Name of the Branch

[Metacrock]

the ponit of this argument is to show that the Messiah was to be named Jesus and this was fortold in zarchariah.

the argument can be summarized as follows:

(1) Highpreist Joshua is said to have the "name of the branch"

(2) Joshua means "Jesus."

(3) the term "branch" is a ephuemism for Messiah. thus the name of the Branch is the name of the Messiah: Jesus.

(4) the high preist Joshua is visualized as atoneing for the sisn of Israel and we are told this is indicative of "things to come."


Therefore this is a porphetic utterence concerning the coming of Messiah. Jesus is the only claiment to Messiahood to ever have the name "Jesus" (Yeshua) thus he is the only one who could fufill this prophesy.


I. Origin of Two Messiahs



A. Summary of Messianic beliefs


The Origin of Messianich 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 returnies struggaled to get their new nation started in the patterns of restoration of the old. From Iaiah'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:Chirstian 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 Zecariah 3 and its development in Zecariah 6:9&endash;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 Rabbincial writtings before the Middle ages it was a latter developmnet. 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 preist 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."



III.Name of the Branch


The two figures in Zacaraiah probably both refur to the same Messiah. Both are each two different symbols for the same figure. The high priest Joshua (Jesus) represents the Messiah's presistly function and his atonement for sin, and Zerubabel represents his geneological line.



A.Zerubable line marked Messianic


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 "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 clealry the Kingly David Messiah who ushers in the millennial kingdom to which that Chapter refurrs.

Now look again at 4:7 where it speaks of Z 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 Zerubabel is clearly linked to Messiah. And as he lays the corner stone, which, though it was litterally 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 Z's line, which links Jesus closer and removes the curse a priori.



B.Joshua is the Name of the Branch


In Zechariah 3: 3 The high Priest of Zerubabel'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 Messianich 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).

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 Zerubabel. As stated above Zerubabel may have been originally intended for Messianich crowning.


But I think what's really going on here is an intetional confussing and melding of the two totgether 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 canno sit on David's thonre,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 willl be a preist on this thorne." But this makes no snese because the Joseph Messiah can't have a throne, the presitly and Kingly functions are divided between the two, as is the point of having two of the. So this melding indicates the two really symbolize the same figure. Clealry both men are linked to me same Messianich figure. Zerubabel 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."

[Goat]

I contend that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Isaiah 61:1 Scripture that day in those ears, as historically documented by Dr. Luke in Luke 4:14-44, specifically Luke 4:17-21.Your new direction taken mentioning false prophets in Deut. 13 is talking about the Rabbinical religious system leading you astray from the the truth of the scriptures into the extrabiblical mans religion maze called Judaism.They teach you how to make the commandments to no affect by observing their traditions, and they (Rabbi's) lead you away from the truth of your Messiah Jesus!

Biker

At least your real Christian anti-Semitism is coming out. You are using words that I doubt Jesus used that were placed there by the unknown author of the gospel of Luke that he copied and adapted from the unknown author of Mark and other sources some 40 to 100 years after Paul, if not later, as well as hero stories and tales. They were collected during the second century when most of it was being invented as apologetics against Pharisees and Gnostics, Their competition after the fall of Jerusalem. Luke was not historical even if it has pieces of history. The sources Matthew and Luke do not back each other up because for the most part they came from the same source, Mark. They are not eyewitnesses but cynic like hero stories created for readers that were gentiles and Diaspora Jews. Even quotes of Jesus can be found in older stories of cynic philosophers that ran around with a bunch of followers (disciples). Such as Luke 6:27-9 and 9:58 which can be found in Diogenes and Epictetus(Jesus 100 yeas before Christ by Alvar Ellegard).
We know Paul was familiar with their work.

Einstein, Cathar, You confuse Christian Anti-Semitism with Anti-Jewish Traditionalism, big, big difference! You're right about using Jesus' words. Let me rephrase using Jesus' words regarding Jewish Traditionalism: " You den of vipers; bunch of snakes; white washed sepulchres whitewashed on the outside, full of dead men' bones on the inside; you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel; you hypocrites; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit." Cathar perhaps you should stick with my words they are easier on the tradition's of the elders than Jesus is!!! Your ignorance is showing not knowing the difference between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Jewish Traditionalism, or because your arguments are weak you resort to calling someone Anti-Semite. I believe in the Jewish Scriptures more than the Traditionalists do! Your lame reference about Luke continues, regarding dating of the document, and it being a repro or whatever of Mark. You need to bring it on, or shut up with it!!! Please do, so I can shred it! Luke is an accurate historical document! Penned 28 years from death of Messiah Jesus.

Biker

Well, since the earliest date that Luke is given on by traditional Chrisitan scholars is 80 c.e, that is 47 years. There are a number of scholars that believe that Luke used Josephus as a source, which puts him after 95 ce, which is 62 years after the alledged events. In addition, Luke appears to have been writing from Rome, to Roman Genile Christains.

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html

Stevan Davies writes (Jesus the Healer, p. 174): "Luke wrote at least sixty years after Pentecost and perhaps closer to a century after that event. Scholarship on the subject presently vacillates between a late first century and an early to mid-second century date for Luke's writings." I would throw my lot in with those who favor a late first century date. If the Acts of the Apostles were written in the mid second century, it is hard to understand why there would be no mention or even cognizance of the epistles of Paul, which were being quoted as authoritative by writers before that time, especially since Acts has thousands of words devoted to recording things about the life of Paul, unlike Justin Martyr (whose apologies don't quote Paul). The idea that Acts didn't mention the letters of Paul because they were in Marcionite use (as is plausible for Justin) founders on the unity of the Luke-Acts composition. And, of course, if the author of Acts was a companion of Paul, it is improbable to place it very long after the turn of the century, even if St. Luke lived to the ripe old age of eighty-four in Boeotia as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue avers. I have not done enough research to come to a conclusion on whether Luke used Josephus' Antiquities, which would demand a date after 93 CE. Marcion had a form of the Gospel of Luke from which he derived his Gospel of the Lord, which sets an upper bound of around 130 CE. A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible.

[Easyrider]

The only person weasling here is you (and Easyrider). I stated in an earlier post that anoint can have an alternate meaning as per the dictionary. This definition fits perfectly with Is 61- the prophet, by divine election is given the gift of the navi- to be God's messenger. This was NOT the same as anointment with the sacred oil which was always reserved for kings and priests. I challenged you to produce one example of a prophet being anointed with oil-silence.

Looks like you're hung up on this oil anointing thing. As I demonstrated Elijah was told to anoint Elisha. Now whether it was the mantle or oil or both (the text does not say oil was not also used, so that's an argument from silence on your part) does not matter, since divine favor and God's anointing rested on the prophet Elisha.

In addition, Peter told Cornelius that "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him" (Acts 10:38).

Clearly, Jesus was God's anointed, and an anointing by God himself is nothing to be sneezed at. I'd take that over an oil anointing by a mere human any day. What's more, there's nothing that prohibits Jesus from being officially anointed King of Israel with oil at his 2nd Advent.

In short, your arguments on this are a tempest in a teapot at best, and a self-serving dead end at worst.

[Biker]

The only person weasling here is you (and Easyrider). I stated in an earlier post that anoint can have an alternate meaning as per the dictionary. This definition fits perfectly with Is 61- the prophet, by divine election is given the gift of the navi- to be God's messenger. This was NOT the same as anointment with the sacred oil which was always reserved for kings and priests. I challenged you to produce one example of a prophet being anointed with oil-silence.

Looks like you're hung up on this oil anointing thing. As I demonstrated Elijah was told to anoint Elisha. Now whether it was the mantle or oil or both (the text does not say oil was not also used, so that's an argument from silence on your part) does not matter, since divine favor and God's anointing rested on the prophet Elisha.

In addition, Peter told Cornelius that "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him" (Acts 10:38).

Clearly, Jesus was God's anointed, and an anointing by God himself is nothing to be sneezed at. I'd take that over an oil anointing by a mere human any day. What's more, there's nothing that prohibits Jesus from being officially anointed King of Israel with oil at his 2nd Advent.

In short, your arguments on this are a tempest in a teapot at best, and a self-serving dead end at worst.

Thanks Easy, sometimes a fresh perspective helps articulate a point.I brought this out earlier that Jesus walking around doing exploits never seen before are the real example of anointing.

Biker

[einstein]

The only person weasling here is you (and Easyrider). I stated in an earlier post that anoint can have an alternate meaning as per the dictionary. This definition fits perfectly with Is 61- the prophet, by divine election is given the gift of the navi- to be God's messenger. This was NOT the same as anointment with the sacred oil which was always reserved for kings and priests. I challenged you to produce one example of a prophet being anointed with oil-silence.

Looks like you're hung up on this oil anointing thing. As I demonstrated Elijah was told to anoint Elisha. Now whether it was the mantle or oil or both (the text does not say oil was not also used, so that's an argument from silence on your part) does not matter, since divine favor and God's anointing rested on the prophet Elisha. javascript:emoticon(':roll:')
Rolling Eyes

In addition, Peter told Cornelius that "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him" (Acts 10:38).

Clearly, Jesus was God's anointed, and an anointing by God himself is nothing to be sneezed at..

Let me get this straight from the trinitarian mouth. Jesus was God's anointed. But Jesus who is God anoints himself Praytell, why does God have to anoint himself? And btw, Acts (purportedly penned by the author of Luke according to most biblical scholars) is so full of errors when compared to the Tanach, one has to wonder why you would use that as a reference to prove anything- yet you have stated it is "God's word". Please explain to the forum how God can contradict Himself?

[Easyrider]

Let me get this straight from the trinitarian mouth. Jesus was God's anointed. But Jesus who is God anoints himself Praytell, why does God have to anoint himself?

Jesus (besides being divine) was also born with a human nature.

And btw, Acts (purportedly penned by the author of Luke according to most biblical scholars) is so full of errors when compared to the Tanach, one has to wonder why you would use that as a reference to prove anything- yet you have stated it is "God's word".

Pick your best one (1) and document it.

[Cathar1950]

Easyrider:

In addition, Peter told Cornelius that "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him" (Acts 10:38).

I think you know what some of us think of Acts so I don’t think it is a high card in this discussion.
We do not know what Peter said if he said anything and that is not proof it is some one’s opinion. You and other believers can talk amongst yourselves but it is hardly compelling to others that disagree even with in Christian debates.

Biker:
Thanks Easy, sometimes a fresh perspective helps articulate a point.I brought this out earlier that Jesus walking around doing exploits never seen before are the real example of anointing.

See, like that?


Easyrider:

Clearly, Jesus was God's anointed, and an anointing by God himself is nothing to be sneezed at. I'd take that over an oil anointing by a mere human any day. What's more, there's nothing that prohibits Jesus from being officially anointed King of Israel with oil at his 2nd Advent.

It is anything but clear. I personally think, and there are many scholars that agree, that the stories invented around Jesus got much of their material from the Hebrew stories and Jesus only fulfilled anything because the story was written that way. Holding of for fulfillment at the next advent does not help your cause, it is just a rationalization that you maintain for the failures.


Easyrider:

Jesus (besides being divine) was also born with a human nature.

So you say so. There are others that think he was born fully divine and no human nature and others that think he was full human and not divine, some think he was adopted others think he was first created, others equal to God, others have mixtures. What was your point?

[Easyrider]

Easyrider:

In addition, Peter told Cornelius that "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him" (Acts 10:38).

I think you know what some of us think of Acts so I don’t think it is a high card in this discussion.
We do not know what Peter said if he said anything and that is not proof it is some one’s opinion. You and other believers can talk amongst yourselves but it is hardly compelling to others that disagree even with in Christian debates.

Biker:
Thanks Easy, sometimes a fresh perspective helps articulate a point.I brought this out earlier that Jesus walking around doing exploits never seen before are the real example of anointing.

See, like that?


Easyrider:

Clearly, Jesus was God's anointed, and an anointing by God himself is nothing to be sneezed at. I'd take that over an oil anointing by a mere human any day. What's more, there's nothing that prohibits Jesus from being officially anointed King of Israel with oil at his 2nd Advent.

It is anything but clear. I personally think, and there are many scholars that agree, that the stories invented around Jesus got much of their material from the Hebrew stories and Jesus only fulfilled anything because the story was written that way. Holding of for fulfillment at the next advent does not help your cause, it is just a rationalization that you maintain for the failures.


Easyrider:

Jesus (besides being divine) was also born with a human nature.

So you say so. There are others that think he was born fully divine and no human nature and others that think he was full human and not divine, some think he was adopted others think he was first created, others equal to God, others have mixtures. What was your point?

You and other non-believers can talk amongst yourselves but it is hardly compelling to others.

[einstein]

Let me get this straight from the trinitarian mouth. Jesus was God's anointed. But Jesus who is God anoints himself Praytell, why does God have to anoint himself?

Jesus (besides being divine) was also born with a human nature.

And btw, Acts (purportedly penned by the author of Luke according to most biblical scholars) is so full of errors when compared to the Tanach, one has to wonder why you would use that as a reference to prove anything- yet you have stated it is "God's word".

Pick your best one (1) and document it.

Why should I keep on asking you to justify your position when you haven't responded adequately to any of my other questions re Dan 9, regarding the resurrection, etc. As an example wrt Dan 9 I have reviewed your posts and can only conclude that your explanation is a variant of Andersons. That analysis is so full of holes it makes edam look like swiss cheese. In order to make it work you 1)pick an arbitrary starting point 2)ignore the end point 3)invent a new system of writing numbers 4)invent a new kind of year that has no relationship to reality 5)add words that are not in the original Hebrew 6)remove words that are not in the original Hebrew.

When you have provided a response to my initial questions based strictly on the scriptures, we can continue.

[Easyrider]

Since Jesus is the Messiah, and offered many convincing evidences thereof, I see no need continue coddling your argument that there are two Messiahs in Daniel 9. Yours is just one belief based on grammar and vocabulary that is contrary to many modern Hebraic scholars and other schools of thought.

[Goat]

Since Jesus is the Messiah, and offered many convincing evidences thereof, I see no need continue coddling your argument that there are two Messiahs in Daniel 9. Yours is just one belief based on grammar and vocabulary that is contrary to many modern Hebraic scholars and other schools of thought.

No, you believe Jesus is the Messiah. As for as I am concerned, and Einstien is concerned, he is not.

I see you are avoiding his points Not surprised.