In Pesachim 5a of the Babylonian Talmud we see the Rabbis discussing Messiah, destroying the seed of Essau and the Temple being named for Messiah afterwards. Why does this sound familiar? Revelation 19 aligns with the commentary of the Rabbis
The Anti-Missionaries claim there is only 1 coming of Messiah, as we covered a few weeks ago in Sukkot 52a, we see that not to be the case, does the Talmud mention a second coming of Yeshua (Messiah Ben David)? What are the attributes. Well Rab Johanan was visited by Messiah in Sanhedrin 98a. Lets see what he had to say about Messiah Ben David
Is there a significance to the Shema, and the times the School of Hillel says to say the Shema? Could this have been a reason some accepted Yeshua? Could the Shema have given a fullness of interpretation when it came to the name of the Creator being spoken 3 times? For Yeshua even said, YHWH is one in Mark 12. So lets see what the School of Hillel said as to when to say the Shema.
A Few months ago the most famous Anti-Missionary on radio came to me and said my Daniel 9 analysis was "circular logic" do you think that he would have said the same thing to the Bat Kol and Rabbis in the Talmud as well? Cause Megillah 3a says the Ketuvim is where the date of Messiah is foretold.
Weekly Talmud Portion: Megillah 3a (Daniel 9 & Daniel 12:4-10)
Were the Rabbi's counting Jubilee cycles, to only site when the destruction of the Temple occurred? Or is there something deeper they are looking for in which they did not want to discuss openly? Could they have been trying to find the exact year because the prophet Daniel spoke about the Messiah coming before the destruction of the 2nd Temple? Were they secretly trying to find out when Yeshua was born? Is that why they sourced Daniel showing the year in which Messiah would be born? You decide for yourself.
Christopher explains the accidental killings discussed in Makkoth and puts it into perspective with one of Kefa's letters and Yeshua saying the laws of the cohenim and how they apply to all, thus we are all guilty of the accidental killing discussed in the Talmud Portion.
In Scripture it clearly says there must be two witnesses for something to be true. Mattisyahu is the only gospel that mentions the casting of lots, during Yeshua's sacrifice. The Tanak does not discuss the casting of lots during the Sacrifice, So is Yoma 40a-40b, the second witness of the blood of Yeshua and the casting of lots for his garment? Without this source, would the account be valid based upon the two or more witness command? Given the New Testament Portion of Hebrews 9, and the Torah Portion of Leviticus 16-17, is it possible Paul was teaching Talmud given that the two things being married together in this week's Torah and New Testament Portion is tied together by the Talmud in Yoma 40a-40b.