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

Septextura

Well-known member
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".

I didn't say to reject councils, theologians, confessions, catechisms, teachers etc. We can consult them as part of our studies, knowing they are fallible opinions of men. Only the words of God are infallible, even though our interpretation is fallible. If 100 men agree on a lie to be truth, is it truth?

If I'm convinced of my own mind from reading Scripture that icons/statues veneration or credo/pedobaptism is blasphemous to God, should I ignore my conscience and do what a council of men agreed on?
 

Septextura

Well-known 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.

You are right. I got carried away since I personally enjoy contemplating this topic.
 

rakovsky

Active member
Some would say coincidence. Others might say the hand of God.
I saw the video.
The most relevant fact in it was when R. David Kaduri said that his father didn't teach Yehoshuah.

According to that video, the Christian claim about Rabbi David Kaduri was that his father told him that he saw Messiah. Rabbi David didn't get into that part.
 

Open Heart

Active member
I saw the video.
The most relevant fact in it was when R. David Kaduri said that his father didn't teach Yehoshuah.

According to that video, the Christian claim about Rabbi David Kaduri was that his father told him that he saw Messiah. Rabbi David didn't get into that part.
There is also the fact that the father spent his last days shaking his cane at the church outside his window at the church and cursing it. That doesn't sound like a man who saw a vision of Jesus.
 

Harel13

Active member
I saw the video.
The most relevant fact in it was when R. David Kaduri said that his father didn't teach Yehoshuah.

According to that video, the Christian claim about Rabbi David Kaduri was that his father told him that he saw Messiah. Rabbi David didn't get into that part.
I don't know. I thought the most relevant part was that the closer students called out other followers and students for being frauds.

Also what @Open Heart wrote, of the description of Rav Kaduri's final days.

I find it to be a sad hoax.
 

rakovsky

Active member
I don't know. I thought the most relevant part was that the closer students called out other followers and students for being frauds.

Also what @Open Heart wrote, of the description of Rav Kaduri's final days.

I find it to be a sad hoax.
I think it's hard to tell. For one way to exclude this version of events, you would want to find some internal confirmation that Rabbi Kaduri didn't write the notes. For instance, you could compare the handwriting in the notes with his own, or you could use some kind of indirect honesty/dishonesty criteria when talking to or watching Rab. Kaduri's disciples who found the notes. Supposedly there are different hints or tells that people make when they are lying.

The idea makes sense that he could secretly have unusual Messianic beliefs and write these notes and keep them secret and just give them to some followers even if they are antithetical to what he told others. I don't know how much a secret Rabbi Zoll of Rome kept his beliefs before converting to Catholicism. He had been having beliefs and supposed mystical Christian experiences for a long time since he was at least in his mid-30's, which would have been before Zoll became chief rabbi.

On the other hand, since conceivably he could have some followers who could forge a note, you would want to look for some evidence outside of that note if you wanted to try to prove the event. So for instance, in 2006 before his death, Israel National News had this article predicting that he would do this kind of thing with the note:
Famed Kabbalist Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri, who has been in serious condition in the hospital for 1.5 weeks, revived and spoke with his close associates for an hour and forty minutes after the end of the Sabbath, this past Saturday night. One of those people, Arutz-7 Hebrew radio showhost Yehoshua Meiri, related to Arutz-7 the rabbi’s words. The rabbi spoke in Hebrew; what follows is an approximate translation:

“The Kabbalists will investigate my words over the recent months about the Redemption and Moshiach [The Annointed Leader of the Jews during that period] and will reveal the secret name of Moshiach which was revealed to me on Cheshvan 9, 5764 (November 4, 2003).” The rabbi said he actually met the person who will be Moshiach, on that date.

The rabbi said of the Moshiach, “He won’t come and say ‘I am the Moshiach. Give over the rule to me.’ Rather the Kabbalists would discover the secret name [of Moshiach] among my ‘hidden’ [Kabbalistic] words and the nation will push him to lead it.”

Meiri also described a “ceremony” that took place during the brief period the rabbi was awake and alert. With only four people in the room, the rabbi “whispered Tzofanim Kabbalisti’im [Kabalistic esoteric codes] to one of the four persons present, whose name we are not revealing.”

Well-wishers can visit the Kaduri.net website. It is a Hebrew language site.

It says that he spoke with his close associates. You would want to be able to ascertain which close associates these were who he was speaking with. One value to this conversation is that the rabbi was still alive when the associates were making this claim, so that other students of Rab Kaduri, or the rabbbi himself, or the family, could deny more easily that the conversation was being held.
The message is saying that the rabbi "will" reveal the name of the Messiah later and that it will be in his "secret" writings. This goes along with the story of the note that came out later.
The story ends by telling people to go to the Kaduri.net website. And that is the website where the notes later showed up about Yehoshua, IIRC, as it's run by his students who came out with the story.
The fact that during his lifetime these students were running the Kaduri website, also serves as evidence (but not full proof) of their trustworthiness in relaying facts about him like his notes.
 

Harel13

Active member
I think it's hard to tell. For one way to exclude this version of events, you would want to find some internal confirmation that Rabbi Kaduri didn't write the notes. For instance, you could compare the handwriting in the notes with his own, or you could use some kind of indirect honesty/dishonesty criteria when talking to or watching Rab. Kaduri's disciples who found the notes. Supposedly there are different hints or tells that people make when they are lying.

The idea makes sense that he could secretly have unusual Messianic beliefs and write these notes and keep them secret and just give them to some followers even if they are antithetical to what he told others. I don't know how much a secret Rabbi Zoll of Rome kept his beliefs before converting to Catholicism. He had been having beliefs and supposed mystical Christian experiences for a long time since he was at least in his mid-30's, which would have been before Zoll became chief rabbi.

On the other hand, since conceivably he could have some followers who could forge a note, you would want to look for some evidence outside of that note if you wanted to try to prove the event. So for instance, in 2006 before his death, Israel National News had this article predicting that he would do this kind of thing with the note:
Famed Kabbalist Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri, who has been in serious condition in the hospital for 1.5 weeks, revived and spoke with his close associates for an hour and forty minutes after the end of the Sabbath, this past Saturday night. One of those people, Arutz-7 Hebrew radio showhost Yehoshua Meiri, related to Arutz-7 the rabbi’s words. The rabbi spoke in Hebrew; what follows is an approximate translation:

“The Kabbalists will investigate my words over the recent months about the Redemption and Moshiach [The Annointed Leader of the Jews during that period] and will reveal the secret name of Moshiach which was revealed to me on Cheshvan 9, 5764 (November 4, 2003).” The rabbi said he actually met the person who will be Moshiach, on that date.

The rabbi said of the Moshiach, “He won’t come and say ‘I am the Moshiach. Give over the rule to me.’ Rather the Kabbalists would discover the secret name [of Moshiach] among my ‘hidden’ [Kabbalistic] words and the nation will push him to lead it.”

Meiri also described a “ceremony” that took place during the brief period the rabbi was awake and alert. With only four people in the room, the rabbi “whispered Tzofanim Kabbalisti’im [Kabalistic esoteric codes] to one of the four persons present, whose name we are not revealing.”

Well-wishers can visit the Kaduri.net website. It is a Hebrew language site.

It says that he spoke with his close associates. You would want to be able to ascertain which close associates these were who he was speaking with. One value to this conversation is that the rabbi was still alive when the associates were making this claim, so that other students of Rab Kaduri, or the rabbbi himself, or the family, could deny more easily that the conversation was being held.
The message is saying that the rabbi "will" reveal the name of the Messiah later and that it will be in his "secret" writings. This goes along with the story of the note that came out later.
The story ends by telling people to go to the Kaduri.net website. And that is the website where the notes later showed up about Yehoshua, IIRC, as it's run by his students who came out with the story.
The fact that during his lifetime these students were running the Kaduri website, also serves as evidence (but not full proof) of their trustworthiness in relaying facts about him like his notes.
Personally, considering contradicting evidence from both sides, I think we should all back away from the story and forget about it.
 

Harel13

Active member
At least it demands a separate thread topic.
I don't know what else is there to discuss. In fact, I really only replied to that point you made because I felt you weren't presenting the entire picture. You defend your guys, I defend mine, so to speak. I'm not sure I'd actually join in on an entire thread on the subject. I think I've said my part.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
@rakovsky

TBH it's difficult to get them talking about the OT at all. All they read is the Talmud and they are obsessed with Kabbalah nonsense. I ask why God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, a seemingly pointless test of faith since God already knows our hearts. And I get answer about "cosmic principles bla bla",
I read a commentary a while back where they looked at the text itself and pointed out that God isn't actually telling Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham is just assuming that is what God is asking him to do. The question then became why would God not clarify his request to Abraham, but instead let him believe that he was being asked to sacrifice his son. Part of the response was in noting that Abraham was able to figure this out for himself, e.g. "God will provide...etc." I'll see if I can find it. There's a wordplay that causes Abraham to misunderstand God's request.
 

rakovsky

Active member
I read a commentary a while back where they looked at the text itself and pointed out that God isn't actually telling Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham is just assuming that is what God is asking him to do. The question then became why would God not clarify his request to Abraham, but instead let him believe that he was being asked to sacrifice his son. Part of the response was in noting that Abraham was able to figure this out for himself, e.g. "God will provide...etc." I'll see if I can find it. There's a wordplay that causes Abraham to misunderstand God's request.
The KJV has in Genesis 22:
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
I guess in English there is ambiguity where offering something for a burnt offering suggests performing the burnt offering but does not necessarily mean performing it. For instance, you could offer roses or garbage or an idol for your church offering, but it doesn't mean that your church will take all those things.

The key Hebrew phrase there is
"וְהַעֲלֵ֤הוּ שָׁם֙ לְעֹלָ֔ה ",
meaning "And offer him there as a burnt offering."
The literal meaning of the world for offer used here normally means ascend. According to Biblehub, one of the meanings is "offer":
׳מנחה ל ׳הע 2 Kings 17:4 offer a present; bring up tithe to (ל) Nehemiah 10:39; מַס ׳הע raise a levy 1 Kings 5:27; 1 Kings 9:15, למס 1 Kings 9:21; 2Chronicles 8:8.
I also looked at the concordances/cross references. It seems like when the reference passage talks about offering an offering, it means actually performing the sacrifice, as in Genesis 8:20, which goes against the theory you read. In Genesis 8, Noah actually performed the sacrifice, as expressed by the verb "offer" there.

By comparison, Isaiah 53 has more clear certainty in English that the sacrifice would occur: "when thou (God) shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed".

So in conclusion, I am skeptical that the phrase in Gen. 22 does not mean that God originally told Abraham to go to Mt Morah to sacrifice Isaac until the angel told Abraham to stop.

I think that discussion of the Abraham and Isaac story deserves a separate thread if we keep talking about it.

Peace.
 

En Hakkore

Active member
I am skeptical that the phrase in Gen. 22 does not mean that God originally told Abraham to go to Mt Morah to sacrifice Isaac until the angel told Abraham to stop.
Agreed... I would add, to complicate the matter further, that there is some internal evidence that the intervention of the angel and the substitutionary ram are secondary elements and that an earlier version of the story had Abraham follow through in sacrificing his son. There are redactional hinges at 22:6b,8b and 22:11,15; also note that in 22:19 Abraham returns to the servants with no mention of Isaac. The idea that child sacrifice was practiced in Ancient Israel may be shocking to many, but the evidence is there... for a recent exploration of this, I would recommend Heath D. Dewrell's Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel (Explorations in Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations 5; Eisenbrauns, 2017).

I think that discussion of the Abraham and Isaac story deserves a separate thread if we keep talking about it.
If you do, I suspect I'll chime in at some point...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

rakovsky

Active member
Agreed... I would add, to complicate the matter further, that there is some internal evidence that the intervention of the angel and the substitutionary ram are secondary elements and that an earlier version of the story had Abraham follow through in sacrificing his son. There are redactional hinges at 22:6b,8b and 22:11,15; also note that in 22:19 Abraham returns to the servants with no mention of Isaac. The idea that child sacrifice was practiced in Ancient Israel may be shocking to many, but the evidence is there... for a recent exploration of this, I would recommend Heath D. Dewrell's Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel (Explorations in Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations 5; Eisenbrauns, 2017).
There are a lot of remarks that could be made about the layers of the Tanakh's relation to sacrifice. The story of Isaac's theme seems to imply that at some point, Abraham's culture was using child sacrifice, and then God intervened and directed the Israelites to use animals instead. The story serves to illustrate God telling the Israelites to use animals and helps serve as an allegory for why the Israelites just sacrifice animals. It also illustrates the animal substitution atonement element of Israelite worship, like in Yom Kippur. So the story seems to fit the Torah better without the sacrifice of Isaac being performed.

And then there is the Christian idea that God is obliquely, indirectly, or softly speaking through the story to present Christ, like the ram's horns being stuck in the brambles relating to the Crown of Thorns. Sacrifice of rams was a key feature of Israelite worship, and the role of the ram in the story goes along with that practical feature.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
There are a lot of remarks that could be made about the layers of the Tanakh's relation to sacrifice. The story of Isaac's theme seems to imply that at some point, Abraham's culture was using child sacrifice, and then God intervened and directed the Israelites to use animals instead. The story serves to illustrate God telling the Israelites to use animals and helps serve as an allegory for why the Israelites just sacrifice animals. It also illustrates the animal substitution atonement element of Israelite worship, like in Yom Kippur. So the story seems to fit the Torah better without the sacrifice of Isaac being performed.

And then there is the Christian idea that God is obliquely, indirectly, or softly speaking through the story to present Christ, like the ram's horns being stuck in the brambles relating to the Crown of Thorns. Sacrifice of rams was a key feature of Israelite worship, and the role of the ram in the story goes along with that practical feature.
Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son would not have sounded unusual back then at all given that child sacrifice of one's first born was commonplace. However waiting until he was in his mid 30's would have been a bit unusual.
 

Open Heart

Active member
@rakovsky

TBH it's difficult to get them talking about the OT at all. All they read is the Talmud and they are obsessed with Kabbalah nonsense. I ask why God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, a seemingly pointless test of faith since God already knows our hearts. And I get answer about "cosmic principles bla bla", so disappointing. Most Christians think Jews are OT sages, it couldn't be further from the truth. They are truly blinded by God. And they get frustrated quickly when probed with scriptural questions.

They also entertained the idea of binitarian YHWH (see Alan Segal and Daniel Boyarin), but refuse to discuss it today in apologetics.
You don't think Orthodox Jews talk Torah? Seriously?
 

Harel13

Active member
Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son would not have sounded unusual back then at all given that child sacrifice of one's first born was commonplace. However waiting until he was in his mid 30's would have been a bit unusual.
"Unusual" is really the least thing that can be said about the situation, considering the multiple times God promised Abraham that he'll father a great nation, and later on specifically told him that it would be from Isaac, and then God goes and tells him to sacrifice Isaac, still unmarried and childless at that point.
 
Top