Is Jesus Really the Messiah?

For the purpose of this investigation it is necessary to set the parameters. 1) We need to determine which Jesus we are talking about. Are we talking about the mythological Jesus of Christianity or are we talking about the historical Jesus of the New Testament? 2) We need to determine which Messiah we are talking about. Are we talking about Messiah ben Joseph or are we talking about Messiah ben David?

The historical Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph who inspired the writing of the "New Testament" bares little resemblance to the Jesus of Christianity. Throughout the gospel accounts, Rabbi Joshua is portrayed as a teacher of strict halachic observance¹ in accordance with the teachings of Beit (School of) Hillel [spirit of the law].  It is obvious from his teachings that Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph was a Galilean Pharisee of the School of Hillel.  Rabbi Joshua vigorously opposed the teachings of the Judean Pharisees of the School of Shammai [letter of the law].  Of the over three hundred disagreements between Hillel and Shammai recorded in the Talmud, Rabbi Joshua's teachings agreed with Hillel in all cases except one.

In Judaism it is believed that there are two Messiahs.  Though this concept was not fully developed until Rashi wrote his commentary, the two Messiahs are both mentioned in the Talmud. The notion of two Messiahs came as a result of trying to reconcile the various Messianic texts of the Tanakh (Old Testament).

Messiah ben Joseph was to be the suffering servant, while Messiah ben David was to be the conquering king. Christians see this as being two advents (comings) of the same Messiah. This view, however, takes a literalistic approach to the New Testament text while taking a metaphoric approach concerning the coming of Elijah.

In light of all the activity of the last few years with followers of Jesus [Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph] beginning to embrace the Torah in growing numbers, I believe that Rabbi Joshua [Jesus] was, indeed, Messiah ben Joseph.  I have written a more complete explanation of this belief in my article: The Redemption of Israel. 

The New Testament originated as group of Jewish texts, but it was revised and modified extensively during the second and third centuries of the common era.  See Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture for an idea of the extent of the alterations to the text. These texts were revised to change a simple Jewish rabbi into a god after the pattern of the Persian god Mithras.  The result is a New Testament which is riddled with contradictions which when reconciled render a totally different picture. Nonetheless, the Christian Bible has served as a means of distributing the Tanakh (Old Testament) to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.  Jesus [Rabbi Joshua] did effectively die for "the people" because it was his martyrdom that caused the spread of Nazarene faith which would eventually lead to the birth of Christianity (c. 150CE). 

Because the mythological Jesus had effectively obscured the real Jesus (Joshua), it was not really apparent that he was a Messiah. However, as we see the House of Israel returning to God it is becoming more apparent that Christianity has indeed served to gather the lost of Israel and deliver the word of God (his Torah) to them.  As Christians discover the real Jesus it will be apparent that his effect on the House of Israel is even more dramatic than Rebbe Schneerson's effect on the House of Judah.

[See the related article Was Jesus "God" or the "son of God"?]

¹ Halachic observance is the practical application of the Torah in everyday life.

Help this ministry with a tax deductible donation.
Click on the button below

[Home Page]

Comments:

Dear Shomeir ben Magen ~

     on your website, in the section titled "is Jesus really the Messiah?" you quote the book of Zachariah, chapter 12 verse 10. but i do not think that the translation that you use is an accurate one. how it is translated on your site is as follows: "They shall look unto Me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son." however, if you look at the original Hebrew of the entire verse (Vshafachtee al-bait David v'al yoshayve Yerushalayim ruach chayn v'tachanooneem v'heebeetoo alai ait asher-dakaroo v'safdoo alaiv k'meespaid al-hayacheed v'hamair alaiv k'hamair al-habchor) you see that a more accurate translation is "But I will fill the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of pity and compassion, and they shall lament/cry to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first born."
     someone of your obvious education can see where the discrepancies are in the translations, and can see why the translation used on your website could be missleading a casual reader from the truth concerning what it is the the prophet Zechariah was saying.
 
~ sincerely,
     Daniel

Answer:

You are missing the point.  This quote is from the Talmud [as translated by Rabbi Abraham Cohen].  The Talmud says that this passage in Zechariah refers to Mashiach ben Joseph.  This explanation was also confirmed by the Torah commentator Rabbi Moshe Alschich (c. 1500).  Please get Rabbi Cohen's book and check it out for yourself. 
 
You are obviously taking your ques from the new JPS translation of the Tanakh which is an anti-missionary reactionary translation.  I, myself, am a self-confessed anti-missionary, but let's be honest with the word.  Yes, you are partially correct.  The word "et" (or as you have rendered it "ait") separates the one being looked to from the one being pierce -- but the big problem is the pluralization of the object in this translation.  Please compare the new JPS translation with the 1917 JPS translation.  "...And they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; And shall mourn for him, as one that mourns for his only son,..." 
 
The sages said that the one who was thrust through (or pierced) is Mashiach ben Joseph.  This is the point of my quotation of Cohen in this article.

Greetings!

Thank you for your emails. I find them quite interesting.

I am, however, puzzled by one thing. Do you believe Messiah ben Joseph is the same person as Messiah ben David, or two different individuals? If different individuals, then what is the status of Messiah ben Joseph in the future Kingdom of God (which I assume equates with your Kingdom of Israel?). What are the differences between these two individuals? What are your comments re the repeated statements of the former that he will come again in glory?
Thanks.

Sincerely,
Eric

Answer:
Quite frankly, Eric, I don't know if Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David are one and the same. Realize that it was Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus) himself that said that John the Baptist was the returning Elijah. So will the "returning" Messiah be literally the same person or figuratively the same person? On this point I must plead ignorance. It appears that they are the same, but does it really matter? I have an Orthodox Rabbi acquaintance who says that when Messiah comes he is going to ask him if he was here before. That should settle the matter once and for all.