How do Jews disagree with Jesus as the messiah?

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

It appears then that your religious belief is polytheistic in that you speak of more than one G-d: G-d Almighty, the Son of G-d (Jesus, the G-d in the Hebrew Bible), and also other Sons of G-d. Where does your belief in other Sons of G-d come from: the Hebrew Bible, the Gospels, the Book of Mormon, or a different source? Also, why do you think the G-d we find in the Hebrew Bible is not G-d Almighty, but rather only Jesus?

I am not a polytheist; but rather, more a henotheist. I believe G-d Most High is G-d The Father. I believe Yeshua is the firstborn of creation, and through Him, all things came to be as they are. He was the firstborn, the first Son of G-d, and He was given steward over the nation of Israel, as G-d Most High’s emissary, His beloved. There are other Sons of G-d (Genesis, Job) and many other spiritual entities of varying power and substance (angels, demons, etc).

I get all of my beliefs from the Torah, Writings, Prophets, and the Gospels.

No, I do not get any of my beliefs from Mormonism.

Shalom to you!

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic of the OP please

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

Return to the topic of the OP please

Shalom Eric;

Please forgive me, I am merely trying to answer the inquiries being directed my way. Back to the topic, yes.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[joe370]

In an earlier response, I said I don’t ‘do’ proof texts and gave one of my (many) reasons.

Not being British, you won’t know the idea of ‘Pantomime Debate’ (another poster and I were joking/about alluding to it earlier). Pantomimes are popular Christmastime children’s entertainment loosely based on fairy tales - in it there are sequences where children are encouraged to comment on what characters say or do “Oh, yes he is!/Oh, no he isn’t!” “Oh, yes it is!/Oh no it isn’t!” It goes on and on, and on, and on.

In my now, rather lengthy, experience of talking about religion on message boards, that’s how proof text discussions go, page after page of text with “Oh, yes it is!”, “Oh, no it isn’t!” and neither side ends up even vaguely convinced. It all gets rather boring after the first year or two. After over a decade and a half, it’s just somebody else’s problem.

I was simply curious as to who you thought the “him” was in the following passage to which God was referring, regarding the nation? No biggie…

“This is what the Lord says—
the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel—
to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation…” Isaiah

 

[joe370]

Perspective or not; Islam and Mormonism are two faiths which claim their founder (The prophet Muhammad, Joseph Smith) received direct divine revelation which “corrects” previously erroneous doctrines held by people of the book, Christians, what have you.

Faith in Yeshua as the Mashiach is wholly different from such religions. Yeshua did not come to abolish the Hebrew religion and replace it with His own. He claimed to be the promised Mashiach, and contrary to what misunderstandings and misconceptions about His person have declared; He does not nullify the Jewish religion in any way.

I should note, I am not a mainstream Christian, and do not believe much of what is taught by modern churches regarding the person of Jesus Christ. I only mention this, as I don’t want to misconstrue my position; I feel as though I am being asked to defend Catholicism, in essence, defending things which I do not believe are evident truths.

( My apologies to my Catholic brothers and sisters; I admire and esteem many Catholics, and in no way mean to insult you, but for my position’s sake, I felt need be declare thus )

Shalom Aleichem

 

[joe370]

Did the rabbis you refer to also accept Jesus as G-d incarnate? I ask this since it is one thing to accept Jesus as the Messiah but quite another to believe in the divinity of Jesus, because for Jews the Messiah is supposed to be human, not divine. I recall you said yourself that you do not agree with the Christian belief in the Trinity. Do you, however, believe in the hypostatic union of Jesus as being fully human and fully divine, as (most) Christians do? Or is your conception of Jesus more in line with Mormonism?

Hey meltzerboy, the prophet Micah and Jewish commentators such as Rabbi David Kimchi believe that the Messiah, born in Bethlehem, will be of eternal origins and therefore is divine; your thoughts:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.” (Mic 5:2)

“It will be said in the Messianic age that his ‘origins are from old, from ancient time;’ ‘from Bethlehem’ means that he will be of the house of David, because there is a long period of time between David and the Messiah-King; and he is El (God), which is how he is ‘from old, from ancient times.’” Rabbi David Kimchi

 

[joe370]

I am not a polytheist; but rather, more a henotheist. I believe G-d Most High is G-d The Father. I believe Yeshua is the firstborn of creation, and through Him, all things came to be as they are. He was the firstborn, the first Son of G-d, and He was given steward over the nation of Israel, as G-d Most High’s emissary, His beloved. There are other Sons of G-d (Genesis, Job) and many other spiritual entities of varying power and substance (angels, demons, etc).

I get all of my beliefs from the Torah, Writings, Prophets, and the Gospels.

No, I do not get any of my beliefs from Mormonism.

Shalom to you!

Do you know what the correct translation is for the following verse found in the Tanakh****: Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom?

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

Do you know what the correct translation is for the following verse found in the Tanakh****: Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom?

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Shalom again Joe!

Without going into too much detail, and diverging again from the topic ( moderator’s wishes ), I believe the verse can be shown, under proper context and understanding, to pertain to Yeshua; though not in a trinitarian sense.

ISAIAH 9:6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger [aggelos] of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. (Brenton’s LXX)

Yeshua carries these names, because they are written on His forehead; though He is not The Father, He is G-d’s representative, and thus carries His Holy Name as The Great High Priest.

As Yeshua said,

“Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. ( John 14:9 )

Shalom Aleichem

 

[meltzerboy]

I was simply curious as to who you thought the “him” was in the following passage to which God was referring, regarding the nation? No biggie…

“This is what the Lord says—
the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel—
to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation…” Isaiah

The only way this would make sense for the Jewish scholar is if the word “nation” is used in a generic sense of the whole world, rather than a specific sense of one particular nation, that is, Israel. This would in effect have the same meaning as “nations,” rather than Israel. Otherwise, the meaning would be that Israel (nation) despises Israel (him), which doesn’t make sense. In fact, I found one Christian translation that uses the plural word “nations.” The use of “him” in the masculine singular to refer to Israel is not really a problem (for Jewish scholars) since Israel has been referred to in this way in several other verses of the Tanakh, including Isaiah.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hey meltzerboy, the prophet Micah and Jewish commentators such as Rabbi David Kimchi believe that the Messiah, born in Bethlehem, will be of eternal origins and therefore is divine; your thoughts:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.” (Mic 5:2)

“It will be said in the Messianic age that his ‘origins are from old, from ancient time;’ ‘from Bethlehem’ means that he will be of the house of David, because there is a long period of time between David and the Messiah-King; and he is El (God), which is how he is ‘from old, from ancient times.’” Rabbi David Kimchi

There is much debate on this verse from Micah as well. Rabbi Tovia Singer, famous anti-missionary apologist of Jews for Judaism, claims that the Hebrew term that is translated as “everlasting” is used in several other verses of the Tanakh to mean “from ancient times” rather than “eternal.” However, some Christian apologists point out that its use in this verse is different since it is used to modify the phrase “from old” in order to make it more intense, rather than simply as a means of repetition. These scholars also note that this is not uncommon in the Hebrew language and can be found in other passages of the Hebrew Bible with regard to the same term. A counter-rebuttal to this argument is that even if the word means everlasting or eternal, it is not referring to the EXISTENCE of the Messiah as eternal but rather as G-d’s PLAN of sending a Messiah to the Jewish people as eternal. There is also the idea that the concept of eternity does not necessarily mean without either beginning or end and is not synonymous to the concept of immortality.

 

[joe370]

…A counter-rebuttal to this argument is that even if the word means everlasting or eternal, it is not referring to the EXISTENCE of the Messiah as eternal but rather as G-d’s PLAN of sending a Messiah to the Jewish people as eternal. There is also the idea that the concept of eternity does not necessarily mean without either beginning or end and is not synonymous to the concept of immortality.

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.” (Mic 5:2)

It seems to me that it is referring to the existence of the One who will be the Ruler in Israel.

…whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting - is referring to the One to be Ruler in Israel.

 

[joe370]

The only way this would make sense for the Jewish scholar is if the word “nation” is used in a generic sense of the whole world, rather than a specific sense of one particular nation, that is, Israel. This would in effect have the same meaning as “nations,” rather than Israel. Otherwise, the meaning would be that Israel (nation) despises Israel (him), which doesn’t make sense. In fact, I found one Christian translation that uses the plural word “nations.” The use of “him” in the masculine singular to refer to Israel is not really a problem (for Jewish scholars) since Israel has been referred to in this way in several other verses of the Tanakh, including Isaiah.

If the suffering servant is the Davidic Messiah then the meaning would be that Israel (nation) despises the Messiah.

You seem to be assuming that “him” is a reference to Israel as opposed to the Messiah. Is that what you are suggesting?

This is what the Lord says—
the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel—
to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation…" Isaiah

 

[meltzerboy]

If the suffering servant is the Davidic Messiah then the meaning would be that Israel (nation) despises the Messiah.

You seem to be assuming that “him” is a reference to Israel as opposed to the Messiah. Is that what you are suggesting?

This is what the Lord says—
the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel—
to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation…" Isaiah

Yes, as I stated, the masculine singular reference to Israel is not a problem; only the word “nation” must be taken in its generic sense. The kings and princes of other nations will eventually, at the time of the Messiah, realize the truth about G-d’s existence and live at peace with Israel and one another. Israel will no longer suffer. This fits with similar prophecies in Isaiah. Notice also the construction of the sentence: the word “him” refers to its immediate antecedent: Israel.

 

[joe370]

There is much debate on this verse from Micah as well. Rabbi Tovia Singer, famous anti-missionary apologist of Jews for Judaism, claims that the Hebrew term that is translated as “everlasting” is used in several other verses of the Tanakh to mean “from ancient times” rather than “eternal.” However, some Christian apologists point out that its use in this verse is different since it is used to modify the phrase “from old” in order to make it more intense, rather than simply as a means of repetition. These scholars also note that this is not uncommon in the Hebrew language and can be found in other passages of the Hebrew Bible with regard to the same term. A counter-rebuttal to this argument is that even if the word means everlasting or eternal, it is not referring to the EXISTENCE of the Messiah as eternal but rather as G-d’s PLAN of sending a Messiah to the Jewish people as eternal. There is also the idea that the concept of eternity does not necessarily mean without either beginning or end and is not synonymous to the concept of immortality.

Let us assume that the man is Israel:

And now the Lord says—
he who formed Israel in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob (Israel) back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I (Israel) am honored in the eyes of the Lord
and my God has been my strength—
6 he says:
“It is too small a thing for you (Israel) to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob (Israel)
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.

Now, the Messiah:

And now the Lord says—
he who formed me (Messiah) in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I (the Messiah) am honored in the eyes of the Lord
and my (Messiah) God has been my strength—
6 he says:
“It is too small a thing for you (the Messiah) to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept…

Which one makes more sense…?

 

[joe370]

Yes, as I stated, the masculine singular reference to Israel is not a problem; only the word “nation” must be taken in its generic sense. The kings and princes of other nations will eventually, at the time of the Messiah, realize the truth about G-d’s existence and live at peace with Israel and one another. Israel will no longer suffer. This fits with similar prophecies in Isaiah. Notice also the construction of the sentence: the word “him” refers to its immediate antecedent: Israel.

OK…

 

[YKohen]

To be fair, you don’t know that for sure - right?

NOTE: You are referring to my comment that Jesus didn’t accomplish what the messiah will

No. I do know for sure. In more than 1 post in this thread, I provided a list of what the messiah will do and what will bein the messianic era as per G-d’s Biblical promises, and again, not only did Jesus not accomplish any of it, but the exact opposite happened.

Makes sense: recall the curse of Jeconiah regarding the Throne of David…

Again, the curse of Jeconiah ONLY applies to his physical descendants; not to all of King David’s physical descendants. The Bible is replete with verses that the messiah will be 100% flesh and blood- a physical descendant of King David.

In fact, this is what G-d promised to David himself in 2 Samuel 7:

**12 When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy body, and I will establish his kingdom.

13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

14 I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men;

15 but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

16 And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever.’ **

David’s seed means David’s seed, and forever means forever

That would exclude Jesus even before discussing what he didn’t accomplish.

On the other hand, there are many Jews even today who trace their male lineage back to King David. In fact, there were a number of very important rabbis in history who could, including Rashi, the Abrabanel, the Maharal of Prague, Rabbi Moshe Isserles, and others.

I read all of Ezekiel 36-37.

“…My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children’s children **will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever.****26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people.**28 **Then the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.’”**By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. …And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore. All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—**a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them”:

The Heavenly Jerusalem where sin will cease to exist and God will be seen face to face - maybe? **

You’re trying to insert something into the text that isn’t there. G-d promised to return the nation of Israel to the land of Israel; physically.

And here we are!

Is this a coincidence?

Is there any logical explanation for this singular phenomenon of a nation being exiled to the 4 corners of the earth for thousands of years and not only not disappearing, but returning home again?

How many other cases in history can you point out of this happening?

And we have been exiled and returned home multiple times.

 

[YKohen]

As I pointed out in my preceding posts regarding Isiah 44 through 53, I see the servant clearly being Israel as well as a specific person (Messiah)…

And I pointed out in response that as per the numerous verses, there is only 1 servant mentioned- Jacob/the nation of Israel. Nowhere does it say, or even imply, that all of a sudden there is another servant. Had there been another, G-d would have said so.

 

[YKohen]

YKohen,
I have recently purchased “Commentary on the Torah” by Richard Elliott Friedman. Have you heard of this writer and the book? If so, what do you think of it? I’ve only read a little so far and it’s blowing my mind apart! All the mistranslations that I were unaware of.
Your thoughts please. If any…
Thank you

I hadn’t heard of him until your post. I looked him up on Wikipedia, and it says:
He is probably most famous for his work Who Wrote the Bible?, a description of the Documentary hypothesis.
As a religious Jew, I’m not into Biblical criticism- or Biblical critics. They spend their entire lives studying something that they believe isn’t true. Kind of sad if you think about it.

But the issue of mistranslations is true.

 

[joe370]

And I pointed out in response that as per the numerous verses, there is only 1 servant mentioned- Jacob/the nation of Israel. Nowhere does it say, or even imply, that all of a sudden there is another servant. Had there been another, G-d would have said so.

Hey YKohen. So, is it safe to say that you believe, without reservation, that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is in fact Israel, as a nation? If so then that’s cool…

 

[YKohen]

YKohen, when you get the chance, could you answer my question in post #328, which involves the meaning of verse 7?

Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him who is despised of men, to him who is abhorred of nations, to a servant of rulers: kings shall see and arise, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of the LORD that is faithful, even the Holy One of Israel, who hath chosen thee. (Isaiah 49:7)

Pretty straightforward: Again, the Christians mistranslated and consequently misinterpreted. Just earlier in verse 3, G-d says:

And He said unto me: 'Thou art My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

Also see Zechariah 8:23:

Thus saith the LORD of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'