Moshiach

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,542
Reaction score
30
Points
48
Location
Scotland
Is there any real consensus on what'll happen with the return/arrival of Moshiach?

Would such an event really be welcome?

Is it possible even that a "Brian the Messiah" figure fit into the scheme of things?

Simply curious about the Messianic side of Judaism.
 
I've always had a feeling that messianic Judaism was a more modern conception. As far as I know, there's no theology in any holy writ. Banabrain knows that stuff. As an outsider looking in, I messianic expectation as brand of Jewish apologetics.
 
messianic stuff tends to come from the Na"Kh rather than the Torah i think, partly because his function is essentially post-davidic and concerned with the "return to Zion" rather than getting there and getting set up in the first place, which was the concern pre-david.

it's actually quite an interesting question, because i'm not sure how far back the messianic idea actually goes. the idea of a "redemption" necessarily involves something you need to be redeemed from, ie the "galut" or exile. now, technically we have been in a state of galut ever since 76 CE when the romans destroyed the Temple. however, the Torah and prophets both agree that the exile would come about because the jewish people disobeyed the Torah and this, indeed, has occurred. the essential nature of Moshiach is to bring an end to the exile, unify the jewish people, build the third Temple and usher in the messianic age when everything will be all hunky-dory. other sources say that Moshiach is two people.

of course, prior to him actually showing up the sources generally agree that there will be a series of wars (known as the wars of gog and magog) which will be very nasty indeed, but the first Moshiach (ben yosef) will get us through them OK but be killed, whereas the second (ben david) will renew the land of israel and oversee all the nice stuff like ingathering the exiles and building the Temple; this Moshiach ben david will become the king, too, i think.

now the basic thing is this: to *believe* that Moshiach will come (and by implication, to work for it) *is* a halachic fundamental (one of maimonides' 13) so that belief itself is mandatory. however, all speculation as to the "how", in other words the details and precise theology of it all, is a matter of which tradition concerning it you happen to follow - and there are a plethora. there is no "official" policy about it, although there is a certain amount of consensus on certain points and huge disagreement on others. basically, it'll be the moshiach himself who actually resolves these disputes.

that's the traditional jewish thought in a nutshell. however, mus zibii, the group calling itself "messianic judaism" as opposed to regular jews are better known as "jews for jesus" and they are jews who believe that jesus was moshiach, so, in other words, they are apostates, christians who still pretend to be jewish, mostly so they can convert other jews. the whole thing is funded by evangelical christians and is highly unpleasant. this is one of the few groups of people that i absolutely cannot dialogue with, because they are (in my opinion and that of virtually all jews, whether orthodox or progressive) fundamentally dishonest and divisive and based upon a lie. don't confuse the two!

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Thanks for the reply - much appreciated. Also - wasn;t sure if I was going to get a hand-slapping for using "Moschiah" instead of "Messiah" - but figured the former term more meaningful to the question.
 
why should you get a hand-slapping? although to be consistent with my normal transliteration rules, i should really spell it "MOShIaKh", as it's a khet, not a chaf. like "masih" in arabic. i have no objection to the term "messiah", though.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
however, mus zibii, the group calling itself "messianic judaism" as opposed to regular jews are better known as "jews for jesus" and they are jews who believe that jesus was moshiach, so, in other words, they are apostates, christians who still pretend to be jewish, mostly so they can convert other jews.
No, no. I didn't mean those people. I meant Judaism as messianic, as opposed to, a pre-messianic or secular Judaism. 'Messianic Judaism' is something of an idiom, I guess, in relating to 'Joos fer Jezus'.
 
Mus Zibii said:
No, no. I didn't mean those people. I meant Judaism as messianic, as opposed to, a pre-messianic or secular Judaism. 'Messianic Judaism' is something of an idiom, I guess, in relating to 'Joos fer Jezus'.
Here is a paradox. Messianics believe in Christ but practice Judaism/Mt Sinai Law. One reason is because of Matt 5:18. A lot of them also believe Paul was a false Apostle, probably for saying this about Jerusalem:

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm
Galatian 4:24 which things are allegorized, for these are the two covenants: one, indeed, from mount Sinai, to servitude bringing forth, which is Hagar; 25 for this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and doth correspond to the Jerusalem that now [is], and is in servitude with her children, 26 and the Jerusalem above is the free-woman, which is mother of us all,


Matthew 5:18 for, verily I say to you, untill that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.
Isaiah 65:17 For, lo, I am creating new heavens, and a new earth, And the former things are not remembered, Nor do they ascend on the heart.
That doesn't happen until Daniel 12 and the end of the christian book of revelation, and only those Israelites who call upon the "Lamb/Word of God" are saved. I assume the "Nation" is Israel and is when the "resurrection" occurs?

[size=+2]Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be saved, every one that shall be found written in the book. [/size][size=+2] 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence.
Enoch 91.10 And the righteous will rise from sleep, and wisdom will rise, and will be given to them.
Here are those saved written in the Book of the Lamb:

[/size][size=+2]Revelation 14:1 And I saw, and lo,a Lamb having stood upon the mount Zion, and with him an hundred forty-four thousands, having the name of his Father written upon their foreheads; [elect of all the tribes of Israel]

And the new heaven and earth.

[/size]Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth did pass away, and the sea is not any more;
 
Messianics believe in Christ but practice Judaism/Mt Sinai Law
there's no paradox at all. so-called "messianics" do *not* practice 'judaism/mt sinai law' because they don't observe the Oral Law and in particular they don't observe the laws that relate to not evangelising and following false messiahs. plus, proper jews do not regard the book of enoch, or revelations, or anything else in the new testament to be canonical or sacred. don't bother trying to reconcile this stuff. it can't be done.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
it's actually quite an interesting question, because i'm not sure how far back the messianic idea actually goes. the idea of a "redemption" necessarily involves something you need to be redeemed from, ie the "galut" or exile. now, technically we have been in a state of galut ever since 76 CE when the romans destroyed the Temple. however, the Torah and prophets both agree that the exile would come about because the jewish people disobeyed the Torah and this, indeed, has occurred. the essential nature of Moshiach is to bring an end to the exile, unify the jewish people, build the third Temple and usher in the messianic age when everything will be all hunky-dory. other sources say that Moshiach is two people.
Interesting! So, then is Genesis 3:15 (and the surrounding context) not considered to be messianic by Judaism?
 
I have discussed this in the past with Jewish friends. And I hear their concerns with the 'Jews for Jesus' I don't know exactly what percentage of them are Jews that are now 'christian' or Christians that are now 'jews' but they do advertise heavily in the media when they are in town...

I had injured my back and was unable to ski during a ski trip once, and while my kids were on the slope I was in the lodge reading. I struck up a conversation with a Messianic Jew. And asked him if he was part of the Jews for Jesus, and he indicated no, and did not particularly like some characteristics of that group either. When we discussed his group, they were all born/raised Christian, and parted from Christianity to study the books Jesus studied, since the entire new testament is 3 decades to a couple centuries after his death, they deamed those books not required for the understanding. Now this was a few years ago, and I don't remember all the ins and outs of the conversation, but right after it, I discussed this with a number of Jews and they were much more comfortable with that group. Their feeling on the Jews for Jesus was that they were mostly converted Jews, and if they were converted, then they should just claim themselves to be christian and not call themselves Jews. I think their was a significant 'traitor' issue/feeling. However Christians that claimed to be Messianic Jews, they didn't have as much issue..

I'd love to learn/understand more w/o irritation of anyone.
 
seattlegal - it's not really what i'd call messianic. you see, in our way of thinking, the garden of eden/fall thing is *not* about setting up the need for redemption and salvation; it's about explaining how humans came to be the way the way we are and the fundamental importance of free-will as a necessary concomitant of sin. for us, we are able to recreate the garden of eden weekly through our own imitatio dei - we cease from "creation" by observing the laws of the sabbath and reverting back to that edenic state of freedom from earthly toil and earning our daily bread through the sweat of our brows, etc, without having to worry about the power of the "evil inclination", as represented by the snake. for us, the Moshiach is about an aspiration for humanity which is temporal as well as spiritual - if there isn't, for example, world peace and an end to suffering, then, by definition, the messianic age has not arrived. does that help?

wil - my experience is similar to yours, in fact. the sort of christians that take it upon themselves to observe the laws of the "old testament" i don't tend to have a problem with (although i do point out that it's going to be terribly hard without the benefit of the Oral Law) - it's J4J that i have a problem with and they're far more likely to be "converted" jews, with all that that entails, including the problem of heresy and apostasy. plus they are terribly in-your-face and brazen; the ones that live near me have two big minivans with a big J4J logo on the side, where the O of "for" is a big star of david, which is an even more offensive appropriation of jewish symbols. they engage in aggressive leafleting, advertising and pavement-mugging in jewish neighbourhoods, albeit usually not for very long before they get run out of the area by people who don't appreciate their presence. i was personally most disgusted by their "think for yourself" campaign, which shows a crowd of chasids, with one wearing a red t-shirt (that in itself a clear - and even more offensive for it - allusion to the little girl in "schindler's list" with the red dress) saying "think for youself" - as if regular jews aren't thinking for themselves. i mean, repulsive or what? as if we don't have enough problems without these bastads trying to steal our future.

i just don't really like talking about them. i'm not here to complain, i'm here to do dialogue. there are some people i just can't talk to though.

i'm more than happy to talk about messianic issues other than that.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
wil - my experience is similar to yours, in fact. the sort of christians that take it upon themselves to observe the laws of the "old testament" i don't tend to have a problem with (although i do point out that it's going to be terribly hard without the benefit of the Oral Law) - it's J4J that i have a problem with and they're far more likely to be "converted" jews,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_law

Because Jewish Law, Halakha, must include codes of law and behavior applicable to virtually every imaginable circumstance, this body of teaching has subsequently developed throughout the generations in a constantly expanding collection of religious literature based on the Talmud. In antiquity, the Sanhedrin functioned essentially as the Supreme Court and legislature for Judaism, and had the power to create and administer binding law on all Jews - rulings of the Sanhedrin became Halakha. That court ceased to function in its full mode in the year 40 CE. Subsequently, the boundaries of Jewish law have been determined through "the halakhic process." Thus, although the "Oral Law" has been in a written form for almost 18 centuries, it is still referred to as Torah she-be'al peh.
Hi Bana. Do the jews plan to bring back a Sanhedrin, High Priesthood, Tabernacle/ Temple and Levitical sacrifices in the future, and do you yourself feel it is necessary to have these if you already have the Oral Laws to go by? It almost appears as if judaism is as "fragmented" as Christ-ianity and Islam today.
Thanks.

A "New" Sanhedrin?

Following the establishment of the State of Israel, the new minister of religion, Rabbi Yehuda Leib Hacohen Maimon, was in favour of the idea, but was unable to persuade ultra-Orthodox groups.

In October 2004 (Tishrei 5765), a group of rabbis claiming to represent varied communities in Israel undertook a ceremony in Tiberias, where the original Sanhedrin was disbanded, which they claim re-establishes the body................

Hal Lindsey and company would like very much for the jews to hurry up and build another Sanctuary/Temple so they can be "raptured" away while Jerusalem incurs the Wraths again. :eek:
Some Christians, like evangelist Hal Lindsey, see the reinstated Sanhedrin as good news. :confused: Believing that the Sanhedrin would be responsible for the rebuilding of the Temple, which would eventually be desecrated by the false Messiah during the end times.
 
The Sanhedrin that is being developed now is not getting a whole lot of support, because the members are anonymous and it is not being set up correctly.

I can't answer for Bananabrain, but my understanding is that when Moshiach returns - the Temple will be rebuilt, sacrifices reinstituted, prophesy will return, the Sanhedrin will be established correctly... so on and so forth.

Btw, the existence of the Sanhedrin is not predicated on there being an Oral Law; if that is what you mean in your question above.
 
Hal Lindsey and company would like very much for the jews to hurry up and build another Sanctuary/Temple so they can be "raptured" away while Jerusalem incurs the Wraths again.
yes, we know. that is one of the most scary things about the support for israel amongst the religious right, those fools who are anxious for "apocalypse now".

The Sanhedrin that is being developed now is not getting a whole lot of support, because the members are anonymous and it is not being set up correctly.
that's not entirely correct. the nassi or chief is r. adin steinsaltz, who is one of the world's leading talmudic scholars. i think the issue is more that the rest of the 71 scholars are simply not well-known or authoritative enough and that many leading scholars are not actually included. without general consent from the community (and it is hard to see how that could really be established) that a sanhedrin is "kosher", there will be debates as to whether its rulings are binding as sanhedrin rulings - which is probably why it has confined itself to such trivial matters as declaring pheasant to be officially a kosher bird, rather than addressing itself to such controversial and fundamental matters as agunah or land for peace. i think what r. steinsaltz is doing is probably an experiment, a dry run to see what the practicalities are of reintroducing a communal structure that has not existed for nearly 2000 years.

my understanding is that when Moshiach returns - the Temple will be rebuilt, sacrifices reinstituted, prophesy will return, the Sanhedrin will be established correctly... so on and so forth.
that's right. except there's an argument as to which ought to be done first. obviously it's pretty scary if we get it wrong.

Btw, the existence of the Sanhedrin is not predicated on there being an Oral Law; if that is what you mean in your question above.
to be precise - the creation of a "court of 71" is a Torah law - see numbers 11:16, whereas the *procedure* is set out in the "sanhedrin" tractates of the mishnah and gemara and in subsequent codes such as the "yad hahazaqah" of maimonides.

b’shalom

bananabrain
 
A "New" Sanhedrin?

......Following the establishment of the State of Israel, the new minister of religion, Rabbi Yehuda Leib Hacohen Maimon, was in favour of the idea, but was unable to persuade ultra-Orthodox groups.......

Hal Lindsey and company would like very much for the jews to hurry up and build another Sanctuary/Temple so they can be "raptured" :eek: away while Jerusalem incurs the Wraths again and I assume that is one reason the jews "mock" some of the Christ-ians views of Daniel's "Time of the End".

quote: "Some Christians, like evangelist Hal Lindsey, see the reinstated Sanhedrin as good news. :confused: Believing that the Sanhedrin would be responsible for the rebuilding of the Temple, which would eventually be desecrated by the false Messiah during the end times.
yes, we know. that is one of the most scary things about the support for israel amongst the religious right, those fools :p who are anxious for "apocalypse now".
Quote: my understanding is that when Moshiach returns - the Temple will be rebuilt, sacrifices reinstituted, prophesy will return, the Sanhedrin will be established correctly... so on and so forth.
that's right. except there's an argument as to which ought to be done first. obviously it's pretty scary if we get it wrong.
Hi bananabrain. Some "Christ"-ians [like me] do not follow the beliefs that apocolyptic "futurists" and most "messianics" do, though the Bible does appear to imply that the "Day of the Lord/New heaven and earth" happens After Moshiach comes to bring the New Covenant to Israel.[Note Isaiah 28 and Daniel's 70 weeks]

Jeremiah 31:31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make/cut a new covenant [#01285] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.....

The jews still want a place of worship and to follow the Mosaic ordinances, so why should it be "scary" about getting it wrong, as God searches the Hearts and Minds and if your Heart is towards God, what is it that would frighten the jews about how or in what way to build the Temple and Sanctuary and form the High Priesthood to serve it? Just curious.
Shalom and Peace.
Steve

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant [#01285], In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.
 
bananabrain said:
that's not entirely correct. the nassi or chief is r. adin steinsaltz, who is one of the world's leading talmudic scholars. i think the issue is more that the rest of the 71 scholars are simply not well-known or authoritative enough and that many leading scholars are not actually included. without general consent from the community (and it is hard to see how that could really be established) that a sanhedrin is "kosher", there will be debates as to whether its rulings are binding as sanhedrin rulings - which is probably why it has confined itself to such trivial matters as declaring pheasant to be officially a kosher bird, rather than addressing itself to such controversial and fundamental matters as agunah or land for peace. i think what r. steinsaltz is doing is probably an experiment, a dry run to see what the practicalities are of reintroducing a communal structure that has not existed for nearly 2000 years.

Shalom Banana:

Thank you for the clarification. I have only heard snippets from some of my Jewish friends as to the consideration of the Sanhedrin. It's kind of interesting how the breakdown goes (from my POV):

Orthodox Jews - little to no support of the Sanhedrin
Conservative Jews - a little bit more, but not much.
Reform - "six one way, half a dozen the other"

What I have found particularly disturbing (ignorantly, I admit) is that some Noachides that I have recently run into are "full-on" for this Sanhedrin to start entering into judgments. They are especially interested in the whole Noachide affirmation and such. My reservation comes from understanding that the Noachide movement is primarily supported through Rabbinic Judaism. And since Rabbinic Judaism is not fully supporting this Sanhedrin, it seems like some of my new acquaintances are putting the cart before the horse. Anyways...

Banana said:
that's right. except there's an argument as to which ought to be done first. obviously it's pretty scary if we get it wrong.

That's quite true. A facet of "Messianic" studies that I have come across and you're more than welcome to affirm or deny is that the Messiah is actually not deemed Messiah UNTIL all these things have been accomplished. Do you have an opinion on that matter?

Banana said:
to be precise - the creation of a "court of 71" is a Torah law - see numbers 11:16, whereas the *procedure* is set out in the "sanhedrin" tractates of the mishnah and gemara and in subsequent codes such as the "yad hahazaqah" of maimonides.

b’shalom

bananabrain

I was under the impression that the historical timeline of the Sanhedrin and Rabbinic authority went something like this:

Moses => Joshua => Judges => other unknowns to me => the establishment of the Sanhedrin by Ezra. Please feel free to educate me on the matter. I'll peruse 11:16 in the meanwhile.

My statement above was not to say that there wasn't precedent for the Sanhedrin in the Torah, but instead, the Oral Toral does not stand or fall dependent on the Sanhedrin. The Oral Torah was transmitted to Moses at the same time as the Written. Therefore, the Oral Torah pre-dates the Sanhedrin. But alas, even that could be wrong.
 
From post #15
Hi bananabrain. Some "Christ"-ians [like me] do not follow the beliefs that apocolyptic "futurists"[Hal Lindsey] and most "messianics" do, though the Bible does appear to imply that the "Day of the Lord/New heaven and earth" happens After Moshiach comes to bring the New Covenant to Israel.[Note Isaiah 28 and Daniel's 70 weeks]...............
What I have found particularly disturbing (ignorantly, I admit) is that some Noachides that I have recently run into are "full-on" for this Sanhedrin to start entering into judgments. My reservation comes from understanding that the Noachide movement is primarily supported through Rabbinic Judaism. And since Rabbinic Judaism is not fully supporting this Sanhedrin, it seems like some of my new acquaintances are putting the cart before the horse. Anyways.............
Shalom chokmah. I just saw your post after I made mine.
May I ask what the "Noachide movement" is and are they a different sect than Judaism is? And what is their view of the Moshiach? They do not believe Jesus was the Moshiach correct?

Sorry, but I have never heard of this movement until now. Thanks and Peace.
Steve
 
InChristAlways said:
May I ask what the "Noachide movement" is and are they a different sect than Judaism is?

Shalom ICA:

You may certainly ask!

The "Noachide movement" is not a sect of Judaism. It is, essentially, the moral code/commandments that were established for all of mankind in the covenant with Noach. The short form of this code is "The Seven Laws of Noach".

The following is taken from an old wikipedia link that is no longer available, and it should present some pertinent information:

The Noahide laws, also called the Brit Noah (Covenant of Noah) are the mitzvot (commandments) and halakhot (laws) that Judaism teaches that all non-Jews are morally bound to follow. They are listed in the Talmud and elaborated on by post-Talmudic authorities. Opinions differ on the reach of these commandments and the laws derived from them, but all contemporary authorities agree that there are seven commandments. These commandments and laws are based on exegesis of Genesis 2:16 and 9:4-6.

Origin

According to the Biblical narrative, the Deluge covered the whole world killing everyone except Noah and his family and the creatures of the ark. After the flood, God seals a convenant with Noah with the following admonitions (Genesis 9):
  • Food: "Also, flesh with the life -the blood- in it do not eat." (9:4)
  • Murder: "I will also inquire about your blood, your life, from all animals, and from each human I will inquire about his brother's blood. Who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood will be shed, because in the image of God was man made."
The Talmud (tractate Sanhedrin 56a/b, quoting Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:4) states that the instruction to not eat "flesh with the life" was given to Noah, and that Adam and Eve had already received six other commandments in Paradise. The remaining six are derived from a seeming superfluous sentence in Genesis 2:16.

The seven laws

The seven laws are:
  1. Shefichat damim - Do not murder.
  2. Gezel - Do not steal/kidnap.
  3. Avodah zarah - Do not worship false gods/idols.
  4. Gilui arayot - Do not be sexually immoral (forbidden sexual acts are traditionally interpreted to include incest, sodomy, male homosexual sex acts and adultery)
  5. Birkat Hashem - Do not blaspheme.
  6. Dinim - Set up righteous and honest courts and apply fair justice in judging offenders and uphold the principles of the last five.
  7. Ever min ha-chai - Do not eat anything of the body of an unslaughtered animal (given to Noah)
The Talmud also states: "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a). Any person who lives according to these laws is known as "the righteous among the gentiles". Maimonides states that this refers to those who have acquired knowledge of God and act in accordance with the Noahide laws.

Definition of Noahides

According to rabbinic Judaism, as expressed in the Talmud, the Noahide Laws apply to all humanity through their descent from one paternal ancestor who in Hebrew tradition is called Noah (the head of the only family to survive during The Flood). In Judaism, B'nai Noach (Hebrew, "Descendants of Noah", "Children of Noah") refers to all Humans, but Noahide has come to refer to non-Jews who live in accord with the seven Noahide Laws; the term "observant Noahide" would be more precise but is infrequently used. A non-Jewish person of any ethnicity or religion is refered to as a bat (daughter)/ben (son) of Noah but usually an organization calling itself B'nai Noach would most likely be composed of gentiles believing that they are keeping the Noahide Laws. There is some controversy concerning whether or not a gentile may declare him/herself to be a keeper of the Noahide Laws or whether such a qualification can only be bestowed upon a gentile by a Beth Din (rabbinical court). Those adamant that B'nei Noah can only refer to noahides who believe they are keeping the Brit Noah take the stance that a Gentile can declare oneself to be a keeper of the Brit, while more orthodox parties feel rather than deciding for themselves Gentiles must submit themselves to the qualification stipulated in revelation but this consequently leads to the necessity for Torah Scholars (usually 3) to test identify and confer such status upon them.

Judaism holds that gentiles (non-Jews) are not obligated to follow the same halakha that Jews are obligated to follow. Though there is at least one well-documented case in which a Jewish state required all subjects to conform to Jewish beliefs and practices (in effect, to become Jewish), Rabbinic Judaism and its modern-day descendents discourage proselytization and interprets the historical data as evidence of the Jewish mission to "noahidify" gentiles. Noahide Laws may be considered the way to have a meaningful relationship with God or at least comply with a minimum threshold of divine law.

Maimonides states in his work Mishneh Torah (The laws of kings and their rulership 8:11) that a Geir Toshav who is precise in the observance of these Seven Noahide commandments is considered to be a Righteous Gentile and has earned the afterlife. This follows a similar statement in the Talmud (tractate Sanhedrin 105b). However, according to Maimonides, a share in the World to Come is only earned if a person follows the Noahide laws specifically because they consider them to be of divine origin (through the Torah) and not if they simply consider them a good way to live (in which case they would simply be wise, a Nochri). Other authorities do not make this distinction.

Noahide law differs from the Roman law for gentiles (ius gentium) because the latter was an enforceable judicial policy. Rabbinic Judaism has never adjudicated any cases under Noahide law (per Novak, 1983:28ff.), although scholars disagree about whether the Noahide law is a functional part of Halakha (cp. Bleich).

The connection between Judaism and Noachidism is that Jews were Noachides prior to Mt. Sinai. At present, Rabbinic authority is the best support and teacher in the movement.

ICA said:
And what is their view of the Moshiach?


The view is identical to Rabbinic Judaism.

ICA said:
They do not believe Jesus was the Moshiach correct?
Correct. A number of the Noachides that I run into are former-Christians; so there is a connection as well.

ICA said:
Sorry, but I have never heard of this movement until now. Thanks and Peace.
Steve
Not many have. But feel free to ask any time.
 
Some "Christ"-ians [like me] do not follow the beliefs that apocolyptic "futurists"[Hal Lindsey] and most "messianics" do, though the Bible does appear to imply that the "Day of the Lord/New heaven and earth" happens After Moshiach comes to bring the New Covenant to Israel.[Note Isaiah 28 and Daniel's 70 weeks]...............
May I ask what the "Noachide movement" is and are they a different sect than Judaism is?
Originally Posted by ICA They do not believe Jesus was the Moshiach correct?
Correct. A number of the Noachides that I run into are former-Christians; :eek: so there is a connection as well.
Former Christians?? In your view, what made them fall away from Christ-ianity as I am really curious about that. I know of a former Lutheren that turned to Judaism and now runs the jewsforjudaism forum, his name is Drashi.

What are the Noachides view of the 70 weeks of Daniel and the Day of the Lord after the Moshiach comes? Do they view the temple as having to be built in the future [so the Lord can come to it] before that event happens? Thanks.
Steve

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant [#01285], In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.

Malachi 4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, Burning like an oven, And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up," Says the LORD of hosts, "That will leave them neither root nor branch.
 
InChristAlways said:
Former Christians?? In your view, what made them fall away from Christ-ianity as I am really curious about that.

I can't speak for anyone else, but myself, because the Noachides come from a varied lot. Just recently, an agnostic acquaintance of mine really started investigating the Seven Laws of Noach.

My departure went like this (and I'll try to be short for brevity):

1) Lost belief in the trinity doctrine/dogma.
2) Lost belief in the deity of Jesus.
3) Lost belief in Messiahship of Jesus.
4) Lost belief in the "inspiration" of the Christian testament.

All four of the criteria above were lost beliefs, because of inconsistency (IMO) with the Tanakh. I could not make them harmonize with my questions and wonderings.

ICA said:
I know of a former Lutheren that turned to Judaism and now runs the jewsforjudaism forum, Drashi.

Drashi's a cool cat.

ICA said:
What are the Noachides view of the 70 weeks of Daniel and the Day of the Lord after the Moshiach comes? Do they view the temple as having to be built in the future [so the Lord can come to it] before that event happens? Thanks.
Steve

I should preface my answer with a disclaimer:

I, as a Noachide, realize that the Tanakh, from Exodus on, is a history book for Jews and the history of Judaism. There are many things therein that have nothing to do with me whatsoever. However, it is fun to think about certain things as they pertain to the future of the world. The Moshiach is one of those things. The Moshiach will have an impact on the world, and therefore, will have an impact on me (should I still be living when he comes).

Re: Daniel. I hold the view that the time line falls more in line with the situation involving Epiphanes and the Maccabees.

Re: The Temple. I hold the view that it will be rebuilt. As to a particular time frame whence Moshiach returns => I do not know.

I just believe that the criteria will be fulfilled, and then the person will be deemed - Moshiach. (which happens to be one major reason why I reject Jesus as the Messiah)
 
Back
Top