S
What about those who hold "that person" is messiah.
People who hold that he is not and was not any part of a divinity, but still holds that he was a messiah.
Answer. It is the opinion of Rabbi Schwartz that a person who believes that "that man" was a messiah is not transgressing any prohibition. However the issue is as follows: someone who believes that "that man" was a messiah seems to be only partly disassociating himself from full christianity, and there is a problem of what is meant by the term "messiah". Is the messiah a "divine messenger" to "save" the world. Now when I say "a divine messenger" I mean someone - otherwise normal human being - sent by "the divinity" as a messenger. It seems that some people mean "a person with divine attributes"!
An issue which could be seen as semantic becomes of major consequence.
The decision of Rabbi Schwartz is therefore that in the beis din over which he presides he will not accept declarations of people with christian background if they think that "that man" was a messiah. This DOES NOT MEAN that the declaration of such a person before any [other] beis din is valueless. Perhaps another beis din will be satisfied that the person before them is bona fide in acceptance of the totally non-divinity of "that man". They may accept the declaration, and it will be fully valid.
People who hold that he is not and was not any part of a divinity, but still holds that he was a messiah.
Answer. It is the opinion of Rabbi Schwartz that a person who believes that "that man" was a messiah is not transgressing any prohibition. However the issue is as follows: someone who believes that "that man" was a messiah seems to be only partly disassociating himself from full christianity, and there is a problem of what is meant by the term "messiah". Is the messiah a "divine messenger" to "save" the world. Now when I say "a divine messenger" I mean someone - otherwise normal human being - sent by "the divinity" as a messenger. It seems that some people mean "a person with divine attributes"!
An issue which could be seen as semantic becomes of major consequence.
The decision of Rabbi Schwartz is therefore that in the beis din over which he presides he will not accept declarations of people with christian background if they think that "that man" was a messiah. This DOES NOT MEAN that the declaration of such a person before any [other] beis din is valueless. Perhaps another beis din will be satisfied that the person before them is bona fide in acceptance of the totally non-divinity of "that man". They may accept the declaration, and it will be fully valid.