Yuku free message boards

I really haven't been in these forums for awhile. I thought I'd take a gander to see what I might have missed! ;)

I am in agreement that the character portrayed in the Christian texts was probably a composite, a hero of a Greek tragedy, and one should not fall into the error of trying to apply historical positioning with the Christian text. But that's part of another discussion.

The question that one should ask is what point was this scene trying to make, based on the author/authors point of view.

While the Christian understanding of the verse is at odds because of the Greek translation used, which is understandable, I suggest that perhaps the author(s) was trying to portray the urgency and feelings of the time - that with all of the troubles going on ("birthpangs of the Moshiach") messianists (not to be confused with messianics) start cropping up and seeing the Moshiach in everything. And so, perhaps this interaction was meant to portray the national desire for the coming of the Moshiach, saying "How can you apply this to the Moshiach when it is obviously cannot be since it is about David himself! And if you say it is Messianic, cxan you not see the problems? How could he be the son of David? How could he be simply a man? Can you believe that the Moshiach is in heaven waiting to be born?" (there is a Zoharic text about that, which reflects another mindset).

In other words, he was putting down those who would make the Moshiach into something more that a man, but in a veiled way. Keep in mind that the Jesus character evolved from being a heroic character for the common people, to an angel (with his twin brother Satan each looking to take over dad's job), to a supernatural being, to being G-d/not-G-d. And the result of this evolution is that you have texts that would make sense in the earlier incarnation of the character, but make no sense in the final expression.

A sinilar occurrence happens with the Shabbat problem - with the followers of the Jesus character (I personally prefer to use his Greek name rather than some Jewish variant, but emphasizing that he is but a character in a story). When confronted by the same messianists, who complain to him, he doesn't deny the problem but tosses it back in their faces, saying that they hold that when the Moshiach comes halachas will be changed and mitzvot transformed (this belief was expressed very much by the supposed Moshiach Shabbatei Tzvi, who changed mitzvot, causing people to sin, but they did them because they believed him to be the Moshiach). And if the Messianists believed that the Moshich could do such things, and if the Jesus character believed that he was the Moshiach (as he admitted elsewhere), and if he had a following, then according to their own messianist ideas, he was find and basically told them to "stick it". (Although running away with his gang to hide from any actions, to regroup and get a larger following later).

So I personally hold that there are a few things goning on in thie Greek tale. The first was that the author(s) was trying to present a character that had to work at being accepted, had a big following, but would ultimately fall, only to promise to return one day when needed. Sort of like a King Arthur. But when story becomes theology, and when that theology is changed, and it becomes at odds with the story, you end up with issues like this one.

It's not a bad story. It just isn't a Jewish one, and we, as Jews, have to keep that in mind.

Greetings from Efrat (Israel)
Eliyahu