Is there a difference between Pre-Exilic Messiah and Post Exilic Messiah?

M

mojobadshah

Guest
I posted the same question on another thread but haven't heard back from anyone. I suppose this question is worth making a separate post anyhow.

I have been aware of Zoroaster's influence on the Abrahamic religions on the whole for quite some time now, but when it comes down to it-it would appear that most authors do not go into detail on the exactitudes of the matter and so I have taken it upon myself to sort them out.

On another post Bob X mentioned that in regards to receiving the designation Messiah "king (David, Solomon, etc.) and every priest (Aaron, Zadok, etc.) underwent this ritual to assume office."

However Peter Clark the author of Zoroastrianism: An Introduction to an Ancient Faith mentions that it isn't until the Book of Daniel that the Jews begin to develop the belief in messiah-type figures. What he doesn't mention is that Cyrus the Great was acknowledged as a Messiah in Isaiah which appears before Daniel in sequence (though I guess it may have been written afterwords?) and if I understand correctly the passage that mentions Cyrus in Isaiah 45 is actually a prophetic in that it refers to a "future deliverer." And it is this concept of a future deliverer that is said to be a Zoroastrian influence upon the Jews.

So now I'm wondering is what sets these pre-Exilic Messiahs apart from the Post-Exilic Messiahs of the Hebrew Bible? And why did Clark not give Cyrus as an example of one of these messiah-type figures?
 
mojobadshah said:
I posted the same question on another thread but haven't heard back from anyone. I suppose this question is worth making a separate post anyhow.

I have been aware of Zoroaster's influence on the Abrahamic religions on the whole for quite some time now, but when it comes down to it-it would appear that most authors do not go into detail on the exactitudes of the matter and so I have taken it upon myself to sort them out.

On another post Bob X mentioned that in regards to receiving the designation Messiah "king (David, Solomon, etc.) and every priest (Aaron, Zadok, etc.) underwent this ritual to assume office."

However Peter Clark the author of Zoroastrianism: An Introduction to an Ancient Faith mentions that it isn't until the Book of Daniel that the Jews begin to develop the belief in messiah-type figures. What he doesn't mention is that Cyrus the Great was acknowledged as a Messiah in Isaiah which appears before Daniel in sequence (though I guess it may have been written afterwords?) and if I understand correctly the passage that mentions Cyrus in Isaiah 45 is actually a prophetic in that it refers to a "future deliverer." And it is this concept of a future deliverer that is said to be a Zoroastrian influence upon the Jews.

So now I'm wondering is what sets these pre-Exilic Messiahs apart from the Post-Exilic Messiahs of the Hebrew Bible? And why did Clark not give Cyrus as an example of one of these messiah-type figures?
Click to expand...


IMHO, Cyrus was not considered a Messiah per se but a Messianic leader for having proclaimed the end of the Jewish exile in Babylon and financed from the treasure of the Persian Empire, the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple in the Land of Israel. Moses was also a Messianic leader, and so was Theodor Herzl for being both connected with the freedom of the Jewish People from exile and back to Israel. And here is more about it:

The Collective Messiah - Isaiah 53

We all know that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. So, no argument about it. But then whom did Isaiah have in mind when he wrote chapter 53? In fact, who was in his mind when he wrote the whole book? That's in Isaiah 1:1: "A vision about Judah and Jerusalem." That's the theme of the book of Isaiah: Judah. Or the House of Jacob called by the name Israel from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1)

Now, how about the Suffering Servant? Isaiah mentions him by name, which is Israel according to Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21. Now, we have extablished a syllogism. If the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, and the Suffering Servant is Israel, the resultant premise will obviously be that Israel (the Jewish People) is the Messiah. Rashi thought so too, and a few other thinkers of weight.

Now, if the Messiah must also bring the epitet of son of God, there is no problem. We can have it from Exodus 4:22,23. Here's what it says in there: "Israel is My son; so, let My son go, that he may serve Me," says the Lord. That's why Hosea said that "When Israel was a child, God said, out of Egypt I called My son." (Hosea 11:1)

Last but not least, Jesus no doubt was part of the Messiah but not on an individual basis. The Messiah is collective. What we need from time to time, especially in exile, is of a Messianic leader to lead or inspire the Messiah to return home. Moses was one for bringing the Messiah back to Canaan. Cyrus was another for proclaiming the return of the Messiah to rebuild the Temple; which he contributed heavily finacially; and in our modern times, we had Herzl who was also one for inspiring the Messiah with love for Zion.

How about Jesus, what do we have to classify him as at least a Messianic leader? Well, when he was born Israel was at home, although suffering under the foreign power of the Romans. As he grew up that suffering only got worse. When he left, the collective Messiah was expelled into another exile of about 2000 years. Not even as a Messianic leader he could not classify. Let alone as the Messiah himself.

Now, I would appreciate to share your comments about the above.

Ben
 
Ben Masada said:
IMHO, Cyrus was not considered a Messiah per se but a Messianic leader for having proclaimed the end of the Jewish exile in Babylon and financed from the treasure of the Persian Empire, the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple in the Land of Israel. Moses was also a Messianic leader, and so was Theodor Herzl for being both connected with the freedom of the Jewish People from exile and back to Israel. And here is more about it:

The Collective Messiah - Isaiah 53

We all know that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. So, no argument about it. But then whom did Isaiah have in mind when he wrote chapter 53? In fact, who was in his mind when he wrote the whole book? That's in Isaiah 1:1: "A vision about Judah and Jerusalem." That's the theme of the book of Isaiah: Judah. Or the House of Jacob called by the name Israel from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1)

Now, how about the Suffering Servant? Isaiah mentions him by name, which is Israel according to Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21. Now, we have extablished a syllogism. If the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, and the Suffering Servant is Israel, the resultant premise will obviously be that Israel (the Jewish People) is the Messiah. Rashi thought so too, and a few other thinkers of weight.

Now, if the Messiah must also bring the epitet of son of God, there is no problem. We can have it from Exodus 4:22,23. Here's what it says in there: "Israel is My son; so, let My son go, that he may serve Me," says the Lord. That's why Hosea said that "When Israel was a child, God said, out of Egypt I called My son." (Hosea 11:1)

Last but not least, Jesus no doubt was part of the Messiah but not on an individual basis. The Messiah is collective. What we need from time to time, especially in exile, is of a Messianic leader to lead or inspire the Messiah to return home. Moses was one for bringing the Messiah back to Canaan. Cyrus was another for proclaiming the return of the Messiah to rebuild the Temple; which he contributed heavily finacially; and in our modern times, we had Herzl who was also one for inspiring the Messiah with love for Zion.

How about Jesus, what do we have to classify him as at least a Messianic leader? Well, when he was born Israel was at home, although suffering under the foreign power of the Romans. As he grew up that suffering only got worse. When he left, the collective Messiah was expelled into another exile of about 2000 years. Not even as a Messianic leader he could not classify. Let alone as the Messiah himself.

Now, I would appreciate to share your comments about the above.

Ben
Click to expand...

JESUS is Michael the Archangel.
 
radarmark said:
So Jesus is unaware of things? And Michael is just a persona?
Click to expand...

Jesus says he is unaware of several things which only the Father knows...

Saying Jesus is the Archangel Micheal is an assumption though based on Micheal being on the throne in the glory of God according to Revelation. There is no evidence to back this up at all.
 
Lunitik said:
Jesus says he is unaware of several things which only the Father knows...

Saying Jesus is the Archangel Micheal is an assumption though based on Micheal being on the throne in the glory of God according to Revelation. There is no evidence to back this up at all.
Click to expand...

Ummm hes not unaware of anything anymore. That was back when he was in human condition in israel.
 
donnann said:
Ummm hes not unaware of anything anymore. That was back when he was in human condition in israel.
Click to expand...

Do you speak of the individual Jesus, or the Christ entity?

The Christ entity is awareness itself, but of course the flesh and bone man has long died...
 
Of course, you are free to take that as mere speculation as well, I myself only accept it because Christ as part of the trinity is the One, and it is the One from which awareness stems.

1 Corinthians 12:12-27 appears to back this speculative statement up, however, through the recognition that we are all part of a single entity, the body of Christ. Since Christ is the Son, and has said repeatedly that he and the father are One, we must also be One. Thus, all has originated from the same source.

Since religion means to re-bind, the purpose of the teachings is to merge again with our true self - to recognize that we not separate from the One, cannot be.
 
donnann said:
Hes not dead.
Click to expand...

Can you show evidence that Jesus is not dead? There is much evidence that his tomb - his final resting place after the cross - is in Kashmir, India. Certainly, I can accept the Christ entity still lives if you want to say it this way... I have encountered what this references, but it is not a man.

Material things do not exist in the spiritual plain, how can they? Where will food come from which is necessary for bodies of matter to be sustained? Where will the material bodies use the restroom? What use even will the physical bodies serve in that place? It is simply absurd that you uphold these bizarre beliefs of Christianity, it cannot be so if you look at it rationally at all.

Mind cannot comprehend the beyond, but that doesn't mean you should allow for all kinds of fantasies, you can go beyond mind and know what is the reality of that...
 
In saying that, matter is not physical either according to science... it is merely the gross aspect of energy, merely very dense energy. If we go deeply enough into the atom, we will find that there is nothing, the atom is 99% empty space. This means that we are at least 99% not here already...

That subtle aspect of energy cannot be taken away and cannot be added to, science confirms the energy of existence is always constant - merely changing form. This does not answer why Christians believe these earthly bodies will be useful in other planes though, do you cling so much to body that you can rationalize this? Even while you reside on this plane, you can experience leaving the body - many of these are documented as Out of Body Experiences, but it is also the situation in spiritual attainment, called things like samadhi...

If we are not even strictly confined to our bodies while we are here, why would we remain in these bodies there?
 
Lunitik said:
Can you show evidence that Jesus is not dead? There is much evidence that his tomb - his final resting place after the cross - is in Kashmir, India. Certainly, I can accept the Christ entity still lives if you want to say it this way... I have encountered what this references, but it is not a man.

Material things do not exist in the spiritual plain, how can they? Where will food come from which is necessary for bodies of matter to be sustained? Where will the material bodies use the restroom? What use even will the physical bodies serve in that place? It is simply absurd that you uphold these bizarre beliefs of Christianity, it cannot be so if you look at it rationally at all.

Mind cannot comprehend the beyond, but that doesn't mean you should allow for all kinds of fantasies, you can go beyond mind and know what is the reality of that...
Click to expand...

Sorry I cannot , you would have to see it to believe it.
 
This is all we mean by death... the human vehicle has merely been departed, and thus ceases to be animated.
 
donnann said:
The human body is a part of the whole thing like a skin.
Click to expand...

False, the body is just a vehicle so this plane can be experienced, interacted with...

You are not the body, you are not the mind... you are something else, consciousness or awareness are the most common ways of referencing it. How can it be different? You can watch the body, you can see how it does things without your intervention, you can see that mind brings about thoughts which you have not put there... yet you say both are you?

It is only that you are identified with them, you being caught up in what happens to them and so you believe they are happening to you... you are merely the watcher of these things though, can you know it?
 
I do not say to be against the body, to be against mind... they are useful tools, but it is only an illusion that they are part of you...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top