• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is according to Jews everything God's will?

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
But what does any of that have to do with what you replied to???

Also, I'm Jewish, remember? Why quote from something Islamic?

Micah 5:2 mentions the Messiah being born in Bethlehem. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Genesis 49:10 and 2 Samuel 7:8–16 mentions the Messiah being from Judah.
The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

What does it mean that the scepter will not depart from Judah (Genesis 49:10)? | GotQuestions.org

Later in biblical history, God tells King David, a descendant of Judah, that his throne would be established forever, confirming that the Messiah would be descended from him (2 Samuel 7:8–16). The One who fulfills this prophecy is Jesus Christ, the Son of David, whose kingdom is eternal (2 Peter 1:11). Jesus is “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (Revelation 5:5). Because of Jesus Christ, the scepter has not departed from Judah.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
First of all, nothing in your post has anything to do with my question as to why you tried to prove your point by quoting from an Islamic source. Why are you dodging this?
Micah 5:2 mentions the Messiah being born in Bethlehem.
No, that's not what it says.
until tribute comes to him
No, that's not what it says. It says "until Shiloh comes". Jesus's name was not Shiloh.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
First of all, nothing in your post has anything to do with my question as to why you tried to prove your point by quoting from an Islamic source. Why are you dodging this?

No, that's not what it says.

No, that's not what it says. It says "until Shiloh comes". Jesus's name was not Shiloh.

Micah 5:2 is a messianic prophecy. Context makes the meaning of scripture clear. When you read the scriptures again you notice things that you didn't notice before. Is Micah 5:2 a Messianic prophecy? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "Is Micah 5:2 a Messianic prophecy?"

Answer:
Micah 5:2 predicts, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.” The verse clearly speaks of a coming king in Israel, but does it predict the coming of the Messiah?

Micah 5:2 makes a couple of predictions. First, the birthplace of this future “ruler of Israel” would be Bethlehem Ephrathah. Since there were two locations known as Bethlehem at the time of Micah’s writing, the addition of Ephrathah is significant. It specifies the Bethlehem in Judah, the portion of Israel in which the capital, Jerusalem, was located. Bethlehem was considered “little,” or insignificant, among the cities of Judah, yet would serve as the birthplace of this future ruler.

Second, the coming ruler of Jewish background was one “whose coming forth is from old, from ancient days.” What else could this refer to other than the Messiah? Only the Messiah fits the description of a ruler in Israel whose origin was from times past. In fact, “from ancient days” is sometimes synonymous with “eternal” (as in Habakkuk 1:12). Only the Jewish Messiah could be a ruler in Israel from eternity past.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The Hebrew Tanakh is not in the Christian Old Testament. If it were you and most of the Christians in the world would be able to read Hebrew/Aramaic. By you own admission in another thread you do not read Hebrew. MANY concepts in the New Testament are Avodah Zara. This is why many Jews during the inquisition were did everything they could to escape, fake compliance with the forced conversation to Christianity, or they died (at the hands of the Christian Inquistion) rather than become Christians. In fact, there are a number of people in the modern era who found out that they descend from Jews forced to convert to Christianity who have returned to the Torah, rejecting Jesus and the texts he inspired.

Besides, there are no testaments for Jews. That is a Christian thing.

I don't know what the church did, but that has nothing to do with God dying for his creation. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah – A Rabbinic Anthology | Jewish Awareness Ministries

In this short article my point has been to demonstrate that there is a considerable, credible, consistent, and authoritative body of proof from Jewish primary sources testifying that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah. With these proofs available to the Jewish people why is there still a controversy over this portion of Scripture? Perhaps in the Jewish mind things have not changed much since the days of Rashi. Most Jewish people still view themselves as under attack by a hostile Christian world that seeks to strip them of their Jewish identity. As it was in Rashi’s day, the desire for self-preservation and peace goes beyond the desire for truth. Without realizing it, they have overthrown the very foundations of the Jewish religion by overthrowing the older and more authoritative teachings. They have broken the line of authority that goes back to the Prophets and have devised new ideas to suit the social situation. This has removed the Word of God from its place of primary importance and replaced it with the word of man.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
I don't know what the church did

Actually you do know. The NT text you read was a product of the Church. They are your source of Jesus beleif. Besides, it is not like you can read the original words of any rabbi who wrote in Hebrew, Aramaic, Judeo-Arabic, of Yiddish so we know that is not your source.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Actually you do know. The NT text you read was a product of the Church. They are your source of Jesus beleif. Besides, it is not like you can read the original words of any rabbi who wrote in Hebrew, Aramaic, Judeo-Arabic, of Yiddish so we know that is not your source.

Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi believed that the Suffering Servant was the Messiah but he changed his beliefs because of the mistakes of the church that existed at the time. People confuse the mistakes of the church with having a relationship with God. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah – A Rabbinic Anthology | Jewish Awareness Ministries

Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi (1280-1340 CE), like Rashi, wanted to change the accepted interpretation of Isaiah 53 to combat the Christian witness. He warned the rabbis that “those who expounded this section of the Messiah give occasion to the heretics (Christians) to interpret it of Jesus.” In response to this Rabbi Saadia ibn Danan in the 1500s observed: “May God forgive him for not having spoken the truth.”[8]

Although Rashi and others had sincere intentions, they were wrong. Important Jewish rabbis and leaders realized the inconsistencies of Rashi’s interpretation. They presented a threefold argument: first, the agreement of the older commentators; second, that the text is in the singular; and third, they cited verse eight. This verse presents an impossible situation to those who interpreted this passage as Israel.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi believed that the Suffering Servant was the Messiah but he changed his beliefs because of the mistakes of the church that existed at the time. People confuse the mistakes of the church with having a relationship with God.

Actually, he didn't. Quote to me what he wrote in Hebrew.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Actually, he didn't. Quote to me what he wrote in Hebrew.

The Midrash mention that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah – A Rabbinic Anthology | Jewish Awareness Ministries

The Suffering Servant in Rabbinic Literature

Rabbinic literature called Midrash is opinions of authoritative rabbis whose concern is correctly expounding portions of Scripture. Since these are opinion they are non-binding. However, the overwhelming conclusion of these Midrashim is that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah. Note the following sampling of quotes:

Midrash Tanhuma; parasha Toldot (400-600 CE): “‘Who art thou, O great mountain?’ (Zechariah 4:7) This refers to the King Messiah. And why does he call him the ‘great mountain?’ Because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, ‘My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly.'”

Midrash Ruth Rabbah, 2.14 (650-900 CE): “‘Come hither’ draw near to the throne ‘and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,’ this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, ‘But he [Messiah] was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.'”

Midrash Lekach Tov (11th C.): “‘And let his [Israel’s] kingdom be exalted,’ in the days of the Messiah, of whom it is said, ‘Behold my servant shall prosper; he will be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly.'”

Yalkut ii. 620 (13th C.): “In a comment with regard to Psalm 2:6: ‘I have drawn him out of the chastisements’…The chastisements are divided into three parts: one for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and one for the King Messiah; and this is that which is written, ‘He was wounded for our transgressions.'”
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
The Midrash mention that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah.

We all know that you don't accept the various Midrash texts. If you did you would have to accept everything the Midrash says not only part of it. You also would be forced to accept the Midrash that openly disagree with your beleif in Jesus.

Also, you don't have to include the link anywhere. I don't accept it as valid. Only "you" showing me that you can read the entire Midrash in the original languages they are in would get me to take your point even remotely serious. ;)
 

We Never Know

No Slack
When David killed righteous Uriah, was it God's will? When Israel forsook their God, was it God's will? When a person sins, is it God's will? Is everything God's will, or is there also coincidence?
If we have free will how can what someone does be gods will? That defeats the purpose of free will.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi believed that the Suffering Servant was the Messiah but he changed his beliefs because of the mistakes of the church that existed at the time. People confuse the mistakes of the church with having a relationship with God. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah – A Rabbinic Anthology | Jewish Awareness Ministries
The book that these missionary sites always use to "prove" rabbinic traditions about Isaiah 53 is Neubauer and Driver's
The Fifty-third chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish interpreters. If you click on that link, you'll see that searching for Ibn Kaspi in the book bears evidence that Kaspi said the exact opposite of what these missionaries claim he said.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The book that these missionary sites always use to "prove" rabbinic traditions about Isaiah 53 is Neubauer and Driver's
The Fifty-third chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish interpreters. If you click on that link, you'll see that searching for Ibn Kaspi in the book bears evidence that Kaspi said the exact opposite of what these missionaries claim he said.

Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi changed his beliefs about the Suffering Servant being the Messiah because of the Christian persecution of Jewish people. He confused the sinful nature of human beings with God's love for HIs creation. Whatever the church did, it has nothing to do with Jesus teaching us to love one another and not judge. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah – A Rabbinic Anthology | Jewish Awareness Ministries

Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi (1280-1340 CE), like Rashi, wanted to change the accepted interpretation of Isaiah 53 to combat the Christian witness. He warned the rabbis that “those who expounded this section of the Messiah give occasion to the heretics (Christians) to interpret it of Jesus.” In response to this Rabbi Saadia ibn Danan in the 1500s observed: “May God forgive him for not having spoken the truth.”[8]
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Please show the evidence within one of his many books.

The texts that he wrote shows that the Suffering Servant cannot be Israel. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah – A Rabbinic Anthology | Jewish Awareness Ministries

Although Rashi and others had sincere intentions, they were wrong. Important Jewish rabbis and leaders realized the inconsistencies of Rashi’s interpretation. They presented a threefold argument: first, the agreement of the older commentators; second, that the text is in the singular; and third, they cited verse eight. This verse presents an impossible situation to those who interpreted this passage as Israel.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
How strange that the site you quote from doesn't bring the actual source of his supposed statement! Truly odd, indeed. Oh well, I guess I should just blindly accept what they say.

The Babylonian Talmud mentions that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah – A Rabbinic Anthology | Jewish Awareness Ministries

The Suffering Servant in the Talmud and the Zohar

The Talmud is the highest authority in legal and practical matters within Judaism. Its roots are at least traceable to the academy set up by Ezra after the return from Babylon around the year 400 BCE. The oldest part of it, called Mishna (Repetition; the Received Oral Tradition), was codified ca. 200 CE with further comments, called Gemara (Completion), added until its final editing ca. 500 CE. One of the Tractates (Portions) of the Mishna is named Sanhedrin, and in it there is no question that the Suffering Servant is Messiah, not the nation of Israel as demonstrated in the quote below:

R. Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah’s] name? …The Rabbis said: His name is ‘the leper scholar,’ as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b)
 
Top