The Name of The Branch

Image result for messiah gate jerusalem
Messiah gate Jerusalem


summary of the argument 

(1) The Messiah is shown to have the same name as the high priest
(2) the name of the High priest is Jesus
(3) Therefore Jesus will be the sameofthe essiah(4) The two messiah (Davidic and Priestly) are shown to be aspects of
the same Messiah.
(5) This means Messiah will atone for sins of his people and will sit on the Throne of David
(6) Jesus of Nazareth ha the right nae and  fits aspects of both messianic figures, and he is the only one in hisotry who can make these claims,
The two figures in Zachariah (the High Priest and the King) probably both refer to the same Messiah. Both are each two different symbols for the same figure. The high priest Joshua (Jesus) represents the Messiah's priestly function and his atonement for sin, and Zerubbabel (Davidic line) represents his genealogical line.This tags Jesus of Nazareth as the actual fulfillment becuase no other candidate for Messiah in history was every named Jesus, and this passage shows us that is to be his name. There's nt likely to be one in the future either, becuase of the taint put on the name for Jews by Christianity.



A.Zerubable line marked Messianic 
In this point we see that the line in which Zerubbabel was born, the line that includes Jahoachin the last King of Judah, is the Davidic line going through Solomon and including the Kings of Judah. This is the Messianic line. 


Zechariah 4:7 
"What are you O mighty Mountain before Zerubbabel  you will become level ground, then he will bring out the capstone..." IT goes on to say Z will lay the foundation for the temple. That really happened. So that's not so amazing, but it is linked to Messianic prophesy as the language of the captone is seen by Rabbis Quoted by Edersheim as a reference to Messiah, and in Gospels of course that is what is meant when Jesus speaks of Himself as "the stone that the builders rejected." 

Zech. 3:8

"Listen, High Priest Joshua, you and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch."
 This says they are symbolic of things to come. So the names of these men could very well tell us something about the  future. what they do and who they are is important as a guide to prediction of fulfillment.

"The designation 'Branch' is expressly applied to King Messiah in the Targum. Indeep this is one of the Messiah's peculiar names." Thus these branch references link Z to Messiah in some fundamental way.(Edersheim) 
It is also undeniable form Isaiah 11 that Branch is a designation of the Davidic Messiah. It is clearly the Kingly David Messiah who ushers in the millennial kingdom to which that Chapter referrers. 

Now look again at 4:7 where it speaks of Zerubbabel and the Capstone. Zech 4:7 is generally applied to the Messiah, expressly in the Targum and also in several of the Midrashim, thus as reguards both clauses of it Tanchuma (Par. Toledoth 14 ed. Warsh p. 56 at the top.) --Edersheim, 735). 

So Zerubbabel is clearly linked to Messiah. He would have been king, and he's decided from the Messianic line. He is an ancestor of Jesus. He lays the corner stone, which, though it was literally something he did do in history, can also have a double meaning, especially since that very verse is linked Messianichally. So the Messiah comes through Zerubbabel's line, which links Jesus closer and removes the curse a priori. 




B.Joshua is the Name of the BranchIn Zechariah 3: 3 The high Priest of Zerubbabel 's day "...stood before the angel. The angel said to those who stood before him 'take off his filthy clothes' Than he said to Joshua 'see I have taken away your sin and I will put rich garments on you.'" IN v8 "Listen Joshua and your men seated before you who are symbolic of things to come....I am going to bring my servant the Branch,....and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day."
In Zechariah 3:8 God tells Joshua the priest that he will bring a branch. In the Notes to the Oxford Bible (RSV), of Messianic prophesy, it says "8 Branch a Davidic figure who is to usher in the Messianic age (compare Psalm 132:17...) here refurs to Zerubbabel (see 6:9-15n) Now that note says "This section abounds with difficulties. Originally it probablly directed crowning of Zerubbabel as Messianic King but was revised to refur to Joshua." 

But in this same passage, after the crowning of Joshua, "God tells the prophet, to say to Joshua "here is the man whose name is the Branch, an and he will branch out from here and build the temple of the Lord. It is he who will build the temple and he will be clothed with majesty and he will sit and rule on his throne."(6:12). He is speaking of the High preist Joshua as "the man whose name is the Branch, and that is who he is anointing:
 


Zec 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set [them] upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest; Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name [is] The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:Zec 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.


He is to be a Priest on this throne, that is a contradiction. There is a priestly Messiah and a Kingly Messiah, but they can't mix their functions,not unless they both symbolize the same figure; the true Messiah. So this gives the King a redeptive fucntion because it is the Preisestly messiah who redeems.
 


When he says "here is the man whose name is the Branch" he is crowning Joshua the high priest, whose name is actually Yesha (Jesus). But what is said next identifies "the man whose name is the branch" more with Zerubbabel. As stated above Zerubbabel may have been originally intended for Messianic crowning. 


But I think what's really going on here is an intentionally confussing and melding of the two together because they both represent the true branch, the David Messiah who will come and sit on David's throne, and notice the fact that Joshua cannot sit on David's throne,but he shows us the name of the Branch, the name of the one who will. 

But the two figures are united in v13 "he will be a priest on this throne." But this makes no sense because the Joseph Messiah can't have a throne, the priestly and Kingly functions are divided between the two, as is the point of having two of them. So this melding indicates the two really symbolize the same figure. Clearly both men are linked to the same Messianic figure. Zerubbabel through Rabbinical lore, the throne and the cornerstone, the Priest Joshua as "the man who brings the Branch" if not as the "name of the Branch." 

Skeptics can counter with the objection that since this is the Priest, he is the symbol of the Priestly Messiah and not of the Davidic Messiah. Jesus must be the Davidic Messiah to sit on David's throne and be the branch of David and roote of Jessey. But my contention is that the two Messiah's are really one figure and Jesus has both functions. Thus they both represent Jesus. Thsu both Highpreist Joshua and Zerubabel both represent Jesus. 

the two following arguments prove this point



I. Origin of Two Messiahs
A. Summary of Messianic beliefsThe Origin of Messianic beliefs can be seen in works such as Isaiah and Zacaraiah, as the exiles from Babylon anticipated return to their homeland, and as the new returnees struggled to get their new nation started in the patterns of restoration of the old. From Isiah's earlisest prophesies (chapters 9 and 11 proto Isaiah) they looked for a great political leader who would rule as God's agent and build a kingdom of total pace and justice. Cornfeld argues that when they first began to look for the political leader, great hope was placed in Zerubabel, but he died. After a string of other candiates, none of whom panned out, they began to spiritualize the anointed one. Finally, under Roman occupation they began to look for an eschatological disruption, and a cosmic Messiah who was the "Son of God." (see first page). Jurgen Moltmann, in Theology of Hope, tells us that the eschatological is the temporalizing of the journey through the wilderness. Once the journey is complete and the people are in the promoised land, they have no more need to long for the land. They possess it. But they must maintian their sense of God as the protector who journeys with them, so they temporalize the journey. Than under the pressure of occupation by the Romans they militarize the new promised "end of times" and the Messiah. 

* Sibylline Oracles 3.285f: 

"And then the heavenly God will send a king and will judge each man in blood and the gleam of fire. There is a certain royal tribe whose race will never stumble. This too, as time pursues its cyclic course, will reign, and it will begin to raise up a new temple of God."


* Sibylline Oracles 3.652-655: 

"And then God will send a King from the sun who will stop the entire earth from evil war, killing some, imposing oaths of loyalty on others; and he will not do all these things by his private plans but in obedience to the noble teachings of the great God."


* Sibylline Oracles 5.108f: 

"..then a certain king sent from God against him will destroy all the great kings and noble men. Thus there will be judgment on men by the imperishable one" with 5.414f: "For a blessed man came from the expanses of heaven with a scepter in his hands which God gave him, and he gained sway over all things well, and gave back the wealth to all the good, which previous men had taken. He destroyed every city from its foundations with much fire and burned nations of mortals who were formerly evildoers." 


[from Glenn Miller:Christian Think Tank]



B. Origin of two Messiahs in Zachariah

1)Two Messiahs at Qumran.


Messianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings 1 
Florentino Garcia Martinez 


Florentino Garcia Martinez is professor at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, where he heads the Qumran Institute. This chapter is reprinted from The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Florentino Garcia Martinez and Julio Trebolle Barrera (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995). 

2 Priestly Messianism:

"Together with the King, the High Priest is one of the main individuals to receive an "anointing" in the Hebrew Bible. There is nothing unusual, then, that within the Old Testament we already find indications of the possible development of these references to the High Priest as "anointed one"&emdash;in the course of hope in a priestly agent of salvation in the eschatological era&emdash;together with the "anointed one" of royal character. It is in this sense, I think, that the vision of Zechariah 3 and its development in Zechariah 6:9-14 must be interpreted. In the first text, the future messianic age is clearly dominated by the figure of the High Priest Joshua, while the "shoot" only appears in passing and in a subordinate role. Neither of these two characters therefore is explicitly called "Messiah," but both texts are open to such an interpretation. As we will see further on, this interpretation will be developed within the Qumran community into a two-headed messianism."




2) Priestly Agent of Salvation


Ibid. 

"However, a recently published text enables us to glimpse an independent development of the hope in the coming of the "priestly Messiah" as an agent of salvation at the end of times." 

"It is an Aramaic text, one of the copies of the Testament of Levi, recently published by E. Puech,32 which contains interesting parallels to chapter 19 of the Greek Testament of Levi included in the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs. From what can be deduced from the remains preserved, the protagonist of the work (probably the patriarch Levi, although it cannot be completely excluded that it is Jacob speaking to Levi) speaks to his descendants in a series of exhortations. He also relates to them some of the visions which have been revealed to him. In one of them, he tells them of the coming of a mysterious person. Although the text is hopelessly fragmentary it is of special interest since it seems to evoke the figure of a "priestly Messiah." This "Messiah" is described with the features of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, as J. Starcky indicated in his first description of the manuscript."33 [some of the text of the fragment quoted at the top under the Martinez quotation]



[from Glenn Miller's Web site]


* Testament of Levi 18:2ff: 

"And then the Lord will raise up a new priest to whom all the words of the Lord will be revealed. He shall effect the judgment of truth over the earth for many days. And his star shall rise in heaven like a king...This one will shine forth like the sun in the earth...The heavens shall rejoice in his days and the earth shall be glad; the clouds will be filled with joy and the knowledge of the Lord will be poured out on the earth like the water of the seas...And the glory of the Most High shall burst forth upon him. And the spirit of understanding and sanctification shall rest upon him...In his priesthood sin will cease and lawless men shall find rest in him...And he shall open the gates of paradise...he will grant to the saints to eat of the tree of life..."




II. Two Messiahs are one. 
A.Ben Joseph as War Machine Latter idea.Edersheim argues that since this idea is not found in Rabbinical writings before the Middle ages it was a latter development. Of course, this is not true, but he could not have known about Qumran. Nevertheless, what is probably ture is that the fully developed notion of the Warrior Messiah was less well developed before the middle ages. It seems that the idea at Qumran of the Preistly Messiah was more oriented toward the cosmic redemptive priest rather than the war machine. 
B. Double Messianism not Norm At Qumran


It can be seen that the double Messianism at Qumran may have been one minor voice. Recent scholarship finds far more emphasis upon the single Messiah.

Hebrew Scholars Michael Wise and James Tabor wrote an article that appeared in Biblical Archaeology Review (Nov./Dec. 1992) analyzing 4Q521: 

"In short, there is not much evidence in the previously published scrolls that straightforwardly supports a putative doctrine of the two Messiahs.So the text that is the subject of this article (4Q521) is, in speaking of a single Messiah, more the rule than the exception.The Messiah of our text is thus much closer to the Christian Messiah, in this regard, than in any previously published text and requires us to reexamine the previously, rather restricted, views of Messianic expectations at Qumran."

Comments

The Pixie said…
The messiah was any guy who got annointed. That was kings and high priests, so I agree so far. In Zechariah the two messiahs, then, are Zerubbabel, grandson of Jehoiachin the penultimate king of Judah and Yeshua (Joshua), son of Jozadak and high priest.

Zechariah is all about the building of the second temple, which was done by these two - not by Jesus. The "Branch" is Zerubbabel, a descendant of David.

Zechariah 6:9 And the word of the Lord came to me: 10 “Take from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon, and go the same day to the house of Josiah, the son of Zephaniah. 11 Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it on the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 And say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. 13 It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honour, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”’ 14 And the crown shall be in the temple of the Lord as a reminder to Helem,[b] Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Hen the son of Zephaniah.

This text talks about Joshua being crowned. It may have been expedient to say that, given they were still ruled over by Persia - Zerubbabel was of royal descent, but was governor, not king. They were well treated by the Persian, who might not have treated them so well if they thought the Hebrews were aspiring to a time when it was Judah that ruled the world.

We do know that Zerubbabel was instrumental in getting the temple built:

Ezra 3:8 In the second month of the second year, after they came to the house of God in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak began the work

Zechariah 4:8 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 9 “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you.

That second one suggests the building was still going on when Zechariah was written, making it possible the author hoped Zerubbabel would be the new king. These verses, with the bit about overthrowing other kingdoms (an early version of your "eschatological disruption"), indicates a messianic role for Zerubbabel.

Haggai 2:21 “Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I am about to shake the heavens and the earth, 22 and to overthrow the throne of kingdoms. I am about to destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations, and overthrow the chariots and their riders. And the horses and their riders shall go down, every one by the sword of his brother. 23 On that day, declares the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, declares the Lord, and make you like a[c] signet ring, for I have chosen you, declares the Lord of hosts.”

The later focus on a single messiah was likely because what they yearned for was a king to lead them to a military victory. They already had their high priest.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
The messiah was any guy who got annointed. That was kings and high priests, so I agree so far. In Zechariah the two messiahs, then, are Zerubbabel, grandson of Jehoiachin the penultimate king of Judah and Yeshua (Joshua), son of Jozadak and high priest.

In ah early period but coming out of the exile they began to look to a single central liberator figure

Zechariah is all about the building of the second temple, which was done by these two - not by Jesus. The "Branch" is Zerubbabel, a descendant of David.

clearly about the liken to messiah, building the steeple just the ostensible setting.It says clearly these men are symbolic of things to come, it has a scene of atonement for Israel it talks about they look upon the one they have pierced, the one whose name is the branch will redeem Israel;s sins in one hour.


Zechariah 6:9 And the word of the Lord came to me: 10 “Take from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon, and go the same day to the house of Josiah, the son of Zephaniah. 11 Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it on the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 And say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. 13 It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honour, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”’ 14 And the crown shall be in the temple of the Lord as a reminder to Helem,[b] Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Hen the son of Zephaniah.

This text talks about Joshua being crowned. It may have been expedient to say that, given they were still ruled over by Persia - Zerubbabel was of royal descent, but was governor, not king. They were well treated by the Persian, who might not have treated them so well if they thought the Hebrews were aspiring to a time when it was Judah that ruled the world.

scholarship says they were setting up for Zerubable to be king then hed diedso the took the priest instead,

We do know that Zerubbabel was instrumental in getting the temple built:

Ezra 3:8 In the second month of the second year, after they came to the house of God in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak began the work

Zechariah 4:8 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 9 “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you.

none of that negates the major premise about the name of the Branch Messiah;s name will be Jesus

That second one suggests the building was still going on when Zechariah was written, making it possible the author hoped Zerubbabel would be the new king. These verses, with the bit about overthrowing other kingdoms (an early version of your "eschatological disruption"), indicates a messianic role for Zerubbabel.

symbolic of thigs to come what it says


clearly there are messianic expectations here that are more than just the modern Jewish expectations
Joe Hinman said…
B.Joshua is the Name of the BranchIn Zechariah 3: 3 The high Priest of Zerubbabel 's day "...stood before the angel. The angel said to those who stood before him 'take off his filthy clothes' Than he said to Joshua 'see I have taken away your sin and I will put rich garments on you.'" IN v8 "Listen Joshua and your men seated before you who are symbolic of things to come....I am going to bring my servant the Branch,....and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day."

clearly messianic and clearly links redemption
The Pixie said…
Joe: In ah early period but coming out of the exile they began to look to a single central liberator figure

Zechariah is all about the period when they came out of exile, and clearly has two messiahs. Later, it became a single figure - I would guess because they already had a high priest. What they were missing was a king.

Joe: clearly about the liken to messiah, building the steeple just the ostensible setting.It says clearly these men are symbolic of things to come, it has a scene of atonement for Israel it talks about they look upon the one they have pierced, the one whose name is the branch will redeem Israel;s sins in one hour.

No, it is not clear that the men are symbolic of things to come. To me it reads as though it means those specific men. It is Israel that was pierced by the exile.

Joe: scholarship says they were setting up for Zerubable to be king then hed diedso the took the priest instead,

Right. They saw Zerubbabel as the messiah, the king who would lead them to freedom. That is what Zechariah is talking about.

That never happened, he was never more than governor, so subsequent to Zechariah they had to adjust their beliefs.

Joe: none of that negates the major premise about the name of the Branch Messiah;s name will be Jesus

Yes it does! The branch was Zerubbabel. You just said "scholarship says they were setting up for Zerubable to be king"; he was the descendant of David, not Joshua.


Zechariah 3 is about the end of the exile. The brand in the fire is Israel in exile, with the implication that the suffering has been beneficial.
The dirty garments, likewise, are the exile, but now that is over, Joshua, representing Israel, can wear fine clothes once more (looking forward to when Israel would rule all the kingdoms).

God then commands Joshua to keep the laws, and tells him that the messiah, the branch will arrive soon:

Zechariah 3:6 And the angel of the Lord solemnly assured Joshua, 7 “Thus says the Lord of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my charge, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who sit before you, for they are men who are a sign: behold, I will bring my servant the Branch.

The branch is not Joshua - that makes no sense as Joshua was not a descendant of David - the branch is Zerubbabel.

And the redemption is about Israel suffering in exile for their sins, and then being forgiven, and so allowed by God to return to their land.
Joe Hinman said…
PixieNo, it is not clear that the men are symbolic of things to come. To me it reads as though it means those specific men. It is Israel that was pierced by the exile.

The text ofAzch3:8 saysw:
"Listen, High Priest Joshua, you and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch."

The Jews of Jesus day did not think the Messian was Zerubable they thought he was part of the linage of Messiah,(Jesus is in Zeribabel's linage.) This is what the Taludic writers tell us.


PixieRight. They saw Zerubbabel as the messiah, the king who would lead them to freedom. That is what Zechariah is talking about.

not after he died Jesus' time was much latter


Joe: none of that [Zerubabel's death] negates the major premise about the name of the Branch Messiah;s name will be Jesus

PxYes it does! The branch was Zerubbabel. You just said "scholarship says they were setting up for Zerubable to be king"; he was the descendant of David, not Joshua.

Yes that does not make him Messiah. They had lots of kings who weren't Messiah. Moreover if they think a guy is Messiah and he turns out not to be that does not negate the idea of Messiah, In fact every claimant for Messiahhood failed, Jesus was crucified, the Egyptian was stoned,the bar Kaba was put to sword I think. Another guy in the fourth century was forced to end his days as a government official. That guy had a lot of time to stamp papers and count his blessings.the Jews are still looking for a messiah.




Joe Hinman said…
PxZechariah 3 is about the end of the exile. The brand in the fire is Israel in exile, with the implication that the suffering has been beneficial.
The dirty garments, likewise, are the exile, but now that is over, Joshua, representing Israel, can wear fine clothes once more (looking forward to when Israel would rule all the kingdoms).

The passages speaks of the sins of the people.the filthy clothes are the sins not the suffering.It says i the text the filthy clothes are the sin of the people.

PxGod then commands Joshua to keep the laws, and tells him that the messiah, the branch will arrive soon:

You are trying literalize the metaphors when it suits your view. It doesn't work. It says the priest has the name of the branch, so the branch (Messiah)will be named he sameas the priest, Jesus. Z is not Makeshift he was the Jews of Jesus day would not be looking for Mesiah. by laying the cornerstone he is saying the line will be thorough him, he is not the Messiah,This is why Jeus is called cornerstone,

PxZechariah 3:6 And the angel of the Lord solemnly assured Joshua, 7 “Thus says the Lord of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my charge, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who sit before you, for they are men who are a sign: behold, I will bring my servant the Branch.

they were literally ruling Israel at that time. it says they are a sign yes they area sign of the coming messiah: the High Priest mirrors his atonement and has his name the King is progenitor of his line.

PxThe branch is not Joshua - that makes no sense as Joshua was not a descendant of David - the branch is Zerubbabel.

It never says the Branch is Z it says he brings the branch



And the redemption is about Israel suffering in exile for their sins, and then being forgiven, and so allowed by God to return to their land.

It says specifically their sins will be removed
Joe Hinman said…
Zach 12

6 “On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch among sheaves. They will consume all the surrounding peoples right and left, but Jerusalem will remain intact in her place.

7 “The Lord will save the dwellings of Judah first, so that the honor of the house of David and of Jerusalem’s inhabitants may not be greater than that of Judah. 8 On that day the Lord will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord going before them. 9 On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.


Mourning for the One They Pierced


10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit[a] of grace and supplication. They will look on[b] me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

the one they pierced is the one talking it can't be Israel because the one who did the pricing is Israel, the one Israel pierced is talking about them.

If that is not God talking about sins of Israel why doe it speak of grace and supplication?

That is forgiveness, who is being forgone but the sinner Israel?



The Pixie said…
Joe: "Listen, High Priest Joshua, you and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch."

My translation says a sign of things to come. That looks to be a more accurate translation:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4159.htm

Joe: The Jews of Jesus day did not think the Messian was Zerubable they thought he was part of the linage of Messiah,(Jesus is in Zeribabel's linage.) This is what the Taludic writers tell us.

Sure. As soon as Zerubbabel died without becoming king, it was clear he was not the messiah, and the Jews had to start searching for a new messiah. But that was after Zechariah wrote chapters 1-8. The original meaning was that Zerubbabel was the kingly messiah.

Remember, this is about your claim that the messiah was prophesised to be called Jesus/Joshua. It is clear that Zechariah envisaged two messiahs, the high priest, Joshua, and the kingly messiah - the branch - Zerubbabel. There is no suggestion of a kingly messiah called Jesus/Joshua, or of a branch called Jesus/Joshua.

Joe: Yes that does not make him Messiah. They had lots of kings who weren't Messiah.

All the kings were anointed. They were all messiahs.

And they were all adopted as the son of God too.

Joe: The passages speaks of the sins of the people.the filthy clothes are the sins not the suffering.It says i the text the filthy clothes are the sin of the people.

Okay, that seems reasonable. Nevertheless, it is the sins that got them exiled to Babylon, and the point of the vision is to contrast their situation in exile with how they were having returned, having been redeemed.

Joe: You are trying literalize the metaphors when it suits your view. It doesn't work. It says the priest has the name of the branch, so the branch (Messiah)will be named he sameas the priest, Jesus. Z is not Makeshift he was the Jews of Jesus day would not be looking for Mesiah. by laying the cornerstone he is saying the line will be thorough him, he is not the Messiah,This is why Jeus is called cornerstone,

And you are trying to twist the passage to say something it patently does not.

Zechariah saw Zerubbabel as the kingly messiah as the branch, not Joshua.

Joe: It never says the Branch is Z it says he brings the branch

Of course Zerubbabel is the branch, he is the one descended from David.

Joe: It says specifically their sins will be removed

Quote the verse. Or do you mean Zec 12:6-7, in your next post? They are about Israel becoming great again, and ruling the other nations.

Joe: 10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit[a] of grace and supplication. They will look on[b] me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

the one they pierced is the one talking it can't be Israel because the one who did the pricing is Israel, the one Israel pierced is talking about them.

If that is not God talking about sins of Israel why doe it speak of grace and supplication?

That is forgiveness, who is being forgone but the sinner Israel?


You have it half right. It certainly is talking about the sins of Israel. However, the piercing is God's punishment for those sins, specifically the Babylonia Captivity. That had ended by the time of writing, and they were now looking forward to the spirit of grace and supplication.
Joe Hinman said…
he Pixie said...
Joe: "Listen, High Priest Joshua, you and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch."

My translation says a sign of things to come. That looks to be a more accurate translation:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4159.htm

not real difference. mine is NIV that's the best

Joe: The Jews of Jesus day did not think the Messiah was Zerubable they thought he was part of the linage of Messiah,(Jesus is in Zeribabel's linage.) This is what the Taludic writers tell us.

Sure. As soon as Zerubbabel died without becoming king, it was clear he was not the messiah, and the Jews had to start searching for a new messiah. But that was after Zechariah wrote chapters 1-8. The original meaning was that Zerubbabel was the kingly messiah.

no it's not. just because he was going to be King doesn't make hi Messiah,It's not clear they even understood Messiah at that point but why do you keep dismissing what the jews of Jesus day said and what the Talmud says?



Remember, this is about your claim that the messiah was prophesised to be called Jesus/Joshua. It is clear that Zechariah envisaged two messiahs, the high priest, Joshua, and the kingly messiah - the branch - Zerubbabel. There is no suggestion of a kingly messiah called Jesus/Joshua, or of a branch called Jesus/Joshua.

do you not know about the two messiah theory at Qumran? There is no indication that Z or the high priest were ever called Messiah,they text clerical states they are only hints to future events,

Joe: Yes that does not make him Messiah. They had lots of kings who weren't Messiah.

All the kings were anointed. They were all messiahs.

word twisting cop-out. By Jesus day they were looking for an actual major Messiah, "The Messiah." reality. There is no real indication that they were looking for that in Z's toe.

And they were all adopted as the son of God too.

that is not true

Joe: The passages speaks of the sins of the people.the filthy clothes are the sins not the suffering.It says i the text the filthy clothes are the sin of the people.

Okay, that seems reasonable. Nevertheless, it is the sins that got them exiled to Babylon, and the point of the vision is to contrast their situation in exile with how they were having returned, having been redeemed.

still symbolic of things to come,the redemption is linked to one hour and being pierced

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: You are trying literalize the metaphors when it suits your view. It doesn't work. It says the priest has the name of the branch, so the branch (Messiah)will be named he sameas the priest, Jesus. Z is not Makeshift he was the Jews of Jesus day would not be looking for Mesiah. by laying the cornerstone he is saying the line will be thorough him, he is not the Messiah,This is why Jeus is called cornerstone,

And you are trying to twist the passage to say something it patently does not.

Zechariah saw Zerubbabel as the kingly messiah as the branch, not Joshua.

No he did not, nowhere does it say that,the word Messiah is never used, you are asserting Z is Messiah but if he is the carrier of the line of course it had to link him to the office, but the fact he didn't get it tells us it was not him.

Joe: It never says the Branch is Z it says he brings the branch

Of course Zerubbabel is the branch, he is the one descended from David.

It does not say that it says he brings the branch

Joe: It says specifically their sins will be removed

Quote the verse. Or do you mean Zec 12:6-7, in your next post? They are about Israel becoming great again, and ruling the other nations.

3: 3 The high Priest of Zerubbabel 's day "...stood before the angel. The angel said to those who stood before him 'take off his filthy clothes' Than he said to Joshua 'see I have taken away your sin and I will put rich garments on you.'" IN v8 "Listen Joshua and your men seated before you who are symbolic of things to come....I am going to bring my servant the Branch,....and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day."
In Zechariah 3:8 God tells Joshua the priest that he


Joe: 10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit[a] of grace and supplication. They will look on[b] me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

the one they pierced is the one talking it can't be Israel because the one who did the pricing is Israel, the one Israel pierced is talking about them.

If that is not God talking about sins of Israel why doe it speak of grace and supplication?

That is forgiveness, who is being forgone but the sinner Israel?

You have it half right. It certainly is talking about the sins of Israel. However, the piercing is God's punishment for those sins, specifically the Babylonia Captivity. That had ended by the time of writing, and they were now looking forward to the spirit of grace and supplication.

makes no sense because the guy talking is the one pierced ,so God is pierced by Israel v 10 " They will look on me, the one they have pierced," They = Israel, me the guy talking God.

10/30/2018 07:59:00 AM Delete
The Pixie said…
My translation says a sign of things to come. That looks to be a more accurate translation:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4159.htm

Joe: not real difference. mine is NIV that's the best

In the context of our argument, there is an important difference. If Joshua is symbolic of the messiah, then that supports your argument that the future messiah will be like Joshua (same name, priestly). If Joshua is a sign of the future messiah, then that is not that case. The link I gave last time indicates that the word is translated as sign or wonder elsewhere, suggesting the NIV is wrong on this occasion.

Joe: no it's not. just because he was going to be King doesn't make hi Messiah,It's not clear they even understood Messiah at that point but why do you keep dismissing what the jews of Jesus day said and what the Talmud says?

I am looking at what Zechariah believed, so of course I will dismiss what the Jews of Jesus day said and what the Talmud says.

Zechariah had an idea of what the messiah was. I agree it was different to what later Jews believed, but he still had his own beliefs on the subject. The king was the messiah - or a messiah. He hoped Zerubbabel would become king, i.e., would be anointed and adopted by God as his son. He hoped Zerubbabel would be a messiah. And that went together with leading the people to be the dominant kingdom, to rule the other nations of the world.

There is no sense of a messianic age, of a resurrection or the coming of God's kingdom, but it is the early stage of the messianic belief.

Joe: do you not know about the two messiah theory at Qumran? There is no indication that Z or the high priest were ever called Messiah,they text clerical states they are only hints to future events,

What are you talking about? Zechariah is very clear that there were two messiahs:

Zechariah 4:14 Then he said, “These are the two anointed ones[b] who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.”

Joe: word twisting cop-out. By Jesus day they were looking for an actual major Messiah, "The Messiah." reality. There is no real indication that they were looking for that in Z's toe.

Sure.

But what was it you were arguing? You started by claiming Zechariah is prophesising a messiah called Jesus/Joshua. What they believed in Jesus day is irrelevant. This is about what Zechariah believed. Zechariah believed there were two messiahs, Joshua and hopefully Zerubbabel, the branch.
The Pixie said…
Pix: And they were all adopted as the son of God too.

Joe: that is not true

It is certainly what they believed to be true.

2 Samuel 7:12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.

1 Chronicles 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be [b]Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’

Psalm 2:“I will declare the [g]decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You
.

Joe: still symbolic of things to come,the redemption is linked to one hour and being pierced

No, it was symbolic of what was happening. The Hebrews were redeemed, they had been released from captivity, and now were rebuilding the temple. Soon, they would be great again (they hoped). The piercing was the exile.

Joe: It does not say that it says he brings the branch

It says "I will bring my servant the Branch". The use of "my servant" is a link back to David as seen in Psalm 89:20, 2 Samuel 7:5, 1 Kings 11:32). The "Branch" referring to a descendant of David is seen in Jeremiah 33:15 and Isaiah 4:2.

This is very clearly talking about Zerubbabel. Compare to this, written around the same time:

Haggai 2:23 On that day, declares the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, declares the Lord, and make you like a[c] signet ring, for I have chosen you, declares the Lord of hosts.”

This proves there was a belief that Zerubbabel was considered a potential messiah. Again we see the "my servant" motif, harking back to his ancestor David. We see he is God's chosen (or "elect").

Joe: The Jews of Jesus day did not think the Messian was Zerubable they thought he was part of the linage of Messiah,(Jesus is in Zeribabel's linage.) This is what the Taludic writers tell us.

Agreed. He died without becoming king.

Nevertheless, Zechariah, when he was writing, believed Zerubbabel would be the next kingly messiah, and so when he wrote "my servant the Branch", he was referring to Zerubbabel.

Joe: Yes that does not make him Messiah. They had lots of kings who weren't Messiah.

They were all anointed, hence they were all messiahs. It is as simple as that. They were not The Messiah, but that idea came later.

Joe: Moreover if they think a guy is Messiah and he turns out not to be that does not negate the idea of Messiah, In fact every claimant for Messiahhood failed, Jesus was crucified, the Egyptian was stoned,the bar Kaba was put to sword I think. Another guy in the fourth century was forced to end his days as a government official. That guy had a lot of time to stamp papers and count his blessings.the Jews are still looking for a messiah.

Sure. So?
Joe Hinman said…
Px you are imposing an arbitrary interpretative principle that is designed to enable your reading, but your reading makes no sense,


Blogger The Pixie said...
My translation says a sign of things to come. That looks to be a more accurate translation:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4159.htm

Joe: not real difference. mine is NIV that's the best

In the context of our argument, there is an important difference. If Joshua is symbolic of the messiah, then that supports your argument that the future messiah will be like Joshua (same name, priestly). If Joshua is a sign of the future messiah, then that is not that case. The link I gave last time indicates that the word is translated as sign or wonder elsewhere, suggesting the NIV is wrong on this occasion.


the aspects of the HP Joshua that for tell Messiah are (1) NAME (IT SAYS THAT HIS NAME IS THE NAME OF THE BRANCH) (2) the atoning aspect that is in the context of "symbolic c of thins to come" the rest is not part of the sign,

Joe: no it's not. just because he was going to be King doesn't make hi Messiah,It's not clear they even understood Messiah at that point but why do you keep dismissing what the jews of Jesus day said and what the Talmud says?

I am looking at what Zechariah believed, so of course I will dismiss what the Jews of Jesus day said and what the Talmud says.


Zch never say Z was Messah, you look what he believed but you don't know what that was,


Zechariah had an idea of what the messiah was. I agree it was different to what later Jews believed, but he still had his own beliefs on the subject.

No since he doesn't use the term Messiah you don't know what he thought, he did have word from God of coming messiah but he did not necessarily understand what that meant,


The king was the messiah - or a messiah. He hoped Zerubbabel would become king, i.e., would be anointed and adopted by God as his son. He hoped Zerubbabel would be a messiah. And that went together with leading the people to be the dominant kingdom, to rule the other nations of the world.

There is no sense of a messianic age, of a resurrection or the coming of God's kingdom, but it is the early stage of the messianic belief.

that doesn't matter There is no reason to assume each prophet must have a full complete historical grasp of the age of his porousness,

Joe Hinman said…

Joe: do you not know about the two messiah theory at Qumran? There is no indication that Z or the high priest were ever called Messiah,they text clerical states they are only hints to future events,

What are you talking about? Zechariah is very clear that there were two messiahs:

Zechariah 4:14 Then he said, “These are the two anointed ones[b] who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.”

I already established in the first post these are two aspects of the same messiah, you are assuming that anytime it says "anointed" it means THE Messiah, Z and Joshua were anointed to act as signs and build the temple and further the line of Messiah but that doesn't mean they were the Messiah to the the exclusion of a latter figure. HP Joshua is not the war machine,

we already established that N Jew anywhere ever thought those were the Messiah That is The Orin of the TW Messiah theory, But even the Qumran sect abandoned that idea by the time of Jesus,


Joe: word twisting cop-out. By Jesus day they were looking for an actual major Messiah, "The Messiah." reality. There is no real indication that they were looking for that in Z's toe.

Sure.

But what was it you were arguing? You started by claiming Zechariah is prophesying a messiah called Jesus/Joshua. What they believed in Jesus day is irrelevant. This is about what Zechariah believed. Zechariah believed there were two messiahs, Joshua and hopefully Zerubbabel, the branch.

what they believed in Jesus day is supremely important. If Jesus is Messiah it is the expectations of his day he would meet not those of manage yet to come or a past age already rejected

10/31/2018 01:55:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Pix: And they were all adopted as the son of God too.

Joe: that is not true

It is certainly what they believed to be true.

all reversible are sons of God. Hebrew Kingss were not thought devise, In NT Jesus is refered to with a Greek term monogace (only begotten) meaning unique son or foal,He's son in a unique sense that applies to no one else

2 Samuel 7:12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.

Solomon build the temple, his decedent Zerubabel re built it,the second temple, his farther decent Jesus sits on the throne forever

1 Chronicles 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be [b]Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’

Psalm 2:“I will declare the [g]decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.

Joe: still symbolic of things to come,the redemption is linked to one hour and being pierced

No, it was symbolic of what was happening.

that's not what it says Zach does not say you are men symbolic of what;s happening now he says of things to come


The Hebrews were redeemed, they had been released from captivity, and now were rebuilding the temple. Soon, they would be great again (they hoped). The piercing was the exile.


you assume sins are captivity that is not valid, no symbol to imply that they were taken into captivity because of their sin they are coming back to rebuild the temple that means the perpetuation of temple worship thus no actual forgiveness of sins

Joe: It does not say that it says he brings the branch

It says "I will bring my servant the Branch".

that;s Jesus and he will be brought thorough Z who is his progenitor for the line


The use of "my servant" is a link back to David as seen in Psalm 89:20, 2 Samuel 7:5, 1 Kings 11:32). The "Branch" referring to a descendant of David is seen in Jeremiah 33:15 and Isaiah 4:2.

Jesus is decedent of David

This is very clearly talking about Zerubbabel. Compare to this, written around the same time:

he died before he could be king so he was never Messiah

Haggai 2:23 On that day, declares the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, declares the Lord, and make you like a[c] signet ring, for I have chosen you, declares the Lord of hosts.”


that also refers to the line, Because the curses put on the line due to the sin of Jehoachin. at that going into exile God told him "I will remove you just like a signet ring: he tells his great grand son I will put you on like a signet ring so he;s saying the curse is lifted from the line, Messiah will come through the lime That passage abopt who are you mighty mountain that is telling us Z is the bearer of the line that will Produce Messiah

This proves there was a belief that Zerubbabel was considered a potential messiah. Again we see the "my servant" motif, harking back to his ancestor David. We see he is God's chosen (or "elect").

there have been many alledged Messiahs in history I already told you that I;ve mentioned barKaba several times, that just does not negate Jesus nor make Z messiah,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: The Jews of Jesus day did not think the Messian was Zerubable they thought he was part of the linage of Messiah,(Jesus is in Zeribabel's linage.) This is what the Taludic writers tell us.

Agreed. He died without becoming king.

Nevertheless, Zechariah, when he was writing, believed Zerubbabel would be the next kingly messiah, and so when he wrote "my servant the Branch", he was referring to Zerubbabel.

wrong, because he also says he (that is Zerubable) will bring the branch (he can;t bring it and be it) he says Joshua has the name of the Branch so Z can;t be the branch

Joe: Yes that does not make him Messiah. They had lots of kings who weren't Messiah.

They were all anointed, hence they were all messiahs. It is as simple as that. They were not The Messiah, but that idea came later.


word twisting. we;e already covered that stop saying the same crap over and over

Joe: Moreover if they think a guy is Messiah and he turns out not to be that does not negate the idea of Messiah, In fact every claimant for Messiahhood failed, Jesus was crucified, the Egyptian was stoned,the bar Kaba was put to sword I think. Another guy in the fourth century was forced to end his days as a government official. That guy had a lot of time to stamp papers and count his blessings.the Jews are still looking for a messiah.

Sure. So?

so your use of multiple messianic figures does not negate the central Messiah who Jesus turned out to be,
The Pixie said…
Joe: the aspects of the HP Joshua that for tell Messiah are (1) NAME (IT SAYS THAT HIS NAME IS THE NAME OF THE BRANCH) (2) the atoning aspect that is in the context of "symbolic c of thins to come" the rest is not part of the sign,

To Zechariah, Zerubbabel was the branch, so the name of the branch was "Zerubbabel", not "Joshua", and the atoning had already happened during the exile.

Joe: Zch never say Z was Messah, you look what he believed but you don't know what that was,

We do not know for sure what Zechariah believed, but we can get a good idea from what he wrote.

Joe: No since he doesn't use the term Messiah you don't know what he thought, he did have word from God of coming messiah but he did not necessarily understand what that meant,

So what is your point? If he did not know about The Messiah, how can you claim he prophesised The Messiah was called Jesus/Joshua?

Joe: that doesn't matter There is no reason to assume each prophet must have a full complete historical grasp of the age of his porousness,

All I am claiming is he knew about the Babylonian Captivity, and that Zerubbabel was a descendant of David. I think that is pretty safe.

Joe: I already established in the first post these are two aspects of the same messiah, you are assuming that anytime it says "anointed" it means THE Messiah, Z and Joshua were anointed to act as signs and build the temple and further the line of Messiah but that doesn't mean they were the Messiah to the the exclusion of a latter figure. HP Joshua is not the war machine,

Right, so we have no reason to suppose Zechariah had a clue about The Messiah. He never wrote about The Messiah, he wrote about messiahs. He expected Zerubbabel to be a messiah.

There is nothing in Zechariah about The Messiah.

There is no prophecy in Zechariah that The Messiah would be called Jesus/Joshua.

Joe: we already established that N Jew anywhere ever thought those were the Messiah That is The Orin of the TW Messiah theory, But even the Qumran sect abandoned that idea by the time of Jesus,

What?

Joe: what they believed in Jesus day is supremely important. If Jesus is Messiah it is the expectations of his day he would meet not those of manage yet to come or a past age already rejected

Not to the issue at hand. You are claiming Zechariah prophesised that The Messiah would be called Jesus/Joshua. It does not matter what they believed five centuries later, it only matters what Zechariah believed.
The Pixie said…
Joe: all reversible are sons of God. Hebrew Kingss were not thought devise, In NT Jesus is refered to with a Greek term monogace (only begotten) meaning unique son or foal,He's son in a unique sense that applies to no one else

Psalm 2 indicate David was also considered God's "begotten" son. Sure, Christianity later decided Jesus was different (his biological son, apparently!). However, it was the belief of the Hebrews that God adopted the king as his son.

Joe: that's not what it says Zach does not say you are men symbolic of what;s happening now he says of things to come

I said "what was happening". There was (in theory) an on-going process of restitution, starting with the return from exile, then the rebuilding of the temple, then Israel becoming great. The sign indicated the last of those, still in the future for Zechariah.

Joe: you assume sins are captivity that is not valid, no symbol to imply that they were taken into captivity because of their sin they are coming back to rebuild the temple that means the perpetuation of temple worship thus no actual forgiveness of sins

The captivity was (rationalised as) the punishment for the sins. They came back from exile because those sins had been forgiven. This is a common theme across several of the Minor Prophets.

Joe: that;s Jesus and he will be brought thorough Z who is his progenitor for the line

No it was not. Zechariah had no idea about The Messiah, he was talking about messiahs. You said that yourself.

Joe: he died before he could be king so he was never Messiah

But not before Zechariah was writing. You need to see the book as belonging to a certain time, and understand that it represents the beliefs of that time. God had punished his chosen people, but they were now redeemed. Zerubbabel was alive, and Israel seemed to be on the ascendancy.

Joe: that also refers to the line, Because the curses put on the line due to the sin of Jehoachin. at that going into exile God told him "I will remove you just like a signet ring: he tells his great grand son I will put you on like a signet ring so he;s saying the curse is lifted from the line, Messiah will come through the lime That passage abopt who are you mighty mountain that is telling us Z is the bearer of the line that will Produce Messiah

But Zechariah had no idea about The Messiah - you said that yourself. For him, Zerubbabel was expected to be a messiah, who would lead Israel to glory.

Joe: wrong, because he also says he (that is Zerubable) will bring the branch (he can;t bring it and be it) he says Joshua has the name of the Branch so Z can;t be the branch

It also says he will build the temple.

Zechariah 6:12 Tell him this is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord. 13 It is he who will build the temple of the Lord, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he[e] will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.’

His name is Zerubbabel, and he is the branch. He will branch out, i.e., have a long dynasty (Zechariah hoped). He built the Second Temple (Ezra 3:8). I do not recall Jesus doing that. Zechariah hoped he would become king, and so would be "clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne".

The footnote [e] indicates the penultimate sentence could be "And there will be a priest on his throne". This is the second messiah, and a hope that king and high priest will lead the nation under God's law.

Joe Hinman said…

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: the aspects of the HP Joshua that for tell Messiah are (1) NAME (IT SAYS THAT HIS NAME IS THE NAME OF THE BRANCH) (2) the atoning aspect that is in the context of "symbolic c of thins to come" the rest is not part of the sign,

To Zechariah, Zerubbabel was the branch, so the name of the branch was "Zerubbabel", not "Joshua", and the atoning had already happened during the exile.

No! It says Specifically about the priest Joshua that his name is the name of the Branch, sporadically points out the man's name--Jesus.



Joe: Zch never say Z was Messah, you look what he believed but you don't know what that was,

We do not know for sure what Zechariah believed, but we can get a good idea from what he wrote.

No we don/t, he never says anything to imply that Z was the Messiah, only that he designates the line of messiah,



Joe: No since he doesn't use the term Messiah you don't know what he thought, he did have word from God of coming messiah but he did not necessarily understand what that meant,

So what is your point? If he did not know about The Messiah, how can you claim he prophesised The Messiah was called Jesus/Joshua?

the clues are obvious, does a ton o bricks have to fall on you? what are the chances he would just by accident say a gay named Jesus will be ran through by the people and that in one hour this would atone for their sins? That is not a coincidence Zach didn't have to understand the message to relay it,

No one else in history cones close to fulfilling it aside from the guy from Nazareth we call Jesus,
Joe Hinman said…
oe: what they believed in Jesus day is supremely important. If Jesus is Messiah it is the expectations of his day he would meet not those of manage yet to come or a past age already rejected

Not to the issue at hand. You are claiming Zechariah prophesised that The Messiah would be called Jesus/Joshua. It does not matter what they believed five centuries later, it only matters what Zechariah believed.

Zach never says Z is Messiah, He says he;s the passer on of the line that will lead to Messiah,



Z laid the cornerstone for the temple that's all he did. Not enough to make him Messiah,
if Jesus is the cornerstone(he says he is) then the one who lays it is the bearer of the line that leads to Messiah not messiah himself,


Ezra never says Z is Messiah iether, the assage youallide to:

Ezra 3:8-13 New International Version (NIV)
"8 In the second month of the second year after their arrival at the house of God in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, Joshua son of Jozadak and the rest of the people (the priests and the Levites and all who had returned from the captivity to Jerusalem) began the work. They appointed Levites twenty years old and older to supervise the building of the house of the Lord. 9 Joshua and his sons and brothers and Kadmiel and his sons (descendants of Hodaviah[a]) and the sons of Henadad and their sons and brothers—all Levites—joined together in supervising those working on the house of God."


only says he led them in working, nothing there to make him Messiah,

I do not feel like sorting out your thousand misconceptions with a fine tooth comb,you have nothing that beats he basic argument, remember my summary:

summary
what are the chances he would just by accident say a gay named Jesus will be ran through by the people and that in one hour this would atone for their sins? That is not a coincidence Zach didn't have to understand the message to relay it,

No one else in history comes close to fulfilling it aside from the guy from Nazareth we call Jesus,

put your cards on the table you have have nothing to beat the argument,

The Pixie said…
Joe: No! It says Specifically about the priest Joshua that his name is the name of the Branch, sporadically points out the man's name--Jesus.

You are missing the point about why he is called "branch". The use of that metaphor indicates coming from a family tree, and in this context that family tree is obviously David's.

Compare to:

Zechariah 3:8 “I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH,”

"My servant" is harking back to David; hence the branch that comes from David's family tree. See also:

Jeremiah 33:15 "In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David;"

Isaiah 11:1 "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:"

How you can claim otherwise I really cannot imagine. The Branch must necessarily be a descendant of David, and so cannot be Joshua.

Joe: No we don/t, he never says anything to imply that Z was the Messiah, only that he designates the line of messiah,

He states clearly he expected Joshua and Zerubbabel to be the anointed ones, i.e., messiahs.

Zechariah 4:14 Then he said, “These are the two anointed ones[b] who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.”

That is not to say he thought Zerubbabel would be The Messiah, but then we see nothing to indicate Zechariah thought of it that way at all.

Joe: the clues are obvious, does a ton o bricks have to fall on you? what are the chances he would just by accident say a gay named Jesus will be ran through by the people and that in one hour this would atone for their sins? That is not a coincidence Zach didn't have to understand the message to relay it,
No one else in history cones close to fulfilling it aside from the guy from Nazareth we call Jesus,


You are cherry-picking certain fragments from the text, and using them to construct something Zechariah never said. Quote the verse that says someone called Jesus will be run through by the people.

Joe: Z laid the cornerstone for the temple that's all he did. Not enough to make him Messiah,
if Jesus is the cornerstone(he says he is) then the one who lays it is the bearer of the line that leads to Messiah not messiah himself,


Well of course Zerubbabel did not build the temple by himself, with his own hands! The Clifton suspension bridge was built by I K Brunel, but Brunel did not get his hands dirty. He was the guy that made it happen, who oversaw the project. Zerubbabel was the guy in charge, he oversaw the construction of the Second Temple.

Zechariah expected Zerubbabel to go on to be king, and then there would be two messiahs, Zerubbabel and Jushua.

Zechariah 4:14 Then he said, “These are the two anointed ones[b] who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.”

How does two messiahs fit with your interpretation, Joe? It does not. You are cherry-picking the verses you want, and ignoring the rest.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: No! It says Specifically about the priest Joshua that his name is the name of the Branch, sporadically points out the man's name--Jesus.

You are missing the point about why he is called "branch". The use of that metaphor indicates coming from a family tree, and in this context that family tree is obviously David's.

sorry my friend that is ridicules,for two reasons: (1)the Priestly Messiah was never thought to be a decedent of David because all priests are from the tribe of Levi, but
David was from Judah (Jesus is "the lion of the tribe of Judah") and (2) Messiah is called "the Branch" because a prophet (Isiah I think) refereed to him as "the branch of the root of Jessy (David''s father) the only connection between Messiah and the High priest of Z's time is the name. When it says a the sins of the people will be forgiven in an hour that is in the context of what the priest symbolizes, the future figure,(it says these are events symbolic of things to come) it;s not the Precisest whip will atone but the man he symbolizes,the guy with his name


Compare to:

Zechariah 3:8 “I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH,”

doesn;t say he;s the high priest he's the branch of the root of Jesse, the branch of David;s house

"My servant" is harking back to David; hence the branch that comes from David's family tree. See also:

that is why he can;t be the high priest he can;t be a levite

Jeremiah 33:15 "In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David;"

Ibid

Isaiah 11:1 "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:"

How you can claim otherwise I really cannot imagine. The Branch must necessarily be a descendant of David, and so cannot be Joshua.

I never said it's Joshua I said it says HIS NAME IS THE NAME OF THE ONE WHO BRINGS THE BRANCH Joshua symbolizes him he is not him literally

Joe: No we don/t, he never says anything to imply that Z was the Messiah, only that he designates the line of messiah,

He states clearly he expected Joshua and Zerubbabel to be the anointed ones, i.e., messiahs.

Nope, pointed one is not always referring to big messiah he;s tqlkkeing about anointed as king

Zechariah 4:14 Then he said, “These are the two anointed ones[b] who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.”

that does not make either of them big Messiah,

That is not to say he thought Zerubbabel would be The Messiah, but then we see nothing to indicate Zechariah thought of it that way at all.

now you contradict what you just said, it does fit with establishing that it ks thkorugh Z;s line that messiah grande will come,

Joe: the clues are obvious, does a ton o bricks have to fall on you? what are the chances he would just by accident say a gay named Jesus will be ran through by the people and that in one hour this would atone for their sins? That is not a coincidence Zach didn't have to understand the message to relay it,
No one else in history cones close to fulfilling it aside from the guy from Nazareth we call Jesus,

You are cherry-picking certain fragments from the text, and using them to construct something Zechariah never said. Quote the verse that says someone called Jesus will be run through by the people.

no you are cherry picking, my view is based upon understanding the issues and the lines of decent yours is just knee reaction to mine to gum up the works,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: Z laid the cornerstone for the temple that's all he did. Not enough to make him Messiah,
if Jesus is the cornerstone(he says he is) then the one who lays it is the bearer of the line that leads to Messiah not messiah himself,

Well of course Zerubbabel did not build the temple by himself, with his own hands! The Clifton suspension bridge was built by I K Brunel, but Brunel did not get his hands dirty. He was the guy that made it happen, who oversaw the project. Zerubbabel was the guy in charge, he oversaw the construction of the Second Temple.

Zechariah expected Zerubbabel to go on to be king, and then there would be two messiahs, Zerubbabel and Jushua.

Zechariah 4:14 Then he said, “These are the two anointed ones[b] who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.”

How does two messiahs fit with your interpretation, Joe? It does not. You are cherry-picking the verses you want, and ignoring the rest.


You do not have a consistent theory, you are going back and forth between two or three different views

I told you in the beginning the two messiahs are aspects of the same Messiah, Jesus performs the priestly function in atoning for sins,but to do that he has to be given a different order of priesthood from the Levitical, which is brought up in the book of Hebrews,
Anonymous said…
Joe, you seem very confused about what I am saying.

(1) Zechariah believed their would be two messiahs, a priestly on and a kingly one. He had no concept of The Great Messiah, as the Jews of Jesus' time understood it. The messiahs were just very important people, the high priests, the kings, sometimes others such as prophets, even Darius the Great.

(2) Zechariah meant someone of David's line when he said branch, i.e., Zerubbabel. He did not mean Joshua, who was not a descendant of David.

(3) The punishment for the Hebrews was the Babylonian Captivity. Read the second half of chapter 5, it is about a woman, the manifestation of wickness, being sent to Babylon. See these verses that make it clear the end of the punishment had already happened:

Zec 8:14 This is what the Lord Almighty says: “Just as I had determined to bring disaster on you and showed no pity when your ancestors angered me,” says the Lord Almighty, 15 “so now I have determined to do good again to Jerusalem and Judah. Do not be afraid.

Zechariah believed the Jews had been redeemed, and was looking forward to their ascendancy

Try to keep these two points in mind when you read my posts.


Joe: sorry my friend that is ridicules,for two reasons: (1)the Priestly Messiah was never thought to be a decedent of David because all priests are from the tribe of Levi, but
David was from Judah (Jesus is "the lion of the tribe of Judah")


That is exactly my point. The Branch is NOT the priestly messiah. The Branch was Zerubbabel, not Joshua.

Joe: and (2) Messiah is called "the Branch" because a prophet (Isiah I think) refereed to him as "the branch of the root of Jessy (David''s father) the only connection between Messiah and the High priest of Z's time is the name.

I quoted the bit in Isaiah that says just that. The Branch was not Joshua, because Joshua was not of David's line. The Branch was Zerubbabel.

Joe: When it says a the sins of the people will be forgiven in an hour that is in the context of what the priest symbolizes, the future figure,(it says these are events symbolic of things to come) it;s not the Precisest whip will atone but the man he symbolizes,the guy with his name

Quote the verse where it says the sins of the people will be forgiven in an hour.I am not sure what that is about. I asked you to do so last time; I am not sure why you have not.

Joe: doesn;t say he;s the high priest he's the branch of the root of Jesse, the branch of David;s house

Right. So we have Joshua/Jesus and we have the branch. Two different people.

Joe: I never said it's Joshua I said it says HIS NAME IS THE NAME OF THE ONE WHO BRINGS THE BRANCH Joshua symbolizes him he is not him literally

Joshua is the one heralding Zerubbabel, thus the one one brings the branch.

Joe: Nope, pointed one is not always referring to big messiah he;s tqlkkeing about anointed as king

He is not talking about the big messiah AT ALL. He is talking about the branch, about Zerubbabel.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe, you seem very confused about what I am saying.

(1) Zechariah believed their would be two messiahs, a priestly on and a kingly one. He had no concept of The Great Messiah, as the Jews of Jesus' time understood it. The messiahs were just very important people, the high priests, the kings, sometimes others such as prophets, even Darius the Great.


No that is totally wrong,Ii said before scholars now are not even sure the guys at Qumran ever had the two Messiahs, or if they did not as a prominent theory, the Talmudic
rabbis had that theory around the second and third century. see the section I label summary of Messianic belief in the virginal post


(2) Zechariah meant someone of David's line when he said branch, i.e., Zerubbabel. He did not mean Joshua, who was not a descendant of David.

true two messiah theory has a priestly Messiah called Ben Joseph war machine and he is a side kick to David messiah he helps him fight the nations at then end of ties. Second Messiah is never understood as being in line of David.The only relation High priest Joshua of Z's tome has to Messiah is the name and he symbolizes the atoning function,

(3) The punishment for the Hebrews was the Babylonian Captivity. Read the second half of chapter 5, it is about a woman, the manifestation of wickness, being sent to Babylon. See these verses that make it clear the end of the punishment had already happened:

Zec 8:14 This is what the Lord Almighty says: “Just as I had determined to bring disaster on you and showed no pity when your ancestors angered me,” says the Lord Almighty, 15 “so now I have determined to do good again to Jerusalem and Judah. Do not be afraid.

Zechariah believed the Jews had been redeemed, and was looking forward to their ascendancy

Try to keep these two points in mind when you read my posts.

when he speaks of the sins being removed in one hour he is clearly speaking of future events it hasn't happened at the time he speaks,it is clearly related to the sin of the people, it is removed in some way by the overpricing the one who says it.

If Zach thought the sins that sent them in to exil were forgiven it does not remove future sin. B.Joshua is the Name of the BranchIn Zechariah 3: 3 The high Priest of Zerubbabel 's day "...stood before the angel. The angel said to those who stood before him 'take off his filthy clothes' Than he said to Joshua 'see I have taken away your sin and I will put rich garments on you.'" IN v8 "Listen Joshua and your men seated before you who are symbolic of things to come....I am going to bring my servant the Branch,....and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day."



Joe: sorry my friend that is ridicules,for two reasons: (1)the Priestly Messiah was never thought to be a decedent of David because all priests are from the tribe of Levi, but
David was from Judah (Jesus is "the lion of the tribe of Judah")

That is exactly my point. The Branch is NOT the priestly messiah. The Branch was Zerubbabel, not Joshua.

IT'/S NAME GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD IT'S HIS NMAE,, IT NEVER SAYS PRIESTS HIS BLEEDING THE SAME AS THAT OF THE MESSIAH NOT THAT THE MAN HIMSELF IS MESSIAH,

Joe: and (2) Messiah is called "the Branch" because a prophet (Isiah I think) refereed to him as "the branch of the root of Jessy (David''s father) the only connection between Messiah and the High priest of Z's time is the name.

I quoted the bit in Isaiah that says just that. The Branch was not Joshua, because Joshua was not of David's line. The Branch was Zerubbabel.

ARE YOU DAFT IT'S HIS BLEEDING NAME.DON'T GET YOUR KNICKERS IN A TWIST

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: When it says a the sins of the people will be forgiven in an hour that is in the context of what the priest symbolizes, the future figure,(it says these are events symbolic of things to come) it;s not the Precisest whip will atone but the man he symbolizes,the guy with his name

Quote the verse where it says the sins of the people will be forgiven in an hour.I am not sure what that is about. I asked you to do so last time; I am not sure why you have not.

Joe: doesn;t say he;s the high priest he's the branch of the root of Jesse, the branch of David;s house

Right. So we have Joshua/Jesus and we have the branch. Two different people.

Joe: I never said it's Joshua I said it says HIS NAME IS THE NAME OF THE ONE WHO BRINGS THE BRANCH Joshua symbolizes him he is not him literally

Joshua is the one heralding Zerubbabel, thus the one one brings the branch.


Circular reasoning because it assumes your view then uses that to argue for the assumption.If you wrong about the one you are wrong about this your alleged proof of it,

Joe: Nope, pointed one is not always referring to big messiah he;s tqlkkeing about anointed as king

yes in those passages it is, in the name,the branch and the preircing forrrnasgreatio therovingof sing

He is not talking about the big messiah AT ALL. He is talking about the branch, about Zerubbabel.

pull your head out,I quoted Edhershiem who quotes the Talmud saying this is the major messiah, The one branch is the major Messiah,the one Bar Kaba claimed to be. The one Jesus was claimed to be
Anonymous said…
Pix: (1) Zechariah believed their would be two messiahs, a priestly on and a kingly one. He had no concept of The Great Messiah, as the Jews of Jesus' time understood it. The messiahs were just very important people, the high priests, the kings, sometimes others such as prophets, even Darius the Great.

Joe: No that is totally wrong,Ii said before scholars now are not even sure the guys at Qumran ever had the two Messiahs, or if they did not as a prominent theory, the Talmudic
rabbis had that theory around the second and third century. see the section I label summary of Messianic belief in the virginal post


Qumran was centuries later, so hardly a good indication of what Zechariah believed. Zechariah clearly indicated two anointed ones (messiahs):

Zechariah 4:14 Then he said, “These are the two anointed ones[b] who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.”

Joe: true two messiah theory has a priestly Messiah called Ben Joseph war machine and he is a side kick to David messiah he helps him fight the nations at then end of ties. Second Messiah is never understood as being in line of David.The only relation High priest Joshua of Z's tome has to Messiah is the name and he symbolizes the atoning function,

The name thing is something you have contrived yourself. The atoning had already been done (so Zechariah believed).

Joe: when he speaks of the sins being removed in one hour he is clearly speaking of future events it hasn't happened at the time he speaks,it is clearly related to the sin of the people, it is removed in some way by the overpricing the one who says it.

Do you mean sins being removed in a day?

This is in contrast to the seventy years of the Exile. It would just be a day because they had already done the major atoning.

Joe: If Zach thought the sins that sent them in to exil were forgiven it does not remove future sin. B.Joshua is the Name of the BranchIn Zechariah 3: 3 The high Priest of Zerubbabel 's day "...stood before the angel. The angel said to those who stood before him 'take off his filthy clothes' Than he said to Joshua 'see I have taken away your sin and I will put rich garments on you.'" IN v8 "Listen Joshua and your men seated before you who are symbolic of things to come....I am going to bring my servant the Branch,....and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day."

Note that in the verse you quote God says "I will put rich garments on you" indicating an event in the future, but "I have taken away your sin" to indicate an event in the past. Zechariah was living in an intermediate period (so he thought) looking forward to Israel becoming the dominant kingdom, but after God had forgiven Israel, after atoning with the Exile.

That said, the people of Zechariah's time still sinned, so it would still be necessary for God to forgive those sins, but this will be "in a single day", which is in contrast to the seventy years of the Exile. I see noting there to suggest any more suffering is expected.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: IT'/S NAME GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD IT'S HIS NMAE,, IT NEVER SAYS PRIESTS HIS BLEEDING THE SAME AS THAT OF THE MESSIAH NOT THAT THE MAN HIMSELF IS MESSIAH,

You are putting words in Zechariah's mouth. As far as he was concerned, there was no Big Messiah. The messiahs he was talking about were Joshua and Zerubbabel.

Joe: Circular reasoning because it assumes your view then uses that to argue for the assumption.If you wrong about the one you are wrong about this your alleged proof of it,

This is just projection. You are the one convinced Zechariah is talking about Jesus, and basing your argument on that assumption. The circular reasoning is yours.

There is nothing in Zechariah to indicate he had any concept of a Big Messiah. Therefore is is reasonably to suppose he made no prophecy about a Big Messiah.

Joe: pull your head out,I quoted Edhershiem who quotes the Talmud saying this is the major messiah, The one branch is the major Messiah,the one Bar Kaba claimed to be. The one Jesus was claimed to be

The Talmud was written centuries later. By that time, yes, they had a concept of the Big Messiah, and very likely went back and re-interpreted Zechariah in those terms. But that is NOT what Zechariah says. Zechariah was looking forward to Zerubbabel becoming King and leading Israel to victory over the surrounding nations.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Pix: (1) Zechariah believed their would be two messiahs, a priestly on and a kingly one. He had no concept of The Great Messiah, as the Jews of Jesus' time understood it. The messiahs were just very important people, the high priests, the kings, sometimes others such as prophets, even Darius the Great.

ho HE DID NOT, YE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TWO MESSIAHS, HE NEVER SAID THE HIGH PRIEST JOSHUA WAS MESSIAH. h ONLY SAYS HIS NAME IS THE NAME OF THE MESSIAH,



Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
The Talmud was written centuries later. By that time, yes, they had a concept of the Big Messiah, and very likely went back and re-interpreted Zechariah in those terms. But that is NOT what Zechariah says. Zechariah was looking forward to Zerubbabel becoming King and leading Israel to victory over the surrounding nations.

Here's one new argument I'll answer it 2 answers: (1) Rabbis writing in 502AD can still know more about what Jews writing in 400bc meant than you or I can, (2)Scholars attest to an oral tradition for Talmud that streaked back to the first century even before that,So just because the material was written down in 200's and latter doesn't mean that's really when it was first conceived.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger Joe Hinman said...
this is all I need to prove my argent,


(1) The Messiah is shown to have the same name as the high priest
(2) the name of the High priest is Jesus
(3) Therefore Jesus will be the NAME of the Messiah
(4) The two messiahs (Davidic and Priestly) are shown to be aspects of
the same Messiah.
(5) This means Messiah will atone for sins of his people and will sit on the Throne of David
(6) Jesus of Nazareth ha the right nae and fits aspects of both messianic figures, and he is the only one in hisotry who can make these claims,
The two figures in Zachariah (the High Priest and the King) probably both refer to the same Messiah. Both are each two different symbols for the same figure. The high priest Joshua (Jesus) represents the Messiah's priestly function and his atonement for sin, and Zerubbabel (Davidic line) represents his genealogical line.This tags Jesus of Nazareth as the actual fulfillment because no other candidate for Messiah in history was every named Jesus, and this passage shows us that is to be his name. There's nt likely to be one in the future either, becuase of the taint put on the name for Jews by Christianity.

None of the rhymes of Bullshit you have failed to disprove any of the points, The rest of the mounds of crap are just Bull shit that mean nothing, You have not beaten the argent,

you are just repeating the same misconceptions and ignoring answers.
Anonymous said…
Joe: ho HE DID NOT, YE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TWO MESSIAHS, HE NEVER SAID THE HIGH PRIEST JOSHUA WAS MESSIAH. h ONLY SAYS HIS NAME IS THE NAME OF THE MESSIAH,

Joe, read the text.

Zechariah 4:14 Then he said, “These are the two anointed ones[b] who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.”

You complain that I am repeating myself - that is because you ignore what I say. I have quoted this several time, and you just ignore it. You do know "messiah" means anointed one, right? Two anointed ones means two messiahs.

Joshua is not explicitly stated as one, but nevertheless it is pretty clear. Joshua will be given a place with the angels:

Zechariah 3:6 The angel of the Lord gave this charge to Joshua: 7 “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘If you will walk in obedience to me and keep my requirements, then you will govern my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you a place among these standing here.

Joshua will have a crown:

10 “Take silver and gold from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon. Go the same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah. 11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jozadak.

Joe: Here's one new argument I'll answer it 2 answers: (1) Rabbis writing in 502AD can still know more about what Jews writing in 400bc meant than you or I can,

They had a different agenda. We are trying to determine what Zechariah actually meant. They want to know how to re-interpret Zechariah's text, in light of the fact that his prophecies failed. The Rabbis assumed that what Zechariah had written must still be true, and so must apply to things still to happen.

Joe: (2)Scholars attest to an oral tradition for Talmud that streaked back to the first century even before that,So just because the material was written down in 200's and latter doesn't mean that's really when it was first conceived.

Zechariah was written around 517 BCE. You are talking about what people believed more than five centuries later.

Joe: (1) The Messiah is shown to have the same name as the high priest
(2) the name of the High priest is Jesus
(3) Therefore Jesus will be the NAME of the Messiah


All that is consistent with what I am saying; that the priestly messiah was Joshua.

Joe: (4) The two messiahs (Davidic and Priestly) are shown to be aspects of
the same Messiah.


Zechariah 4:14 proves Zechariah thought otherwise.

Joe: (5) This means Messiah will atone for sins of his people and will sit on the Throne of David

Zechariah 3:4 proves Zechariah thought the atonement had already happened ("See, I have taken away your sin")

Joe: (6) Jesus of Nazareth ha the right nae and fits aspects of both messianic figures, and he is the only one in hisotry who can make these claims,

Jesus failed to lead Israel to greatness; he does not fit the kingly messiah.

Pix

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?

Cosmological Argument: from contingency

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

Distinguishing between moral ontology and moral epistemology