with each other, full of heresies. I have a sefaria.org account that I checked for a year or so for rabbi commentaries, but I can't say I benefited anything from reading them.
This is kind of off topic, but practical, reliable understanding the Bible, as well as Christianity from the Apostolic and Apostolic Fathers' age demands caring about church fathers or Bible Commentaries. Otherwise you get the situation where two readers who don't care about commentaries but believe that they are divinely led read the same passages and come to opposite conclusions even on salvation topics like Infant Baptism. So not caring about commentaries interferes with a practical and reliable understanding.
 

Septextura

Well-known member
This is kind of off topic, but practical, reliable understanding the Bible, as well as Christianity from the Apostolic and Apostolic Fathers' age demands caring about church fathers or Bible Commentaries. Otherwise you get the situation where two readers who don't care about commentaries but believe that they are divinely led read the same passages and come to opposite conclusions even on salvation topics like Infant Baptism. So not caring about commentaries interferes with a practical and reliable understanding.

You still make up your own mind which commentary you consider true. What is your ultimate authority on deciding?
 

rakovsky

Active member
You still make up your own mind which commentary you consider true. What is your ultimate authority on deciding?
The "ultimate authority" of course is God. This is because God could put something in the Bible that the author didn't intend. But to appeal to this "ultimate authority" of divine inspiration as the basic mechanism leads to arbitrariness and whims due to the difficulty in deciphering divine intent.

Normally when you want to understand what a religion teaches you look to the commentaries, particularly if there is a consensus. So for instance if you want to know what Lutheranism teaches, you look to what Luther wrote, as well as to the early Lutherans, like the Augsburg Confession. Based on this approach, then by analogy we would look to those who knew the apostles as well as the first few generations of Christians. This means the early Church Fathers' writings like Polycarp and Irenaeus.
 

Harel13

Active member
What makes you say that Boyarin is Conservative
Because he studied in the Jewish Theological Seminary, a Conservative institute. This isn't really a thing Orthodox Jews do when they want to study Jewish thought. It doesn't say where he got his rabbinical ordination on Wikipedia, but it sounds like he got it there. If that's the case, then it's not recognized as a real ordination by Orthodox Jews.

Doesn't יהושוע mean Yehoshuah or Joshua, which is considered a version of the name Yeshua?
Nope. At best, it's the other way around. Yeshua is a version of Yehoshua. Remember, in THE Torah the name Yehoshua evolved from Hoshea, not Yeshua. Interestingly, recently I heard that Yeshua may have been a secularized version of Yehoshua. I read this about Yeshua the High Priest, not Jesus. I figured, however, that it might make sense in Jesus's case, you know, coming from the Hellenistic, much-less-scholarly Galilee.
 

rakovsky

Active member
Nope. At best, it's the other way around. Yeshua is a version of Yehoshua. Remember, in THE Torah the name Yehoshua evolved from Hoshea, not Yeshua. Interestingly, recently I heard that Yeshua may have been a secularized version of Yehoshua. I read this about Yeshua the High Priest, not Jesus. I figured, however, that it might make sense in Jesus's case, you know, coming from the Hellenistic, much-less-scholarly Galilee.
That is what I meant- Yeshua is a version of Yehoshua, because Wikipedia says that Yeshua came from Yehoshua like you also wrote in your quote above. This could be like Sandy being a version of Sandra, but not the other way around. So when Rabbi Kaduri wrote the acrostic for Yehoshuah, one theory can be that it points to Yeshua whose name is a shortened version of Yehoshuah, like if he wrote Sandra and was referring to someone known as Sandy.

If it was just an issue that the rabbi wrote Yehoshua it would leave much to be desired to have much opinion that he was referring to Yeshua, because there are lots of other people named Yehoshua besides Yeshua, and anyway Yeshua isn't fully the same as "Yehoshua" as you pointed out. But he also was drawing crosses and he had a student who gave a Christian interview. When I saw the student was giving the interview I figured that this probably isn't just a case of some gentile Christians trying to baselessly hope that the rabbi was Christian.

Aviel Schneider, the author of the Israel Today story, said the worldwide reaction to news of Kaduri's note has been "crazy." He said he has never received so many emails and calls from around the globe.
He said he was urged not to publish the story by the rabbi's yeshiva, where officials said it was "impossible" that the note was actually written by Kaduri.
But Schneider was given access to many of the rabbi's manuscripts, written in his own hand for the exclusive use of his students. He was struck by symbols painted by Kaduri all over the pages.
"They were crosses," said Schneider. "In the Jewish tradition, you don't use crosses. You don't even use plus signs because they might be mistaken for crosses. But there they were, painted in his own hand."
Asked what those symbols meant, Kaduri's family said they were "signs of the angel."



I should add though that in the ShafarBetZion article above there is also information conflicting with the idea that Rab. Kaduri became let's say an orthodox Christian, because IIRC he said that the Messiah would dispel both Christianity and Islam. Plus, I haven't ready most of the information out there on the topic. So I could be mistaken on it. My sense is that he saw Yeshua as the Messiah for the reasons that I gave above... But maybe he didn't.
 

rakovsky

Active member
Because he studied in the Jewish Theological Seminary, a Conservative institute. This isn't really a thing Orthodox Jews do when they want to study Jewish thought. It doesn't say where he got his rabbinical ordination on Wikipedia, but it sounds like he got it there. If that's the case, then it's not recognized as a real ordination by Orthodox Jews.
Good info.
 

Harel13

Active member
So when Rabbi Kaduri wrote the acrostic for Yehoshuah, one theory can be that it points to Yeshua whose name is a shortened version of Yehoshuah, like if he wrote Sandra and was referring to someone known as Sandy.
Anything is possible. But while we have sources that call Yehoshua the successor of Moshe "Yeshua" and we have sources that call Yeshua the High Priest "Yehoshua", we have zero sources (to my knowledge) that Jesus himself was ever called "Yehoshua" and not Yeshua. In fact, the Talmud, compiled but a few centuries after Jesus's time, doesn't name him Yeshua at all. It's either Yeshu or Hahu Gavra, "that man" or a number of other titles. I would expect that Rabbi Kaduri, were he referring to Jesus, would use his proper name and not a name that we have no evidence that was ever associated with him.

As for the bit about him drawing crosses - I don't know. I didn't find evidence for that online. If you could show some evidence (=pictures) for that, it would be useful to understand the context.

As for the student, well, I am well aware that there are Jews, even rabbis, who cross over to Christianity (pun unintended). At the same time there are many students and descendants of Rabbi Kaduri who say that the note is fake. I wouldn't get all excited about it, in particular considering, as I think you mentioned, that the descriptions Rabbi Kaduri gave of the messiah before he passed were vastly different than what Christianity says about Jesus and what he'll supposedly do.
 

Open Heart

Active member
I don't think that one can generalize like that, because for instance cases of conversion to Messianic Judaism from Judaism. Certainly a person would choose Messianic Judaism because Jewishness or Judaism is important to them.
There just are not conversions to Messianic Judaism from Orthodox Judaism. Even with the Jews that haven't been raised in the faith and don't have a strong jewish identity that get snagged by J4J, there just are not a whole lot of Jews in Messianic Judaism -- it is literally overrun by Gentiles. Sure you have an occasional congregation here or that that is mostly Jews, but the odds are sky high that when you walk in, you will be sitting in a sea of non-Jews.

And to be very honest with you, those that convert to Judaism who are not intermarried almost always have had some experience in Messianic Judaism. It's like they get a little taste of Israel, and then they realize that it is saturated with Christianity, and what they want is not Christianity but more of the meat of Judaism.

IOW, it's hilarious, but MJ has succeeded in doing exactly the opposite of what it set out to do--rather than converting Jews to Chrisitanity, it acts as a Gentile stepping stone into Judaism.
 

Open Heart

Active member
@Open Heart @Harel13

The ones I've met online (mostly reddit, discord, YouTube). I'm sure some day I'll meet the 'true Scotsman' ortho Jew that sticks to the Tanakh alone and doesn't think pictures and diagrams coming from human fantasy are magical.
Judaism by definition incudes the Talmud as one of its sacred writings. That doesn't mean that Jews who reject the Talmud aren't real Jews. Heck there are Jews who reject God himself, and they are still real Jews. You can be a Jew and have messed up theology, and you can be a Jew and be sinful. You can even be a Jew and be antisemitic. Jews do not pay the "no true scotsman" game.
 

Septextura

Well-known member
The "ultimate authority" of course is God. This is because God could put something in the Bible that the author didn't intend. But to appeal to this "ultimate authority" of divine inspiration as the basic mechanism leads to arbitrariness and whims due to the difficulty in deciphering divine intent.

Normally when you want to understand what a religion teaches you look to the commentaries, particularly if there is a consensus. So for instance if you want to know what Lutheranism teaches, you look to what Luther wrote, as well as to the early Lutherans, like the Augsburg Confession. Based on this approach, then by analogy we would look to those who knew the apostles as well as the first few generations of Christians. This means the early Church Fathers' writings like Polycarp and Irenaeus.

In practical sense, how do you decide between conflicting interpretations of scripture between commentator A and B?
 

rakovsky

Active member
Anything is possible. But while we have sources that call Yehoshua the successor of Moshe "Yeshua" and we have sources that call Yeshua the High Priest "Yehoshua", we have zero sources (to my knowledge) that Jesus himself was ever called "Yehoshua" and not Yeshua. In fact, the Talmud, compiled but a few centuries after Jesus's time, doesn't name him Yeshua at all. It's either Yeshu or Hahu Gavra, "that man" or a number of other titles. I would expect that Rabbi Kaduri, were he referring to Jesus, would use his proper name and not a name that we have no evidence that was ever associated with him.
There are Messianic Jews today who refer to Jesus as Yehoshuah or something like that. When we are dealing with mystics you don't need to find some exact historic explicit name for it to work. A mystical rabbi could see Yeshua as a short form of Yehoshua and then give Yehoshua as the long form.

So sure, I would expect him to use Yeshua, but Yehoshua could work for that too.
As for the bit about him drawing crosses - I don't know. I didn't find evidence for that online. If you could show some evidence (=pictures) for that, it would be useful to understand the context.

When Israel Today studied Kaduri’s hand written notes, they noticed something very strange. The Kabbalah rabbi had painted crosses throughout his writings. The cross is not used by ultra conservative Jews because of its strong Christian connection. The use of the “plus” sign is also restricted to avoid even a semblance of a cross.

When questioned about this overtly Christian symbol, Rabbi David said they were the “sign of an angel.” When Israel Today pressed him on what this meant, the son said his dad had a unique relationship with God and “had met the Messiah in his dreams.”
 

Harel13

Active member
There are Messianic Jews today who refer to Jesus as Yehoshuah or something like that.
Well, good for them. Zero historical evidence for that, though.
The reason they do it is to seem more Jewishy in order to convince more Jews to convert.
When we are dealing with mystics you don't need to find some exact historic explicit name for it to work.
Maybe Christian mystics are like that.
A mystical rabbi could see Yeshua as a short form of Yehoshua and then give Yehoshua as the long form.
Or also, and more likely, not. A rabbi could have just as easily written an acrostic text with either form of Jesus's name that the world is actually familiar with.

But of course, this is all based on the assumption that Rabbi Kaduri actually wrote that note, and there isn't much evidence for that. Did you see the video in the post I tagged you in? (post #33)
 

rakovsky

Active member
There just are not conversions to Messianic Judaism from Orthodox Judaism. Even with the Jews that haven't been raised in the faith and don't have a strong jewish identity that get snagged by J4J, there just are not a whole lot of Jews in Messianic Judaism -- it is literally overrun by Gentiles. Sure you have an occasional congregation here or that that is mostly Jews, but the odds are sky high that when you walk in, you will be sitting in a sea of non-Jews.
I don't think that you can make that kind of categorical statement like where you said
I have yet to be made aware of a single genuine case of an Orthodox Jewish conversion to Chrisitanity, although there have been several frauds I've come across in my years on the internet. Jewish converts to Christianity are those who are uneducated in Judaism, who really don't have a strong Jewish identity.
Take for instance Rabbi Kaduri's disciples who converted, or the chief Rabbi of Rome, Zoll, who converted to Catholicism, or take Rabbi Daniel Zion, who was one of the chief rabbis of Sofia, or take Fr. Arnold Bernstein who was from a family of Orthodox rabbis. Sure, you can propose different criticisms of them or question their sincerity, as if they "secretly" did not care about Judaism. But this is like claiming that people who converted from Christianity never "really" believed. It's like the No True Scotsman Fallacy if you are going to go through every case of every Orthodox Jew who converted to Christianity and say that they never cared about Jewishness or that they were never "really" Orthodox Jewish.
 

rakovsky

Active member
In practical sense, how do you decide between conflicting interpretations of scripture between commentator A and B?
You give priority to the Church councils in that case. Delegates from the Christian world met and decided on the most important topics. If there is ambiguity, then you go with the church fathers and commentators. Then if there is still conflict, then you give priority to the early and majority opinion, although you can still respect the minority view.

This is also how it works if you want to understand Lutheranism. You look at the Augsburg Confessions, Luther's writings, and then the early Lutheran writers. Then if there is a conflict in Lutherans, you give priority to early views and to majority views.

Some kind of "Dogmatic Individualism" where "some ostensibly Spirit-led people disagree so I am the only right one in interpreting the Bible because the Spirit shows me" or "the best way is to go ONLY by where I feel the Spirit leads me" disproves itself because people who follow that route disagree on important issues with each other.
 

Septextura

Well-known member
You give priority to the Church councils in that case. Delegates from the Christian world met and decided on the most important topics. If there is ambiguity, then you go with the church fathers and commentators. Then if there is still conflict, then you give priority to the early and majority opinion, although you can still respect the minority view.

History has shown that this method isn't failproof. If men of influence agree on a blasphemy to be taught as orthodoxy, it automatically makes it orthodox by no other authority than man's. Then this blasphemy trickles down everywhere like leaven, polluting the church body. If opponents arise, they'll get suppressed. Arianism almost became orthodoxy. Worshiping graven images did become orthodoxy.

John 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

When each of us stands before the judgment seat of God, the King our Lord Christ Jesus, we will be judged individually, for every thought, word and action. There will be no denominations and religions. Those that teach will be judged more strictly.

1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

2 Timothy 3
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

1 Corinthians 11
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Romans 14:5
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
 
Last edited:

rakovsky

Active member
History has shown that this method isn't failproof. If men of influence agree on a blasphemy to be taught as orthodoxy, it automatically makes it orthodox by no other authority than man's. Then this blasphemy trickles down everywhere like leaven, polluting the church body. If opponents arise, they'll get suppressed. Arianism almost became orthodoxy. Worshiping graven images did become orthodoxy.

When each of us stands before the judgment seat of God, the King our Lord Christ Jesus, we will be judged individually, for every thought, word and action. There will be no denominations and religions. Those that teach will be judged more strictly.

1 John 2:27


2 Timothy 3


1 Corinthians 11


Romans 14:5
Your argument is that this method is not "failproof" due to "worshiping images" and that therefore it should be rejected altogether so that the best is if everyone believes what they feel led to believe and not care about commentaries. The output of your method disproves it, as it says "By their fruits ye shall know them". Tons of sects with mutually exclusive teachings or so called "damnable heresies".

So Calvin says that rejecting infant baptism is from the Devil, but there are plenty of Calvinists who reject infant baptism. Usually the ones who reject infant baptism are of the "I don't care about commentaries" kind, but likely not exclusively so. So then you get stuck with the issue of followers of Calvin who believe that the Spirit guides to truth, so that their "God-Inspired" founder believes that they believe what is from the Devil, and according to those followers, they are led into this belief by the Spirit.

Certainly it is an objectively disprovable belief that "just feeling inspired without caring about commentaries" is a reliable method for understanding the Bible.

You argue that on judgment day there are no denominations and everyone is judged individually. But an individual judgment doesn't make the idea that go-it-alone interpretations are reliable.

Have the "Reformers" who taught infant baptism not been "Spirit-led"? Or is it only opponents of infant baptism who are "spirit led?" And then you throw in this idea of strict Last Judgment into the midst... It becomes very dogmatic and harshly judgmental and divisive between Christians all at once.
 

rakovsky

Active member
Septextura,
The Tradition vs. Scripture Alone debate seems better for another thread. I don't know how constructive it is to debate it here. It just seems to go down a well of negativity where the "Scripture Alone and No Commentaries" side goes down this eternal path of emphasizing how its own "Spirit led" readings must be right because the person feels the Spirit and the Spirit can lead someone to the true reading.
 
Top