“Right and or doesn’t mean or. He’s talking already about Yoshka who is “like all Good and Perfect Malchus Bais Dovid that died”. Notice Rambam does say died there, but not about disqualifying, not B”K, not others, and not Yoshka.”
And there we have it; a “reading” of the rambam which leads you to think that he said that yushke was a ‘good and perfect king.’
Yushke was not a king, not good, and not perfect. He was a rasha.
The rambam used him as an example not of kings, but of “lenasos es yisroel,” those who are sent to test yisroel, which can also include good people like bar kochva, but certainly not yushke, which is why he adds in the word “af” beforehand. Not that you need to be very technical in deriving that the rambam didn’t think yushke was good…
Re, techiah; you’re again putting things in the abarbanel ‘s mouth. Partial messianic accomplishment to be completed at a second coming is Christianity 101. The abarbanel would have made it clear that he is agreeing with “baalei rivainu” as he calls them in the sefer if that were the case. the constant jewish perspective in their debates with Christians is that Moshiach wouldn’t die and wouldn’t partially accomplish his mission. Please read the sefer yeshuos meshicho, but first go through the ramban’s vikuach, which the abarbanel draws from heavily, because these are simple issues that divided jews and christians for millenia. Please do that instead of googling keta’im from seforim that support a neo-messianic view.
Why do you assume that the abarbanel agrees that there are different stages in techias hameisim? Does he say that anywhere? It’s not the pashtus.
Iyour kasha on the abarbanel, where a partial accomplishment would be disqualifying for a resurrected candidate, is only a kasha if you start off with the premise that he’s talking about someone thought to have been moshiach while alive. But he never says anything like that. He says that Moshiach can be from those who are resurrected; meaning someone like Daniel in the gemara. And you’re asking, can it be ruined by his accomplishing part of the mission? The answer isn’t that it’s ruined, it’s that the abarbanel isn’t discussing someone thought to have been moshiach while alive, because not only is that extremely rare(it happened only once, by bar kochva) but it’s also a completely foreign concept, that he would die in the middle of the geulah. It doesn’t say anywhere that such a thing is expected.
What difference would “killed” or “dying” make? The point is that Moshiach needs to fulfill his mission. He mentions “killed” because that’s what happened in practice to both bar kochva and lehavdil yushke. And believe me, if the lubavitcher rebbe was assassinated, the Messianic fervor would have just increased, as he would have been a martyr.
Nomesorah is correct that you simply don’t have the understanding of how your views are seen by outsiders. Even many in chabad recoil from these sort of second coming ideas, including rabbi yoel kahn who was outspoken against it. What seems to you to be simple and established, to the point where you think that someone who disagrees must lack mental capacity, is just a myopia.
Instead of insulting others’ intelligence while at the same time putting on a veneer of “dan lekaf zchus” and “ahavas yisroel,” it might be a mentally healthy exercise to visit outside yeshivos, not as a missionary, but as a person wanting to learn about the outside world. You won’t go to gehinnom for talking to litvaks or bobover chasidim.