Problem with Melech HaMashiach from the Dead

Ortho: “The point was that u can’t always take a Halacha at face value”
That’s a very interesting and dangerous statement, and I’ve never heard any Lubavicher say anything like this in the past. Every single Lubavicher I’ve ever discussed Mashiach with in person has quoted theh Rambam and tried to explain how it LITERALLY shows that the Lubavicher rebbe is bechezkas Mashiach. You are telling me not to take the Halacha at face value. Gee, I wish you’d say the same thing about Tisha B’av and all the other fastdays!

“We know and can trace the rebbes lineage to the alter rebbe.”
I take it you realize that the last Lubavicher rebbe was NOT ben achar ben to the Baal Hatanya. The Tzemach Tzedek’s mother, not his father, was a daughter of the Baal Hatanya. So any yichus the Baal Hatanya may possibly have had ben achar ben does not pass down to the Lubavicher rebbe. Furthermore, the Maharal’s yichus to Dovid Hamelech (according to what I have heard from Lubavichers – they are my only source in this) is through Rashi, who did not have any sons. So even the Baal Hatanya’s yichus through the Maharal to Dovid Hamelech is not ben achar ben.

“The yachuf does not start with physical force but Noam and shalom is something the LUBAVITCHER REBBE SAID.”
Could you cite a source for that?

“that shluchim telling people they need to keep mitzvos and this would bring about yachuf in its simplest since is something again the REBBE SAID.”
Again, source please.

That many milchamos of Moshiach are now being fought with peacefully is again something the REBBE said.”
And again.

If you can indeed quote the sources, you’ll have demonstrated one thing of which many people are unaware. The Lubavicher rebbe himself is the SOLE SOURCE for interpreting the Rambam to “prove” that he is Mashiach.

If you’re right, then clearly he had an agenda. and all the non-Lubavich apologists who blame the chassidim for their crazy views, and not the rebbe, have it completely wrong!

Rso,

There is a difference between interpreting a halacha nonliterally and pulling from various sources to demonstrate that ur first impressions of the words are incorrect. For instance it would be wrong to say a king is nonliteral and it means a king of a game of tag or an analogy for a guy who is wealthy. It would however be correct to ask what is meant by the term king as its used and bring a variety of proofs for why the term king isnt comparable to what you might think a king is and show how things even you dont expect to be kingly are considered kings etc.

Ben acher ben is an entirely different question and there are those who say moshiach need not be ben acher ben or even zera shlomo. Famously someone (a lubavitcher?) argued with rav chaim about ben acher ben. The back and forth letters can be found online and rav chaim defended that he need not be!

“the Maharal’s yichus to Dovid Hamelech (according to what I have heard from Lubavichers – they are my only source in this) is through Rashi, who did not have any sons”, the maharals students themselves called the maharal moshiach and the maharal published this.

As for sources type sifrei in hebrew and the R”T kovod kedoshas, then type in yachuf and u will find links quoting the rebbes sichos

He had an agenda , that seems obvious .

@yserbius: A very very Chareidi Rebbi? sounds like a person speaking lashon hara, apikorsos – the gemara says a apikores is someone who embarases a talmid chacham -, causing sinas chinam which the whole told was given to make shalom in the world. whats charidi about him?