Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah

[cnorman18]

A word before I begin:

This post is NOT an attack on Christianity.

Jews, as a rule, do not comment on the truth or falsehood of any other faith, and that includes the Christian faith; we have no right. We only claim to know how God chose to speak to US. If He chose to speak to another people in another manner, that is no business of ours, and we have no warrant to say yea or nay. Only in the matter of literally worshiping idols as divine beings do we pronounce judgment, and that is rather rare in the modern world.

In my own, personal belief, Jesus was indeed sent by God to bring the light of Torah to the rest of the world. The Jews will always be "a small people"--the Book says so--and surely the rest of the was not meant to be left in the darkness of paganism. If not for Jesus, and perhaps even more for Paul, my own Celtic ancestors might have continued to paint themselves blue and worship trees.

The battle has never been between Christians and Jews, anyway. We are on the same side. On the other side are today's pagans--those who worship things; money, power, fame, gratification, status. May we both always remember that.

This post is on the rather more limited topic of why the Jews did not, and do not, accept Jesus as our Messiah. That some few have, and do, does not matter. Peace to them, but there are reasons why very few Jews who are familiar with and committed to their faith and tradition ever have, or ever will, believe in Jesus. This post is an effort to explain some of the most important.

To begin, then; Jesus, to put it plainly, simply did not perform the very specific actions that the Messiah was expected to do. There can be no "wiggle room" here; the tradition has been constant for thousands of years, and has not changed.

It is not that there were certain "prophecies" that the Messiah had to "fulfill"; the Messiah was DEFINED by certain acts. To do them was to be the Messiah, and the meaning of the word "Messiah" was "the man who does these things."

Jesus did not do them. He was not the Messiah. There is no "therefore," because the phrases are synonymous.

Further, Jesus claimed (or it was claimed for him) that he had power and authority that no Jew could or would claim for any man, far beyond any that were ever attributed to the coming Messiah; and he took on a role that no Jew, at any time from Abraham forward, had ever contemplated that any man, Messiah or no, would ever be called upon to fulfill. There was no need for it.

Jesus fulfilled one and only one attribute of the Messiah; he was of the tribe of Judah. Much is made of this in two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, with elaborate genealogies given for Mary, and, oddly, for Joseph.

Other than that, St.
Paul and the Gospels to the contrary, Jesus did nothing expected of the Messiah. Three such expectations will suffice for our purposes: (1) The Messiah was to be a military, or at least a political, leader, an actual, rightful King. (2) He would restore the independence of Israel and free it from foreign (at the time, Roman) rule. (3) Most importantly, he would institute a reign of perfect peace, justice, liberty and piety that would shortly extend over all the earth.

It seems rather clear that none of these occurred; most glaringly the last, which was and has always been the most important sign and task of the Messiah (The short answer, for many Jews, to the question "Why don't you believe in Jesus?" is "Oy! Look around!").

The Messiah was the coming King who would restore the line of David, free Israel, and being peace to the world; he would institute the Messianic Age. He was named for it, and it would be named for him. The two would come together, or not at all. They were one.

At the end of Jesus's life, these things had not happened. The Messiah had not come.

As if all that wasn't enough, Jesus, or his followers, made claims for him that were alien to Judaism, and in fact often blasphemous from a Jewish point of view. For starters, that Jesus was God incarnate.

It would be hard to think of an idea more repugnant to Jews, then or now. The oldest and most fundamental and nonnegotiable tenet of Judaism is that God is One, which means a good deal more than "one God." Among other things, it means that God is unique and indivisible, and shares His Essence and Being with no one and nothing.

It would be easier for Jews to begin chowing down on ham-and-Swiss sandwiches than to accept the claim that a man could be, in any sense, God. The Messiah was never conceived to be anything other than an ordinary mortal man; anointed by God, to be sure, but no more a God himself than King David was. There is no hint of such a thing in any Jewish tradition; it is about as likely as the High Priest carving a stone idol and placing it in the Holy of Holies. It was, and remains, quite literally unthinkable.

Second, Jesus was said to be the literal son of God. This was way beyond bizarre. The idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Moses and Sinai, could or would come down to earth and father a human child is as foreign to Judaism as temple prostitution. That is a Greek idea, not a Jewish one--consider Zeus had Hercules--and it may be no coincidence that Paul was speaking to Greeks, not Jews, when he formulated it. There has never been anything within a light-year of that idea anywhere in all the enormous tradition and long history of the Jewish people. It is, again, unthinkable:

Third, Jesus claimed the power and authority to forgive sins.

All sins.

Now this is difficult, because this is not widely known: Jews do not believe that God Himself has that power. God can forgive sins against Himself--ritual offenses, broken vows, and so on--but no more; a sin against another human must be forgiven by that person, or not at all. (This is why there can be no forgiveness for murder. The only one with the power to forgive is dead. This is also why the Jews of today cannot "forgive" the Holocaust. You must ask the six million for that forgiveness; we have no right to give it.)

By claiming this power, Jesus was not claiming to be coequal with God, but in fact greater than God. No wonder some tore their robes when they heard him speak.

And again, as if all this were not enough--it is claimed that Jesus was the sacrifice that saves all men from their sins, and that this salvation is accessed by believing in it.

This seems simple; but for Jews, there are no less than six separate problems here.

First, the idea that people need to be saved from their sins. Jews have never believed in "Original Sin," or that all people are born sinful. We believe that everyone has an impulse to do good, and an impulse to do evil, and that these remain with us all our lives; our job is to follow the first and resist the second to the best of our ability.

Second, St. Paul to the contrary, Jews have never taught, nor do we believe, that we are obligated to fulfill "the whole of the Law" or face eternal damnation. We believe that, since God made us, He knows our imperfection and our weakness, and does not demand that we be perfect and without fault or flaw. That would be the act of an unjust God, and we do not believe that God is unjust.

Third, Jews do not believe that any human can bear the sins of another. That principle is underlined in the Torah over and over again. Each man bears his own sins, and that cannot be changed.

Fourth, we do not believe that a "sacrifice" is necessary to obtain forgiveness for sins, whether animal or human (and the idea of a human sacrifice is so far from any Jewish belief or practice that it is barely comprehensible that anyone would even propose it as a possibility). It is true that animal sacrifices were performed in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple, but it is clear throughout the Torah and the Prophets that the sacrifice itself was meaningless without the repentance and devotion of the individual human heart.

Fifth, in Judaism, "belief" accomplishes precisely nothing by itself. There is no Creed in Judaism, no specified set of acceptable beliefs. What one "believes" is all but insignificant next to what one does, and no amount of "belief" cancels or ameliorates the results of one's actions. Believing the proper "doctrines" in Judaism is utterly irrelevant to anything at all.

Put simply: if I am in need, what do I care what you "believe"? Will you help me, or not? Nothing else matters.

Sixth, Jews are not even certain that there is a Heaven at all. Judaism has rather little concern with the afterlife; it isn't mentioned in the Torah, and belief in it seems to have been entirely absent from its teachings in the early years of our religion. Even those Jews who do believe in Heaven spend little time or energy thinking and talking about it. The point of the Jewish religion is THIS life. The next, we leave to God.

As you can see, though Judaism and Christianity share an ethic, basic values, and many religious practices, our views of the nature and structure of the relationship between God and man, the nature and importance of sin and the means of its forgiveness, the significance of the afterlife, and many other matters, are so different that they really do constitute entirely separate religions. That one was derived from the other, and that we share a large body of Scripture, no longer matters. We stand beside each other as brothers; but we have long since taken separate paths. We ought to respect one another and work together where our ideals and ethics converge--which is almost everywhere. Where our beliefs differ, we should agree to disagree and leave each other alone.

One more note: It is wholly illegitimate and improper for a follower of any faith to attempt to dictate to a follower of another what his beliefs OUGHT to be, then castigate him because they do not follow his prescription. No one has any warrant to point out passages of "prophecy" in our own Scriptures that we do not, and have never, read as such, and overrule the traditions and beliefs that we have held for more than three thousand years--and tell us what we ought to think and believe. No one has that right.

We have no warrant to deny that Jesus is your Savior, or to deny that, for you, any belief you may hold about him is true. That is between you and God, and is none of our business.

But in the same way, it is not your right to insist that we abandon our own beliefs and convictions in favor of an understanding of our own Scriptures that we have never held.

Thank you for reading. May we all work together for the good of the Kingdom of God and forgive each other our disagreements.

I'll close with a saying from the Talmud. When the sages of old disagreed and could find no way to reconcile their differences, they would often allow both rulings to stand as equally acceptable options in Jewish law. When asked how this was possible, it was said that "When Elijah comes, he will explain which of us was right--or why we both were."

Peace to all.

Charles

[McCulloch]

Fact: Martin Luther was an idiot who was never able to support his convictions with any evidence beyond his own prejudices.

I have many criticisms of Martin Luther, but I fail to see any evidence that he was an idiot. You probably should refrain from such baseless name calling and try debating.

[McCulloch]

Smersh, you have no right to be calling Jews Satan worshipers.

I am sorry, The Dogma of The Church is not negotiable.

The Dogma of the Church may not be negotiable, but it is debatable. Ask yourself, how is it that you know that the Church is right.

[Dionysus]

Fact: Martin Luther was an idiot who was never able to support his convictions with any evidence beyond his own prejudices.

I have many criticisms of Martin Luther, but I fail to see any evidence that he was an idiot. You probably should refrain from such baseless name calling and try debating.

You call me out on this and ignore Smersh's blatant anti-Semitism why...?

[arayhay]

(4) Do you believe that the Holocaust, as described in mainstream history texts, actually occurred?

I believe jews have indeed suffered from Nazi regime just like many other nations. And I can certainly think of nations that suffered more than jews.[/quote]

So can I. The Germans suffered the loss of 20 million following the rantings of a nut. They swallowed his dogma much like you have swallowed yours.

[cnorman18]

To Smersh:

....

....

....I find I have nothing to say.

One cannot even begin to address such rampant evil and willful insanity.

To others reading:

Do you see this?

Do you see what my people have had to fear for lo, these 3,500+ years?

Do you see the deliberate rejection of anything resembling truth or honest inquiry in favor of accepting anything, no matter how blatantly false or slanderous, that will validate vicious hatred?
Is there nothing to which Jew-haters will not stoop?

Promoting the thousand-year-old Blood Libel is particularly shocking. I have been posting on internet boards for more than a decade, and have dealt with many antisemites, from radical Palestinians to unrepentant, literal Nazis--and I have NEVER before seen ANYONE seriously allege that any Jew at any time ever performed a ritual murder or ate human blood as a religious act. It is absolutely jaw-droppingly astonishing to find that this vicious medieval fantasy still has believers today. I don't think even Hitler bought into this one.

It frankly beats me how anyone with the intelligence to use a keyboard and read can seriously believe these excretions. The only explanation possible, to me, is willful, deliberate evil. How can anyone who has ever been within a thousand yards of anything ever written about Jesus embrace such vitriolic, murderous hatred?

One wonders just what "Orthodox" church teaches these things in the name of Jesus. I'm not sure that I want to know.

Why this member has not been barred is a mystery to me as well. I'm not sure I care to participate in a forum that allows this kind of evil to be promulgated.

[arayhay]

Smersh -

Because Jews simply do not subscribe to the recent (~ 1850) Fundamentalist-literalist notion of Biblical interpretation. There's no reason to expect them to hold to a Protestant sola scriptura ideal because it has never been a part of their religion, or that of the oldest branches of Christianity for that matter (Catholicism and Orthodoxy). You will find that virtually all movements closely related to Judaism, such as the older Christian sects, explicitly reject sola scriptura and that it a historically recent aberration - not to mention a 'Scripturally' unsupported one, but we'll leave it at that.

Fact: Judaism acknowledges tradition to have a place equal in authority to Scripture, as does Catholicism to a lesser extent. This conservatism is the result of a centuries-long reliance on an oral tradition.

Fact: Martin Luther was an idiot who was never able to support his convictions with any evidence beyond his own prejudices.

From the book; Jesus the Jewish theologian by Brad Young, the forward of Rabbi David Wolpe writes;

When Christians write about Jesus, they write with the weight of Theology. When Jews write about Jesus, they write with the weight of history. for Judaism the life of Jesus is difficult to isolate from the rift it represented from Jewish history. All the rancor that followed -- the pain and persecution, the tentative efforts at understanding sabotaged by hatred, the rejection, belittlement, and horror -- is the prism through which Jesus has traditionally been refracted for the Jew. To see Jesus as He was is a difficult task because of the legacy left toward the Jewish people by Christianity.

This Characterization may seem excessively harsh to a Christian reader. Surly there were times of cooperation and harmony? Indeed such times occurred, although they were fewer than we would hope. But the basic outline was essentially fixed for centuries. Jesus represents a break to Judaism; He is a Jew who became the fountainhead of another faith, a religious child that broke from its parents. Given the subsequent history, what parent could look upon such a child without ambivalence, at best?

Today we live in a new age. Understanding between Jews and Christians, although still not ideal, has reached a point unimaginable to our ancestors. Nonetheless no Jew who takes up his or her pen to write of Jesus can entirely escape the burden of that history. The exploration of Jesus' life and teachings can no more be objective for a Jew than it can for a Christian -- although for quite different reasons.

Yet tolerance is a powerful liberator of ideas. In our time, as understanding grows, and respect spreads, Jews can begin anew to explore the life and teachings of Jesus.


Jesus was born to an age of teachers. It was a time of strong views and fractious debate. Time smooths out the wrinkles of the past, so that we begin to talk about "the views of the first century," although opening a newspaper today we see how various are human views in any given time. Later tradition imposes an orthodoxy that inshrines debate, and freezes it. Alliances, which are always shifting in real life, become fixed. Ideas that would have been understood then, seem historical now.


Thus we are constrained by the rigidity of later perspectives. This makes it difficult to see Jesus in His original context. There is another reason why it is so hard to understand Jesus, and that is the simple complexity of any human story. ......

Yet we do have a logical starting point. The place to begin searching for Jesus is in the world in which He grew. His roots were first century Judaism. What was the world like for a first century Jew?

arayhay
The task is not easy. But inserting Jesus/Yahshua into the first century Judaism has to happen for any logical debate about His life, His teachings, and how He effected those around Him. Diversity existed within Judaism, but the measuring stick is always the same. Its Torah. Some say it means this, and others said it meant that, but it is always in the equation. Tradition I am sure was important as well. But these were founded in Torah or they held no compelling weight don't you think.

You seem to wonder who Jesus was talking to. But I then ask; Why would He start the sermon on the mount with, "you have heard it said' ? The answer is obvious. His listeners were ingulfed in the Teachings of Torah.

[arayhay]

To Smersh:

....

....

....I find I have nothing to say.

One cannot even begin to address such rampant evil and willful insanity.

To others reading:

Do you see this?

Do you see what my people have had to fear for lo, these 3,500+ years?

Do you see the deliberate rejection of anything resembling truth or honest inquiry in favor of accepting anything, no matter how blatantly false or slanderous, that will validate vicious hatred?
Is there nothing to which Jew-haters will not stoop?

Promoting the thousand-year-old Blood Libel is particularly shocking. I have been posting on internet boards for more than a decade, and have dealt with many antisemites, from radical Palestinians to unrepentant, literal Nazis--and I have NEVER before seen ANYONE seriously allege that any Jew at any time ever performed a ritual murder or ate human blood as a religious act. It is absolutely jaw-droppingly astonishing to find that this vicious medieval fantasy still has believers today. I don't think even Hitler bought into this one.

It frankly beats me how anyone with the intelligence to use a keyboard and read can seriously believe these excretions. The only explanation possible, to me, is willful, deliberate evil. How can anyone who has ever been within a thousand yards of anything ever written about Jesus embrace such vitriolic, murderous hatred?

One wonders just what "Orthodox" church teaches these things in the name of Jesus. I'm not sure that I want to know.

Why this member has not been barred is a mystery to me as well. I'm not sure I care to participate in a forum that allows this kind of evil to be promulgated.

Well said, well stated. You took the words right out of his therapist mouth.

All jokes aside. Here we have an outstanding case study of deception. once we dispose of the barf bag that is.

[bernee51]

Thanks, Bernee51.

Let me point out something: in some ways, you and I are on the same side here.

Only in so far has I oppose bigotry and intolerance.

Whenever religious people, whether Christian or Muslim, decide to get crazy and do something stupid, vicious and brutal--

They always do it to us Jews first.

Judaism is complicit in bringing to the world one of the most vengeful. oppressive god concepts. A tribal god, that through Judaism's belief that a particular tribe was somehow 'chosen' in the Bronze Age, has fomented and continues to foment division and suffering.

This god concept was appropriated by a 'convert' from Judaism to establish a belief system the history of which is rife with misogyny, hatred of the body and a glorification of self abasement.

The sooner the world is rid of this concept - just as it has ridded itself of Thor, Zeus and a thousand others - the better it will be for it.

May you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.

[TMMaria]

Other than that, St.
Paul and the Gospels to the contrary, Jesus did nothing expected of the Messiah. Three such expectations will suffice for our purposes: (1) The Messiah was to be a military, or at least a political, leader, an actual, rightful King. (2) He would restore the independence of Israel and free it from foreign (at the time, Roman) rule. (3) Most importantly, he would institute a reign of perfect peace, justice, liberty and piety that would shortly extend over all the earth....


The Messiah was the coming King who would restore the line of David, free Israel, and being peace to the world; he would institute the Messianic Age. He was named for it, and it would be named for him. The two would come together, or not at all. They were one.

Peace to all.

Charles

You are right...Jesus did not want to be the Jewish idea of a mortal, military Messiah. How many times in the Biblical accounts, He had slipped away from the crowd who went after him to make Him their military leader. Look at what He said about those who take up the sword in Matthew, chapter 26, 52:

His betrayer had arranged a sign with them, saying, "The man I shall kiss is the one; arrest him."
49 Immediately he went over to Jesus and said, "Hail, Rabbi!" 28 and he kissed him.
50 Jesus answered him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then stepping forward they laid hands on Jesus and arrested him.
51 And behold, one of those who accompanied Jesus put his hand to his sword, drew it, and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his ear.
52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
53 Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But then how would the scriptures be fulfilled which say that it must come to pass in this way?"


It is no surprise that for ages now how many had refused to acknowledge the divinity of Jesus, who resurrected from the dead. Yes, this is the Good News Christians proclaim: Jesus is the Divine Person, the Son of God who took on human nature to become the Son of Man, the seed of Adam who strikes at the serpent's head and destroy our last enemy, Death itself. Look at Daniel's prophecy in Chapter 7:

As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him,
14 He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed.

How everlasting is a mortal Messiah whose kingship shall be destroyed by death? How would there be a reign of perfect peace, justice, liberty and piety if force was used and the people continued to be enslaved by sins? Only Jesus, the Son of God and the seed of Adam can build an everlasting dominion.

Jesus said we shall see Him when we say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

In Matthew, chapter 25, Jesus spoke of His kingship and who'll be part of His kingdom:

31
14 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32 and all the nations 15 will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
37 Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
40 And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

The Kingdom the Messiah won for us wasn't about using military might and force on the least of our brothers...but about serving the least of our brothers in the bonds of love and charity. The only Sword we take up is no worldly swords but the Word of God. The Word of God is the Sword that cuts through iniquity, malice, greed, hatred and all evil that enslaved human kind from Adam and Eve's time till now. By dying He destroy death and sin and break all the chains that prevented us from inheriting the Kingdom. By His Passion and pouring of the Blood, He has rightfully won for us a true inheritance, the inheritance of being Children of God.

[Easyrider]

To Easyrider:

I'd first like to see an agreed-upon list of Messianic prophecies in their entirety - meaning where is this established list and where's the back-up that the majority of Jews abide by them to identify their Messiah?

Oh, please. I won't even bother. Pick up any book on basic Judaism (written by Jews) and turn to the chapter on Messianic beliefs.

You're saying they're all in agreement, or does each book reflect the personal beliefs of that individual writer? I'd still like to see a list that shows a wide concensus of opinion amongst Jewish theologians. You'll have to back that up.

The fact is that the Jews cannot even agree that there is one Messiah or two (Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David). From what I can tell they were never able to account for how the Messiah was to be a suffering servant (Isaiah 53, etc.) and a conquering king at the same time. Which is why they came up with the two Messiah approach.

Never heard of this, and I'm pretty well- read. References, please, from Jewish sources.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Messiah ben Joseph. The earliest mention of him is in Suk. 52a, b, where three statements occur in regard to him, for the first of which R. Dosa (c. 250) is given as authority. In the last of these statements only his name is mentioned, but the first two speak of the fate which he is to meet, namely, to fall in battle (as if alluding to a well-known tradition). Details about him are not found until much later, but he has an established place in the apocalypses of later centuries and in the midrash literaturein Saadia's description of the future ("Emunot we-De'ot," ch. viii.) and in that of Hai Gaon ("Ṭa'am Zeḳenim," p. 59). According to these, Messiah b. Joseph will appear prior to the coming of Messiah b. David;

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 0&letter=M

There's other sources as well. Will you update your theology on this now?

Additionally, one has to consider both advents of Christ (the 2nd to fulfill the remaining Messianic prophecies), and not just his 1st advent

.

That is a Christian belief, not a Jewish one. Can you cite a single reference in Tanakh that explicitly speaks of two appearances of the Messiah?

Sure, and you can present me with a single reference from the Tanakh where it says he only comes once? From my end, Isaiah 53, which is considered Messianic by numerous Rabbis. After prophesying that the Savior (suffering servant, if you prefer) would suffer for our sins and then be "cut off out of the land of the living," Isaiah states that He "will see His offspring" and that God will "prolong His days" (Isaiah 53:5, 8 & 10). More in the link below:

http://www.lamblion.com/articles/prophe ... fcp-07.php

Additionally, Daniel 9 has been considered a Messianic prophecy by a number of Jewish rabbis (Rabbi Moses Abraham Levi, the great rabbi Maimonedes, etc.), and it speaks of the "anointed one" (Mashiach - sp) being "cut off," and then "war will continue until the end." The question to you is how does this Messianic individual die and usher in world peace at the same time, when wars are continuing?

Numerous ancient Jewish rabbis contend Isaiah 53 was Messianic, as was Daniel 9:24-27, etc.....

Name them.

No offense, I can't believe you claim to be up on these things and not know this. Anyway, here's a whole list of them on Isaiah 53, with references:

http://web.archive.org/web/200306040221 ... RAZ117.HTM

It's right there in the Tanakh (Isaiah 9:6-7, Jeremiah 23:5-6 etc.). There's even some rabbinic quotations alluding to the deity of the Messiah.

Sorry. I checked Grant Jeffrey's site and found not one reference to the Messiah--not a single one.

There were numerous rabbinic quotes there on the idea of the trinity, but if you need some additional Jewish sources on Jeremiah 23:5-6 as Messianic, etc., read below:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/jahtsidqenu.html

Isaiah 9:6-7, Jeremiah 23:5-6 and other verses indicate otherwise.

What a pain this is. This won't satisfy you--I suspect nothing will--but here is the Jewish translation of the relevant passage in Isaiah:

"For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given us.
And authority has settled on his shoulders.
He has been named
'The Mighty God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler'--
In token of abundant authority
And of peace without limit
Upon David's throne and kingdom,
That it may be firmly established
In justice and in equity
Now and evermore.
The zeal of the LORD of Hosts
Shall being this to pass."
(Jewish Study Bible)

That's one Jewish translation. Various rabbis have referenced others, for they write:

"R. Yose the Galilean said: "The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said, Everlasting Father, Prince Peace" (Midrash Pereq Shalom, p. 101); "The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon[see Psalm 72:17], Tzemach [e.g. Jer. 23:5]; Pele [Wonderful, Isa. 9:6(5)], Yoetz[Counselor, Isa. 9:6(5)], Mashiach [Messiah], El[God, Isa. 9:6(5), Gibbor[Hero. 9:6(5) and Avi Ad Shalom [Eternal Father of Peace, Isa. 9:6(5); see Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:20[6]

The Targum Jonathan also references these verses in Isaiah as referring to the Messiah.

"For to us a son is born, to us a son is given; and he shall receive the Law upon him to keep it; and his name is called from of Old, wonderful, Counselor, Eloha, The Mighty, Abiding to Eternity, The Messiah, because peace shall be multiplied on us in his days." Targum Jonathan

The Midrash on Deuteronomy also references these verses as referring to the Messiah.

Rabbi Samuel, the son of Nachman, said, When Esau met Jacob he said unto him, "My brother Jacob, let us walk together in this world. Jacob replied: Let my Lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant" (Genesis 33:14) What is the meaning of, "I pray thee, pass over? Jacob said to him; I have yet to supply the Messiah, of whom it is said: "Unto us a child is born" Midrash (Deuteronomy 2;4)

Your reference to the faith of Abraham is Paul's. God was not promising "salvation" to Abraham. His reward, earned by the merit of his faith, was the first Covenant.

"And he (Abram) believed in HaShem (God); and He (God) counted it to him for righteousness." - JPS Jewish Bible (words in parentheses mine)- Genesis 15:6

If Abram was declared righteous by God as the scripture shows, how could he be anything other than saved? If you believe works earn salvation then please identify which kind and how many?

If Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah, where are Jesus's children? The Scripture plainly says that the servant will live to see them.

Jewish Rabbi Singer states that Jesus never had zera' (seed), descendants, as this word refers to physical descendants only. However, this word is also used of spiritual seed, as in Gen. 3:15 -- the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. Also, zera' is not limited to issue from the male -- see not only Gen. 3:15 but Isa. 54:1-3 where Mother Zion has seed. http://www.outreachtojudaism.com/07.html

Straight up: do you believe that Jews who do not confess faith in Jesus are going to Hell? We know Smersh's answer; what is yours?
Peace.
Charles

I'll leave that up to God. But since Jesus is the same God ("THE Angel -"messenger" of the Lord" - see link below) who gave Moses the Law at Mt. Sinai, rejecting him can't be a very good thing, n'est pas?

http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/a ... _lord.html