Q&A: The Hebrew Bible and the Messiah
The Hebrew Bible and the Messiah
Question
Hello Rabbi
1. In the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), it sometimes says that we will be redeemed by a person (“and a shoot shall come forth,” etc.), and there are also verses saying that God redeems us (“for the Lord has comforted Zion,” etc.)—meaning that God Himself performs the action. In Christian theology, the messiah is God Himself. Doesn’t the Hebrew Bible support that?
2. Our revelation at Mount Sinai is persuasive. But Christians also accept it; they just think that later the messiah came and revealed himself, etc. (at least as far as I know some people say that). Why don’t you accept those revelations? a0
3. There is a story from the beginning of the 20th century about the revelation at Fatima in Portugal, and they say there is a lot of testimony from thousands of people who saw the sun move or something like that. What do you think about that?
Answer
- The Hebrew Bible is subject to such flexible interpretations that in my opinion there is nothing to learn from it. So I don’t deal with that. As far as I’m concerned, the Hebrew Bible proves nothing.
- I didn’t understand. The fact that they agree about the revelation at Mount Sinai obligates me to agree that there was a revelation to Jesus? Why? Why should I accept those revelations?
- These fairy tales keep coming up here again and again. You can search here on the site and online as well.
Discussion on Answer
Why think that it is? These are stories that happened in a very limited circle, and as far as I know they don’t seem convincing to me at all.
And of course the assumption that he was the messiah seems absurd to me. He didn’t build the Temple, didn’t gather in Israel, caused Jewish law to be abandoned, and in practice turned to the gentiles. What connection is there between that and the messiah we’re talking about?
I don’t think he turned to the gentiles or abandoned Jewish law. Jesus spoke to Jews; the one who founded Christianity in its commandment-less form was Paul. The Temple existed in Jesus’s day, and these conditions for the messiah are later conditions.
But those conditions are the whole idea of the messiah.
Look at Isaiah 2—that’s the style. We didn’t get that from Jesus. Quite the opposite.
Follow-up question:
Hello Rabbi, and may you have an easy fast. I’m the same guy from this question: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%9A-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97/ I see that you dismissed the possibility of the Fatima revelation out of hand. I wanted to ask why, in your opinion, there’s nothing to it. Both that one and the revelation of Zeitoun in Egypt. I recommend you read Wikipedia first; it talks there about quite a lot of people, prophecies, and so on. According to those two revelations, it was the mother of Jesus who appeared—do people just tend to imagine her? I’d be glad to hear why, in your opinion, there’s nothing to it and why it shouldn’t tell us anything about the truth of Christianity. Thanks, Rabbi. May your fast be beneficial and easy (:
I read about it long ago and wasn’t impressed. You can search for discussions here on the site and online in general.
I didn’t find anything here on the site, and in Hebrew I didn’t see many discussions online. Why weren’t you impressed, Rabbi? In Zeitoun, about a million people saw lights there and so on. Some even say they saw the figure of a woman and more.
Are you serious? All kinds of people saw some lights, and some of them imagined there was a female figure there. So what? Either they imagined it or they really saw something. What does that mean? Nothing. Maybe it was Joan of Arc? Or Marilyn Monroe? Just some reflection of light rays in some vague shape?
Why waste time on this nonsense?
2. I do think the burden of proof is on them. But why, in your opinion, is the tradition that the messiah came, performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc., not plausible?