Jesus not the Messiah or God?

[Felgar]

You are in the position of not being able to see the forest for the trees vvart. Arguing prophecies which are not entirely literal, and which you honestly know very little about, in order to justify turning from the Son of God. People can study prophecies for a lifetime and not fully understand what they mean.

Forget the prophecies and ask yourself, has God been unfaithfull to humanity, intentionally misleading billions of people so that they would turn FROM him, OR did God make a sacrifice for us in order that any who love Him might be with Him for eternity? Study your now beloved Old Testament and determine which of those options defines God's nature - was God ever unfaithful to anyone, or were they unfaithful to Him?

[Anonymous]

You are in the position of not being able to see the forest for the trees vvart. Arguing prophecies which are not entirely literal, and which you honestly know very little about, in order to justify turning from the Son of God. People can study prophecies for a lifetime and not fully understand what they mean.

Forget the prophecies and ask yourself, has God been unfaithfull to humanity, intentionally misleading billions of people so that they would turn FROM him, OR did God make a sacrifice for us in order that any who love Him might be with Him for eternity? Study your now beloved Old Testament and determine which of those options defines God's nature - was God ever unfaithful to anyone, or were they unfaithful to Him?

No, your actually mistaken because to believe the Gospels is to believe that God intentionally mislead his Chosen People the Jews, after all he is the God of Israel. However the fact is God didn't mislead but rather brought the misinformed gentiles closer to him. Christianity is grounded in more truth than the Pagan religions that people were following prior. So I wouldn't say God mislead anyone.

Yes, I nor the Jewish people can understand even a shred of the prophecies and only christians really know what the JEWISH texts are talking about. Yes your right noone will fully understand them, but talk about deceiving people. I'm sorry but the whole concept of a God-man who is "saving humanity" is a major theme in many religions which God of Israel was trying to get the Jews away from. Look how is worshiping Jesus any different than the Egyption Kings who were given godly status and who the Egyptian people worshipped? How is worshipping him different than Roman citizens who worshipped their emperors who were given godly status as well?. Now you may claim Jesus is the real God incarnate, but unfortunately buddhists and many other religions all have their own god-man. So who's right? you will obviously say christians are, but first your gonna need proof, and secondly christianity claims to be the "only way" even though its theme isn't unique at all.

[Mastermind]

Sure it was. David brought peace in Israel, through the means of war.
There's no figurative meaning to this as Assyrians means Assyrians, please your again trying to squeeze Jesus in.

Yes I am. I already know Jesus is the son of God. I thought the entire point of this discussion is to show Jesus does fit in with the prophecies. If you're not interested in an interpretation of them that works for Jesus, why are you still here?

Yes, can you please not blatantly blurt something out in anger, look they strayed from him, but as i stated, that doesn't mean they didn't believe. We don't know if they did or not and frankly God said they would forever and i see no reason to argue that.

You don't get it. They strayed from him DESPITE the miracles. If miracles weren't enough to convince people then, why would you use such a double standard to judge Jesus?

No, you've shown you clearly can't read:
it states "He will be our peace". not that David himself had anything to do with peace.

Do you see the irony in that statement?

Wow i can't say how false this statement is. There are still people who believe the earth is flat and likely always will be, doesn't mean its true.

What does that have to do with anything? You're dodging the issue again: I don't care if some of those that are alive are right or wrong. The point is that if a group with an opinion regarding RELIGION gets wiped out, they're wrong. Do I need to spoonfeed it to you?

Messiah wasn't suppose to be called Immanuel so its not like it matters. In fact Messiah could be called george for all we know. Immanuel as it states was just a sign of what was to come not some kind of god-man savior figure.

So if the messiah's name doesn't matter, why are you even bringing this up?

Yes deal with me, cause you know i'm a plaque and christianity can't possible be wrong. Sorry, but Buddhists think everyone who doesn't believe in buddhism is an ***** and just about every religion subscribes to something like that, so really you haven't shown anything new.

Judaism, like I pointed out in Moses's case hasn't shown anything new, yet you don't hold them to the same standards. You somehow think Jesus has to be an ocean of originality for Him to be the messiah. I couldn't care less if he was.

Right cause you know when it specifically mentions Israel and how God took Israel out of egypt, its gotta be messianic cause Jesus could fit that.

Why are you bringing Jesus up again?

NO! , just doesn't make Jesus any different then other Jewish teachers at the time, which Christianity is so obsessed with. Thats what i meant.

Oh? You mean Hillel claimed to be the Son of God and got executed, then rose from the dead?

[Mastermind]

I don't feel like writing it out from scrath, so I'm just gong to paste Holding's summary of why the Immanuel child is a reference to the Messiah. You can go to the link I'm providing and read the entire thing:

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html#four

So, let us now summarize the data. God promises Ahaz that, if he has faith, Israel and Syria will not prevail against him. God wishes to give Ahaz a sign, but the latter refuses to ask. However, God declares that He will give a sign to the house of David, but in the prophetic oracle judgment is not only pronounced upon Israel and Syria, but also Judah. The land that shall be overrun by Assyria is also said to be Immanuel's (8:8), the same child of promise in 7:14-16. God continues to pronounce judgment on Judah, warning Isaiah not to take part in their wickedness (8:11-12) and that he should place his trust in the Lord (8:13). However, in chapter 9, God gives words of encouragement that "the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." (9:2; Matthew applies 9:1-2 as a fulfilled Messianic prophecy in Jesus (see below)) In verses 9:6-7, a child that will be called "Wonderful," "Counselor," "the mighty God," "The everlasting Father," and "the Prince of Peace" will establish David's kingdom and a reign that will have no end. From 9:8-10:11, further oracles of judgment are spoken against Israel, Ephraim, and Syria. After this, Assyria will be judged for its haughtiness (10:12-19). A remnant of Israel will return (10:20-23). In chapter 11, the righteous Davidic king is once again foretold, the one to which the Gentiles will seek (11:10). God will then recover the remnant of his people a second time. Finally, God will be praised for His salvation (12:1-6).

[Anonymous]

Yes I am. I already know Jesus is the son of God. I thought the entire point of this discussion is to show Jesus does fit in with the prophecies. If you're not interested in an interpretation of them that works for Jesus, why are you still here?

No you don't need to make interpretations to fit Jesus. If Jesus was really the messiah then he would easily fit in.

You don't get it. They strayed from him DESPITE the miracles. If miracles weren't enough to convince people then, why would you use such a double standard to judge Jesus?

No this actually shows your lack of knowledge of the OT. The people never lost their belief in moses. For example with the golden calf, the people were too lazy to go to Jerusalem. So instead they decided to create a corporeal representation of the non-corporeal God. This had nothing to do with losing belief in someone, they were just being lazy and were trying to make their lives easier.

If miracles weren't enough to convince people then, why would you use such a double standard to judge Jesus?

No actually miracles are a very weak proof for anything. Balaam did many miracles, and he fought hard against Jews and God before God turned him around to be a prophet for God. It states that he was a great sorcerer or miracle worker.

The point is that if a group with an opinion regarding RELIGION gets wiped out, they're wrong.

ok lets look at you reasoning for a bit. This starts with the premise if one belief system dies out, it was untrue. This implies that those that survive are true. Thus, Islam must be true because it survived, and Christianity must also be true, and scientology, and even atheism. The whole premise is illogical. The truth is, it is very possible that a 'real' religion died out a long time ago, and we're all stuck with copies or versions. Now, I don't personally believe this, but it doesn't conflict any rules of logic. The other premise and the implied result do. Plus the Sadduccees never even had a different religion, they just looked at things from a different perspective. Also the reason they died out probably had nothing to do with them being wrong, but rather because some of them were quite corrupt and abused their power.

So if the messiah's name doesn't matter, why are you even bringing this up?

Because the birth of immanuel christians credit to Jesus and then say Jesus is the messiah which is illogical.

Judaism, like I pointed out in Moses's case hasn't shown anything new, yet you don't hold them to the same standards. You somehow think Jesus has to be an ocean of originality for Him to be the messiah. I couldn't care less if he was.

You don't know much about Judaism, so i can't say the statement above really counts for anything.

Oh? You mean Hillel claimed to be the Son of God and got executed, then rose from the dead?

Messianic claims really weren't that uncommon. Simon BarKokhba also claimed to be the Messiah 100 years after Jesus, but pretty much got killed as well. Here's a site that shows all the possible people that may have been called the Messiah:
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/me ... nts00.html

I don't feel like writing it out from scrath, so I'm just gong to paste Holding's summary of why the Immanuel child is a reference to the Messiah. You can go to the link I'm providing and read the entire thing:

Again you need to check credentials. JP Holding, the guy who runs that site, is a librarian. He isn't a theologian, or even a scholar for that matter. He's good at gathering materials from other apologetic sources and presenting them well. His arguments are just the standard stuff. In fact, at theologyweb.com he lose debates on numerous occassions to various theists and atheists.

Also from just reading that bit you posted, I can easily point out a grave error he makes. Isaiah 9 is in the past tense and refers to king Hezekiah. Contrary to popular Christian belief, rulers and kings were always given titles such as those. Even today in Ethiopia the tradition continues. I think that the passage has long been understood to refer to hezekiah and most hebrew scholars if not all, won't dispute that its in the past tense.

[Mastermind]

No you don't need to make interpretations to fit Jesus. If Jesus was really the messiah then he would easily fit in.

Whether he easily fits is a matter of interpretation, actually. he fits just fine with my interpretation. he doesn't with yours. big whoop.

No this actually shows your lack of knowledge of the OT. The people never lost their belief in moses. For example with the golden calf, the people were too lazy to go to Jerusalem. So instead they decided to create a corporeal representation of the non-corporeal God. This had nothing to do with losing belief in someone, they were just being lazy and were trying to make their lives easier.

Quote verses please.

No actually miracles are a very weak proof for anything. Balaam did many miracles, and he fought hard against Jews and God before God turned him around to be a prophet for God. It states that he was a great sorcerer or miracle worker.

You're not very bright, are you? Do you realise you just agreed with the point I was trying to make?

ok lets look at you reasoning for a bit. This starts with the premise if one belief system dies out, it was untrue. This implies that those that survive are true.

No, it does not imply that. The rest of this part is you building a strawman i specifically said does not hold true already. Fail.

Also the reason they died out probably had nothing to do with them being wrong, but rather because some of them were quite corrupt and abused their power.

From what some jewish people told me, after the romans sacked jerusalem, the sadducees' faith was shattered (they did not believe in an afterlife and thought that as long as they gave God sacrifices they would be safe. they weren't)

Because the birth of immanuel christians credit to Jesus and then say Jesus is the messiah which is illogical.

I don't think Jesus being the messiah rests upon him being called immanuel(assuming matthew was wrong to begin with)

You don't know much about Judaism, so i can't say the statement above really counts for anything.

Translation: judaism, when held to the same standards you hold Christianity falls flat on its face but I'm too much of a sissy to admit it.

Messianic claims really weren't that uncommon. Simon BarKokhba also claimed to be the Messiah 100 years after Jesus, but pretty much got killed as well. Here's a site that shows all the possible people that may have been called the Messiah:
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/me ... nts00.html

Yes, I'm well aware of other claims, including barkokhba's. Did any of them claim they can grant the people the power of the holy spirit? Did any of them claim that by faith in them they shall be made righteous? And most importantly, did they make their claims come true?

Again you need to check credentials. JP Holding, the guy who runs that site, is a librarian. He isn't a theologian, or even a scholar for that matter. He's good at gathering materials from other apologetic sources and presenting them well. His arguments are just the standard stuff.

what does this have to do with anything? If his arguments have merit, he can be a sewer rat for all I care.

In fact, at theologyweb.com he lose debates on numerous occassions to various theists and atheists.

that's a matter of opinion.

Also from just reading that bit you posted, I can easily point out a grave error he makes. Isaiah 9 is in the past tense and refers to king Hezekiah. Contrary to popular Christian belief, rulers and kings were always given titles such as those. Even today in Ethiopia the tradition continues. I think that the passage has long been understood to refer to hezekiah and most hebrew scholars if not all, won't dispute that its in the past tense.

A refutation in which you quote yourself and which doesn't deal with his entire argument is of no use to me. Not like it matters to you anyway. I feel this discussion serves no purpose whatsoever, so I'm going to ask(again?): why are you still here?

[Anonymous]

You're not very bright, are you? Do you realise you just agreed with the point I was trying to make?

If you actually understood what i was talking about you would have known Balaam did miracles before he even knew God. Many religions have figures that can do miracles.

From what some jewish people told me, after the romans sacked jerusalem, the sadducees' faith was shattered (they did not believe in an afterlife and thought that as long as they gave God sacrifices they would be safe. they weren't)

Actually its disputed exactly what happened to Sadducces, but the point is the religion didn't die off. Sadduccees didn't have a different religion and perhaps as you stated they lost their faith.

judaism, when held to the same standards you hold Christianity falls flat on its face but I'm too much of a sissy to admit it.

Judaism is just like any religion, you take it on faith. However christianity claims Jesus is the messiah of the Jews, when many Jews, who have been studying their own texts for quite sometime, find no correlation.

Yes, I'm well aware of other claims, including barkokhba's. Did any of them claim they can grant the people the power of the holy spirit? Did any of them claim that by faith in them they shall be made righteous? And most importantly, did they make their claims come true?

How many times do i have to say the Gospels aren't proof for anything.
Just like with any ancient text written about someone, we just don't know if what the text says is what they actually claimed. But claiming something also means very little frankly.

what does this have to do with anything? If his arguments have merit, he can be a sewer rat for all I care.

No his argument is weak as i stated he already made a simple mistake regarding hebrew. Now i referenced a ton of websites dealing with this stuff by OT and Hebrew scholars while you shrug them off in favor of grotesque mistakes made by one with little credentials in the field.

A refutation in which you quote yourself and which doesn't deal with his entire argument is of no use to me. Not like it matters to you anyway. I feel this discussion serves no purpose whatsoever, so I'm going to ask(again?): why are you still here?

You don't bother to look up the references I post. I'm simply here to reason out the truth, while all you've done is call me stupid.

In the Hebrew, this passage is in the past tense! For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as "his name shall be called" is the two words "vayikra shemo," which properly translated, should be "called his name" or "his name was called." The word "vayikra" is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus, and a quick check will show that all Bibles render "vayikra" there properly, in the past tense.

This is from messiahtruth.com, now if you don't like that site you can just do some more research on it and you will find that most hebrew scholars would agree. Among OT scholars its common knowledge that its talking about Hezekiah, so i mean i don't see why you are even trying to dispute this.

I'll leave and end this if necessary as i've grown tired with this as well. I'm not really trying to convert you or anything. What i rather happen is have christians be more honest and realize that the match between OT and Jesus isn't even close to the 300 prophecy match that many claim.

[Battlehelmet]

Something on the Son of Man.

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sonofworm.html

Cool link, I bookmarked it.

[Mastermind]

If you actually understood what i was talking about you would have known Balaam did miracles before he even knew God. Many religions have figures that can do miracles.

In other words, one does not need God to perform miracles, thus meaning that a conjurer could cause loud voices to terrify his followers into thinking God was speaking. Catch my drift?

Actually its disputed exactly what happened to Sadducces, but the point is the religion didn't die off. Sadduccees didn't have a different religion and perhaps as you stated they lost their faith.

I never said their religion was wrong. I said THEY were wrong. Their special ideas.

Judaism is just like any religion, you take it on faith. However christianity claims Jesus is the messiah of the Jews, when many Jews, who have been studying their own texts for quite sometime, find no correlation.

What the jews of today find isn't of much relevance. The fact remains that whether Jesus was the messiah was an argument between JEWS around year 33. The entire incident was started by jews, some of which took one path, the other which took another path. In addition, we do not know exactly what the purpose of God's chosen people are. If it was to bring the Son of God into the world so that everybody may know God, whether they reject him or not isn't relevant at all. In fact, the jews HAVE strayed in the past and then came back to God later. In fact, Jewish history after Jesus hasn't been particularly pleasant. Why would God allow his chosen people to be massacred by Hitler?

How many times do i have to say the Gospels aren't proof for anything.
Just like with any ancient text written about someone, we just don't know if what the text says is what they actually claimed. But claiming something also means very little frankly.

Then why discuss anything at all? The Gospels are the only record we have of what Jesus supposedly said. I could say the same thing about the entire OT and we could throw this entire discussion down the toilet.

No his argument is weak as i stated he already made a simple mistake regarding hebrew. Now i referenced a ton of websites dealing with this stuff by OT and Hebrew scholars while you shrug them off in favor of grotesque mistakes made by one with little credentials in the field.

I also found errors in your web sites, some of which I pointed out. Does this mean they're both wrong?

You don't bother to look up the references I post. I'm simply here to reason out the truth, while all you've done is call me stupid.

Really? Coming in here calling Christians liars is "reasoning out the truth"? Stop acting like a victim, it's rather sickening.

I'll leave and end this if necessary as i've grown tired with this as well. I'm not really trying to convert you or anything. What i rather happen is have christians be more honest and realize that the match between OT and Jesus isn't even close to the 300 prophecy match that many claim.

Actually, I'm not even sure why I'm in this discussion. I don't really care if Jesus fulfills the prophecies or not.

[Christian2]

http://www.chaim.org/isaiah53.htm

A clip: Did Isaiah foresee the sufferings of Jesus to pay for our sins? Though many modern rabbis --and some ancient rabbis-- say the sufferings described are those of the nation of Israel, most ancient rabbis said it refers to Messiah's sufferings. We have provided a link to some of the great rabbinic sources which interpreted the passage as referring to the Messiah, even though they did not believe in Jesus. We have also provided a link demonstrating why Isaiah 53 cannot refer to Israel and who it must necessarily refer to. You will also find some other interesting links below. The passage actually begins with the end of Isaiah chapter 52. Read it for yourself.

From what I have read the ancient rabbis did think that Isaiah 53 referred to the Messiah and not Israel. My personal opinion is that the Jews have a vested interest in saying that it was not the Messiah.

Have you ever read the testimony of Louis Lapides, M.Div., Th.M.?

Louis Lapides was raised in a Jewish family and attended a conservative Jewish synagogue and for seven years prepared for his bar mitzvah. He had a negative view of Christians. One day a Christian pastor mentioned the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament to Lapides. Lapides said that he had never heard of them. He was shown the Bible verses and promised to read the Old Testament prophecies and stopped at Isaiah 53. He saw that the Messiah would suffer and die for the sins of Israel and the world. He thought that the Christians had altered the Old Testament. He went back to the original Hebrew Old Testament, studied the language and of course came to the conclusion that the Christians had not altered the OT. This started his journey to Christianity. That eventually led to his degree in theology from Dallas Baptist University as well as a master of divinity and a master of theology degree in the OT and Semitics from Talbot Theological Seminary.

You can find his complete testimony in the book, "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. You may be able to find his email address on the web and ask him his opinion yourself.

This is also a good article:

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... efault.htm

Clip: Isaiah 52:13-53:12, NIV, written ca 700 B.C. For more than 1700 years, the Jewish rabbis interpreted this passage almost unanimously as referring to the Messiah. This fact is thoroughly documented in S. R. Driver and Adolf Neubauer's The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters. 19/37-39 They quote numerous rabbis during this period who equated the servant of Isaiah 53 with the Messiah.

Not until the twelfth century A.D., no doubt under the suffering of the Jews at the hand of the Crusaders, did any Jewish interpreter say that Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 refers to the whole nation of Israel, the most common interpretation today among Jewish scholars. Even after Rashi (Rabbi Solomon Yazchaki) first proposed this interpretation, however, many other Jewish interpreters have held, even to the present, the traditional Talmudic view that Isaiah 53 speaks of the Messiah. One of the most respected Jewish intellectuals of all history, Moses Maimonides (A.D. 1135 -1204) rejected Rashi's interpretation, and he taught that the passage was messianic.

Rashi and other Jewish interpreters are not necessarily grasping at straws to suggest that the servant is the nation of Israel. Isaiah 43:10 (NIV) says to the people of Israel: " 'You are My witnesses,' declares the LORD, 'and My servant whom I have chosen.' " Surely, then, the servant must be Israel.

That this interpretation is in error can first be seen in Isaiah 52:14 where the nation of Israel is compared to the servant: "Just as many were astonished at you, My people, so his appearance was marred more than any man." In 53:8, the servant bears punishment that should have been born by "my people" (obviously Israel). It makes no sense for the nation of Israel to bear substitutionary punishment for the nation of Israel. Therefore Israel cannot be the servant of Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12.

But what about Isaiah 49:3: "And He said to Me, 'You are My Servant, Israel, in Whom I will show My glory"'? Good point! We're glad you brought it up. The key to identifying the servant in Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 is to see who he is in the three previous "servant songs" of Isaiah: 42:1-9; 49:1-12; and 50:4-9. Since these passages spoke of the servant, for example, establishing justice in the earth (Isaiah 42:4) and regathering the Jewish people from worldwide exile (Isaiah 49:8-13), Jewish interpreters have traditionally held the servant songs to be speaking of the Messiah, not the nation of Israel. Even Isaiah 49:3 does not say that Israel is the servant; rather it says that the servant (Messiah) is the true Israel! In verse 5 and 6 we see: "Now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His servant. . . 'to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel.' " The point is that Jacob (Israel) had gone astray, especially from the commission God gave to him: "In you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed" (Genesis 28:14). The Servant (Messiah) was now to stand in Israel's place to do two things: (1) to bring the nation of Israel back to God (Isaiah 49:5); and (2) to be a light to the nations, as seen in verse 6:

[Kurieuo]

Hi vvart,

I don't see any generalisation regarding Jews in what I said... infact I fail to see any real generalisation in my above words.

Yeah, but you did generalize Noahide.

*sigh* I'd like to know what generalisation I made about Noahide's in the following: "Unless you are playing on words to give the idea that you think Jesus is good, you don't actually seem to be a Noahide. As from that Noahide page I referenced it seems clear that they certainly don't see Jesus as good, but rather a deceiver." I can see how you may have miscontrued my words, but I never make an outright generalisation. A trivial issue, but you should really read my words more carefully.

Someone I know who is a Noahide also like me has no problem with what Jesus likely was (Rabbi, possible a Pharisee), we more or less have a problem with the Gospels.

You quite clearly call Jesus a heretic: "you fail to see the alternative reason God would resurrect a heretic and that being to test the Jews..." Given this, I see that you lend yourself to contradiction if you then say Jesus was good for:

1. If Jesus is a heretic and deceived many, then Jesus isn't good.
2. Jesus is a heretic and deceived many.
3. Therefore Jesus isn't good.

As you believe (2), I see that (3) naturally follows. I don't really see what your purpose is in still trying to project the image that you see the person Jesus as good (and not simply Jesus as a test being good).

I still await a convincing response to why God would raise Christ from the dead, putting to shame the Jewish leaders who likely thought were obeying God's law by putting to death a false prophet. To simply say that God was putting Jews to the test seems rather weak, and then you just expect us to take your word for it that such is true...? Why would God directly participate in raising up a deceitful heretic who had been rightly put to death as Law required? I'm sorry, but I can't accept such a conclusion about God. You might be able to believe in a God who directly participates in confusing His own given commands and deceiving people, but I can't bring myself to.

First off regardless of whether Jesus resurrected ( personally don't think he did) or not it would still be a test for the Jews. Ok let me explain, before God has the Jews believe in Moses and the covenant that is to be made he says this:
...
The key words in this is that all the people(jews) were made aware of God's endorsing of Moses and thus validating the commandment he was to make with them. However Jesus was never endorsed by God before all the jewish people, but only a small minority. So Jesus really had no authority to make a New Covenant that would apply to everyone.
So Kurieuo its really silly to claim resurrection validates what Jesus said because for it to be a validation of anything than all the Jewish people would have had to witness it.

I'll keep on track to try deal with what I see as relevent to my questions posed. It seems that you are attempting to strengthen your own case by trying to disprove my own position further? I'm sorry, but even if you disproved my position, this still doesn't make your case any stronger that Jesus came as a false prophet, performed miracles and God resurrected Him to test the Jews. Your case is still weak, and again, I don't see how you clearly answered "why God would raise Christ from the dead, putting to shame the Jewish leaders who likely thought were obeying God's law by putting to death a false prophet?"

However, I noticed in your reply above that you do seem to backpedal a little to now question whether Christ was ever truly raised from the dead. Thus, your argument has transformed from one where God resurrected Christ to test the Jews, to being that Christ was never infact resurrected and so God never justified Christ by such an act. Although I obviously would still disagree, I do see denying the resurrection as the better option for you to take. For imagine being a Jewish leader who participated in having someone you considered a "heretic" put to death (such as Jesus). Now imagine discovering that the person you helped put to death was raised from the dead... I don't know about you, but the first thoughts to pop into my head is dread that I likely aided in putting someone to death whom God approved. I would begin questioning whether my own beliefs about this person were valid. Far from being illogical, it seems an obvious thing to deduce that God would have approved of Christ if He did infact raise Christ from the dead.

Now what of the Jewish people having to witness it? Well I'd firstly challege your claim that the events surrounding Christ were not a witness to all. Secondly, I see the reason that God spoke to Moses in a way all could hear was because someone was required to lead the Israelites. Moses was chosen by God in front of all to make it clear Moses was the one to do the leading. Let's not forget that Moses had already displayed many signs to demonstrate God was already on his side. Finally, were all the Jews aware of God endorsing each of the judges? The likes of Samson? Gideon? David? Did God speak audibly over each of these so that all the Jews could hear?

Now rather than respond to my comments in the previous paragraph, I think it significant that none of these really matter anymore to you if your issue is with God raising Christ from the dead. Something perhaps to be discussed another time in a more appropriate thread.

I never said the terms "the Messiah" did appear. For someone who prides themselves on Jewish thinking... well I'll let you off the hook and won't rub it in. You do understand what a targum is right? The above quotes come from Jewish rabbis. Thus, my previous argument stands that Christians aren't reading something into Micah 5:2 which has been long recognised by the rabbis as having messianic significance.

Ok lets go over this one more time cause i think you missed my point
...
Right here Micah tells us the person who will be born from the clan Bethlehem Euphratah will defend Israel from the Assyrians. Now we must ask ourselves who fits this criteria? certainly not Jesus as he had nothing to do with the Assyrians nor can we say he was from the clan Bethlehem Euphratah. However King David fits both criteria being born of the clan and fighting off the Assyrian invasion.

Actually no I understood your point quite clearly, but I just don't buy into it. To repaste something I wrote previously: "you appear to misunderstand the dual nature many prophecies have. That is, they may tell something about certain circumstances at the time of their being written, but they can also appear confusing if "only" related to the direct context they were written in. Thus, while many prophecies may relate to Israel, they also have a prophetic meaning to be applied to a future event."

So just as a majority of Rabbi's/Talmud students would agree with me that this really isn't a prophecy at all. Now you and most Christians may hang on too a couple of words like "everlasting" and "ancient of days"

Yeah, let's just glim past the words that don't make sense to your interpretation and not even consider the possibility that the words found in Micah 5:2 may also have prophetic meaning...

Now lets see what you brought up to prove your point:

That the Jews recognized this as a Messianic prophecy is also evident from the fact that the priests and scribes of Herod's day knew that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem on the basis of this prophecy (Mt. 2:5, 6). Thus, the common Jewish belief at the time of Christ was that they "unanimously regarded this passage as containing a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem."103 This is proven by Matthew 2:5, 6 and John 7:42.

This was an addendum to what "I" brought up. What you quote was not me, but something drawn from http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/A ... 103-13.htm as I referenced previously. Yet, the comments made here are certainly relevant and deserve recognition. Especially considering many opponents to Christianity could have pointed to Matthew's mistake of considering Micah 5:2 prophetically. However, the fact is noone made any complaint to this passage being considered Messianic. It isn't until modern Jewish interpretations it seems to me that complaints began to arise, and such complaints likely only developed as a result from debating Christians who associated the prophecies with Christ.

Now what of the other things "I" brought up that you overlook? I made reference to the Targum of Jonathan and Rabbi Jarchi:

• Targum of Jonathan says: "And thou, Bethlehem of Ephrathah, little art thou to be reckoned among the thousands of the house of Judah; out of thee shall proceed in my presence the Messiah to exercise sovereignty over Israel; whose name has been called from eternity, from the days of the everlasting."
  
  Rabbi Jarchi comments, "Thou art little... out of thee shall come forth to me King Messiah."

Now you seem to constantly glim past these sources and shy away from the respect and authority a source like the Targum of Jonathan has:

Targum Jonathan (ben Uzziel) (תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל) is the official eastern (Babylonian) targum to the Nevi'im. Its early origins, however, are western (Land of Israel).

In talmudic times (and to this day in Yemenite Jewish communities) Targum Jonathan was read as a verse-by-verse translation alternatively with the Hebrew verses of the haftarah in the synagogue.

The Talmud states that "a persion should complete his portions of scripture along with the community, reading the scripture twice and the targum once." This passage may be taken to refer to Targum Jonathan (as well as to Targum Onkelos).

http://www.answers.com/topic/targum-jonathan

Now there are other rabbis I can quote. For example:

"Although thou art little among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto me a Judge to be Ruler in Israel, and this is the King Messiah."
- Rabbi David Kimchi (also known as Redak or Radak, and David Kimchi or David Kimhi).

So, who was Rabbi David Kimchi? And what qualified him to interpret ancient Jewish scripture? "David Kimhi, known as Redak, c.1160 - c.1235 . . . wrote Mikhlol [completeness], long the leading Hebrew grammar, The Book of Roots, a dictionary of the Bible, and The Pen of the Scribe, a manual of punctuation. Standard editions of the Hebrew Bible frequently included his learned and lucid commentaries; in Latin translation they greatly influenced Christian translators of the Bible." This is cited from a Web site at http://www.infoplease.com, using the keyword "Kimhi"

So, for what it's worth, a Jewish Rabbi, who clearly had no reason to "distort" a prophecy on behalf of Christians, clearly described Micah 5 as being a prophecy about a Messiah. And, Rabbi Kimchi was a grammarian who wrote a book about Biblical commentaries and a book about the roots of Biblical words. I would think that his qualifications would compare quite well against those of any Bible skeptic who claims that Micah 5 was not about a Messiah.

...

"The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah."
- Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a

...

"O, thou Bethlehem Ephrata ... although thou art little in the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto me a Man, a Ruler in Israel whose goings forth are from the days of old ... that is from the Seed of David ... who was of Bethlehem Judah. "
- Abarbanel, Mashmiah Jeshua, fol. 62, c. 2.

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/bethlehem.htm

It appears any modern Jew who denies the Messianic value within Micah 5 is left in a sticky situation of explaining why many before them believed it did. If anything, it appears assigning messianic value to many passages is really an orthodox and traditional Jewish position to take. Perhaps contemporary Jewish scholars, being more "contemporary," prefer to dismiss or ignore the more supernatural "prophetic" elements in Scripture? Also factoring in any Jewish messiah who came today couldn't trace himself back to King David (as the genealogical records are now lost), it makes further sense why many Jewish teachers would want to ignore passages of Scripture with messianic undertones. The traditional Jewish thoughts regarding messianic passages must be a continual thorn in the side to such scholars.

I'm quite happy for you to now change your mind on this by dismissing the reasons you previously thought Christianity had a flawed theology.

No I never changed my mind, you seem to think one can be a Christian without believing Jesus is who the Gospels credit him as being. lets move on now.

I don't want to move on just yet, as I think it relevant to this whole discussion to highlight your dishonesty here. And I also think it is petty to try apply a belief to me that I never in any way came close to acknowledging. Now you previously wrote:

• "Christianity has the most flawed theology in which people are condemned not because of evil deeds, but because they simply have a different religion. Judaism however is very practical in such a situation and always has been in that they know one's beliefs [emphasis on "beliefs"] cannot condemn them.

You here distort Christian theology, and portray condemnation from God within Christianity as appearing to "only" hinge upon belief, to which for emotional reasons or other you consider Christianity to have a flawed theology. Yet, I pointed out it is your idea of Christian theology which is flawed by responding:

• 'One is not saved by their belief for don't you know James 2:19 says, "Even the demons believe that-and shudder."'

You then changed your words slightly by saying:

• "The premise of Christianity begins with belief, one cannot accept Jesus without believing various things about him."

Now whereas you began by saying Christian theology is flawed basically because one is condemned upon "belief alone," you later acknowledge that "belief" is only a premise of Christianity (which I understand to mean a foundational requirement to salvation). And when one goes back to read your original statements on Christianity, it becomes obvious what you wrote wasn't an accurate accounting of Christian theology, but is rather misleading. Now if your willing to acknowledge that you misrepresented Christian theology in your original statements whether intentionally or not, then I'll let this drop.

You did read what "Immanuel" means right? It means "God with us"! So when Matthew 1:23 makes mention to the Isaiah prophecy he is pointing out something true about Christ. If it is not Christ's name what is it? It is the characteristic implied within the name Immanuel. Immanual in this way is considered a title just like the titles in the Isaiah 9:6 I previously brought up: "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." Given other Scripture (John 1:14; John 20:28; Col. 2:9), the idea that Jesus was going to be literally called "Immanuel" doesn't really appear to be the case.

No, Immanuel is simply a name.

Are you kidding me? Conduct some research on what "Immanuel" means.

If a man makes a prophecy and says "His name will be Smith" - and a man comes along who is a blacksmith, and people say "Oh, he fits the prophecy! He's a smith!" does he really fit the prophecy?No, because it is clear. It says his NAME will be Smith. Not 'he will be a smith'. Isaiah didn't say 'he will be God with us' he said 'his name will be Immanuel.

Clearly you do not want to listen to reason, and your mind is made up. Still, if we go into the original language the passage of Isaiah 7:14 according to KJV reads: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Now "call" (qara) according to Strong's means: "to call, call out, recite, read, cry out, proclaim." The word for "name" (shem) can mean someone's name, or signal a reputation or fame (i.e., "he made a name for himself..."—e.g., 2 Samuel 8:13). So if reading prophetically, Isaiah 7:14 could quite easily be fulfilled by Christ in that He was literally considered to be God incarnate.

Now I noticed you did not touch upon any of my last comments with regards to this issue. This prophecy could have quite literally been fulfilled for it does not follow that because Scripture doesn't record Mary calling Jesus Immanuel by name (whether by repute, or to actually designate his person), that Mary never did called Jesus Immanuel. As I wrote previously: "Mary could very well have (and I'm inclined to believe she would have given the special circumstances surrounding her son), announced or proclaimed Jesus as Immanuel at some point. It would have certainly been a strange thing for Matthew to point out the fulfillment of this prophecy if people knew it wasn't fulfilled. The one thing we can be certain of is that this is certainly a weak argument to make against Christ being the Messiah."

This is regarding Isaiah 9, which as the website states and majority of hebrew scholars will agree that its in the past tense.

Yes, I read the page you linked to. This argument isn't much of one however, as if you're familiar with the language you should understand that Hebrew verbs do not take past, present or future forms, but rather perfect (completed action) or imperfect (incompleted action). So this passage literally can't signify past tense. Now there are cases of prophecies using perfect form for events which have already been seen to have happened in the future. An example is Isaiah 5:13 where we have, "Therefore my people are gone into captivity..." (KJV) The fact of prophecies being written in perfect form has been recognised by many commentators (I can cite rabbis if you like), and in Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar we read:

• More particularly the uses of the perfect may be distinguished as follows: -- ...To express facts which are undoubtedly imminent, and, therefore in the imagination of the speaker, already accomplished (perfectum confidentiae), e.g., Nu. 17:27, behold, we perish ,we are undone, we are all undone. Gn. 30:13, Is. 6:5 (I am undone), Pr. 4:2....This use of the perfect occurs most frequently in prophetic language (perfectum propheticum). The prophet so transports himself in imagination into the future that he describes the future event as if it had been already seen or heard by him, e.g. Is. 5:13 therefore my people are gone into captivity; 9:1ff.,10:28,11:9...; 19:7, Jb. 5:20, 2 Ch. 20:37. Not infrequently the imperfect interchanges with such perfects either in the parallel member or further on in the narrative.

Now as I said previously, the page you referenced does not deal with the opinions of respected orthodox Jewish rabbis who view the Isaiah 9:14 passage as having messianic significance. Your page instead tries to pretend that any messianic meaning is simply a distortion by Christians. Let's not deal with those Jews who also assigned messianic significance, for then one might have to do so actual work to figure out why such passages lead people (Christian and Jew alike) to conclude messianic significance exists. For since Jews have also assigned messianic meaning, it can't simply be a case that Christians are reading messianic meaning back into the passages.

Kurieuo.

[Battlehelmet]

In other words, one does not need God to perform miracles, thus meaning that a conjurer could cause loud voices to terrify his followers into thinking God was speaking. Catch my drift?
Judaism is just like any religion, you take it on faith. However christianity claims Jesus is the messiah of the Jews, when many Jews, who have been studying their own texts for quite sometime, find no correlation.

I'm with Mastermind on this. I don't think the Jews will realize that Jesus is the Messiah until He comes in His Father's glory.

What the jews of today find isn't of much relevance. The fact remains that whether Jesus was the messiah was an argument between JEWS around year 33. The entire incident was started by jews, some of which took one path, the other which took another path. In addition, we do not know exactly what the purpose of God's chosen people are. If it was to bring the Son of God into the world so that everybody may know God, whether they reject him or not isn't relevant at all. In fact, the jews HAVE strayed in the past and then came back to God later. In fact, Jewish history after Jesus hasn't been particularly pleasant. Why would God allow his chosen people to be massacred by Hitler?

Another example given in the book, THE BIBLE CODE, is to look for the name Hitler. They found it,
and close by to the term "Hitler" were the terms "evil man", "Nazi and enemy", and "slaughter". "In
Germany" was found embedded near the terms, "Nazis" and "Berlin". The term "Eichmann" was found
embedded with the terms, "the ovens" and "extermination". The term "Zyklon-B" the gas used to kill the
Jews was found embedded near the term "Eichmann".

Ecclesiastes 3.5 Whatever is has already been,and what will be has been before, and God will call the past into account.

Why would God allow his chosen people to be massacred by Hitler?

Ecclesiastes 3.17 I thought in my heart, God will bring into judgement both the righteous and the wicked, there will be a time for every activity and a time every deed.

I'm pretty sure Hitler is going to hell.

Previously, Grant Jeffrey had touched on many of the same findings in THE BIBLE CODE in his book,
THE SIGNATURE OF GOD (1996, chapters 10 & 11). Also, Yacov Rambsel had been finding (by
hand) the name "Yeshua" embedded under the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament (Tanakh), in
his 1996 book, YESHUA, THE NAME OF JESUS REVEALED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Yacov Rambsel is a Messianic Jewish pastor in San Antonio, Texas, who searched the Hebrew texts for
a couple of decades by hand without the aid of a computer. He found the term "Yeshua is my name"
under the text of Isaiah 53:10 using every 20th letter. Isaiah 53:10 is about the suffering Messiah, and for
our Jewish friends, how fortunate that God our Father embedded the name of the Messiah Yeshua
(Jesus) there for all to find. Another example is Zechariah 11:12, where the surface text prophesies the
price that Judas would eventually receive for his act of betrayal, 30 pieces of silver. Underneath the
surface text at a spacing of 24 letters is the name hidden, "Yeshua". Many more examples are given
throughout the book, YESHUA, THE NAME OF JESUS REVEALED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Really? Coming in here calling Christians liars is "reasoning out the truth"? Stop acting like a victim, it's rather sickening.

Tell me about it. I get tired of hearing irrational skeptics make absurd claims from quoting chunks of hardcore skepticism then not even referencing the source.Which is evident of an ulterior motive within itself.

Actually, I'm not even sure why I'm in this discussion. I don't really care if Jesus fulfills the prophecies or not.

Well you should. IMO

[Anonymous]

Now what of the Jewish people having to witness it? Well I'd firstly challege your claim that the events surrounding Christ were not a witness to all. Secondly, I see the reason that God spoke to Moses in a way all could hear was because someone was required to lead the Israelites. Moses was chosen by God in front of all to make it clear Moses was the one to do the leading. Let's not forget that Moses had already displayed many signs to demonstrate God was already on his side. Finally, were all the Jews aware of God endorsing each of the judges? The likes of Samson? Gideon? David? Did God speak audibly over each of these so that all the Jews could hear?

This is utterly sad, you accuse me of not reading when you yourself make the same mistake. As i already stated God made EVERY single Jewish person hear him speak to Moses prior to the forming of the covenant. The concept of a New Covenant which is somehow superior to the previous covenant yet wasn't backed by God before all Jews is utterly silly. Frankly you need to study the OT a little better. Have you not heard where Malachi tells the Jews to continue to follow the laws of Moses. Then we get Jesus contradicting what every prophet pretty much says by throwing out Kosher. Please before you discuss anything with me, i'd expect one to actually read the OT.

Now you seem to constantly glim past these sources and shy away from the respect and authority a source like the Targum of Jonathan has:

Again you don't bother to read what I said. Using the Targum of Jonathan would still show Jesus as not being messiah. From a previous post I already stated it seems to be the minority view that it is messianic, but lets assume that it is for now. Did peace abound in Jesus' day like the Targum Jonathan said? It said 'peace in his day', now, if Jesus is everlasting, this would imply that we should have always had peace, because it was always 'in his day'. Furthermore, since he was here the first time, that was also 'in his day' so we should have at least had peace there too. Even with the second coming, according to the interpretation in the Targum Jonathan, Jesus didn't fit.

It appears any modern Jew who denies the Messianic value within Micah 5 is left in a sticky situation of explaining why many before them believed it did. If anything, it appears assigning messianic value to many passages is really an orthodox and traditional Jewish position to take. Perhaps contemporary Jewish scholars, being more "contemporary," prefer to dismiss or ignore the more supernatural "prophetic" elements in Scripture? Also factoring in any Jewish messiah who came today couldn't trace himself back to King David (as the genealogical records are now lost), it makes further sense why many Jewish teachers would want to ignore passages of Scripture with messianic undertones. The traditional Jewish thoughts regarding messianic passages must be a continual thorn in the side to such scholars.

As i stated prior, considering that i'm studying Judaism, i would say I'm much more aware of what Rabbi's accept and don't accept. Some rabbis, like RaDaK (David Kimchi) interpreted virtually everything as being messianic, including many of the same passages that Christians use to support Jesus. I don't think this has ever been a popular, or majority view, though. Also its ironic how even those Rabbi's don't accept Jesus as being the Messiah. Furthermore, it wouldn't matter if we know who is from david or not, the prophecy still stands that it would be someone from david. We'll all know who the messiah is because it will be self-evident. The fact that people debated if Jesus was the Messiah is plenty of proof that Jesus isn't the Messiah. When Messiah comes, no one will debate it.

Are you kidding me? Conduct some research on what "Immanuel" means.

Again you don't seem to get how hebrew names work do you. Regardless as i've stated Immanuel was to be a sign, not the messiah. The fact that christians attribute his birth and his name to Jesus and then say Jesus is the messiah makes no sense.

Clearly you do not want to listen to reason, and your mind is made up.

Actually its you who doesn't want to reason. You simply shrug off OT scholars who have stated it has nothing to do with Jesus and simply go with christian view.

I don't want to move on just yet, as I think it relevant to this whole discussion to highlight your dishonesty here. And I also think it is petty to try apply a belief to me that I never in any way came close to acknowledging. Now you previously wrote:

Yes i admit it was a mistake on my part, however you've been wasting time holding on to this bit and shrugged off my earlier points.

Yes, I read the page you linked to. This argument isn't much of one however, as if you're familiar with the language you should understand that Hebrew verbs do not take past, present or future forms, but rather perfect (completed action) or imperfect (incompleted action). So this passage literally can't signify past tense. Now there are cases of prophecies using perfect form for events which have already been seen to have happened in the future. An example is Isaiah 5:13 where we have, "Therefore my people are gone into captivity..." (KJV) The fact of prophecies being written in perfect form has been recognised by many commentators (I can cite rabbis if you like), and in Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar we read:

Hebrew sentence structure and grammar is what determines past, future, or present tense. And yes, there are times when it refers to a future event when it is in past tense. However, this doesnt mean we should throw grammar out the window. As stated most scholars note Hezekiah was pretty much called many of the things Isaiah said. I don't recall anyone calling Jesus "Prince of Peace" or that Jesus even came to bring peace as he said himself he was to bring a sword.

"The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah."
- Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a

...

"O, thou Bethlehem Ephrata ... although thou art little in the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto me a Man, a Ruler in Israel whose goings forth are from the days of old ... that is from the Seed of David ... who was of Bethlehem Judah. "
- Abarbanel, Mashmiah Jeshua, fol. 62, c. 2.

Yes, its interesting that the first one says from the city of Bethlehem, yet the second reiterates the clan of bethlehem. Not a convincing argument at all.

Now as I said previously, the page you referenced does not deal with the opinions of respected orthodox Jewish rabbis who view the Isaiah 9:14 passage as having messianic significance. Your page instead tries to pretend that any messianic meaning is simply a distortion by Christians. Let's not deal with those Jews who also assigned messianic significance, for then one might have to do so actual work to figure out why such passages lead people (Christian and Jew alike) to conclude messianic significance exists. For since Jews have also assigned messianic meaning, it can't simply be a case that Christians are reading messianic meaning back into the passages.

For one, it is a minority of rabbis who took it as messianic, such as radak, who viewed virtually everything as messianic. Secondly, NONE of the Jewish rabbis believed it was about Jesus. Even if it is Messianic, the article clearly explains why Jesus didn't fit. Rabbinic Judaism has always been so broad, its easy to find rabbis who believe that some of the same passages are messianic. It doesn't mean it is a majority, or mainstream view, or that because it is messianic that it supports Jesus.

In fact, Jewish history after Jesus hasn't been particularly pleasant. Why would God allow his chosen people to be massacred by Hitler?

Yes, Christians always seem to bring up the holocaust as proof that the jews 'had been bad'. This isn't necessarily true, and it may have simply been so that Jews would move out of Europe and around the world. The Talmud teaches that nations are blessed by having Jews live within them.
Also Jews are now stronger than ever before. Israel is one of the most powerful in the middle east, and have one of the most powerful 'secret services' in the world - the mossad. The Holocaust was definitely not a punishment to the Jews, if anything it made them stronger as a people and helped form nation of Israel.

What's more is that christians have caused quite a lot of problems for the jews throughout history. There is quite a lot of anti-semitism in the NT, in fact Martin Luther was an avid anti-semitic. Afterall I do hear some christians calling Jew's "blind" and "lost people" who need to be "saved".

[Anonymous]

Dear vvart,

I believe you are seeking God with all your heart. I do not pretend to be an old testament scholar. However, I follow a Jewish Rabbi named Jesus who clearly saw himself as Messiah. I submit that Jesus did consider himself an old testament scholar. I suggest you take up the issues of prophetic interpretation with Him. Examine carefully how HE supported the case for who he said he was. When he opens His ministry he reads from the scroll of Isaiah. Notice that HE did not read the entire verse, but still declared that "Today this prophecy has been fulfilled in your hearing." As for formally presenting himself as The King of the Jews he deliberately arranges it by riding into Jerusalem on a colt, why, because it was on that specific day that the Messiah was to be expected according to a mathematical prophesy given to Daniel by the Angel Gabriel. Again, my point is not to debate Jewish Scholarship with you, since it appears you are more informed on this, but to appeal to your desire to really know God's plan for you. Jesus made many references to old testament scriptures that HE said spoke of HIM. Pray, ask God to confirm the reality of who Jesus was and is and is to come. But, don't accept or reject him because "other people do" or based on what detractors have to say, but sincerely dare to stand up like a man before God in prayer and ask Him to show you the truth....regardless of the consequences to you on this Earth. May your heart always be filled with zeal for the Lord.

[Anonymous]

Not until the twelfth century A.D., no doubt under the suffering of the Jews at the hand of the Crusaders, did any Jewish interpreter say that Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 refers to the whole nation of Israel, the most common interpretation today among Jewish scholars. Even after Rashi (Rabbi Solomon Yazchaki) first proposed this interpretation, however, many other Jewish interpreters have held, even to the present, the traditional Talmudic view that Isaiah 53 speaks of the Messiah. One of the most respected Jewish intellectuals of all history, Moses Maimonides (A.D. 1135 -1204) rejected Rashi's interpretation, and he taught that the passage was messianic.

Actually this isn't true at all:

This is a rather well-worn argument is that the Jewish view of Isaiah 53 had always been about the Messiah in particular, but Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak, the greatest Medieval Torah and Talmud commentator), who was completely opposed to Christian interpretations of the Bible, created a new interpretation of Isaiah 53. This is believed to have been fabricated by an apologist of the nineteenth century. Jews had never interpreted Isaiah 53 as being about a suffering Messiah. If it was, then Christians must think Peter was a foolish fellow, since he obviously must have not been learned the Tanach when he displayed astonishment after Jesus foretold that he would die.

Who tells this lie? Evangelical Christians tell this lie. Jews for Jesus tells this lie. The Chosen People Ministries tells this lie. All it takes is one lie of this nature for you to be proven untrustworthy. They tell these lies in spades. Numerous tall tales of this sort are told, trying to create the picture that Jesus was in the beliefs of the rabbis, and then a large quantity of quotes, sometimes taken out of context, other times fabricated, are presented, and the evangelist will say, "Don’t you see? The rabbis were saying this all along!" These are the same evangelicals who will also denounce the views of the rabbis when they prove an inconvenience. There wasn’t exactly a huge movement among Jews to jump into baptism pools in the first millenium of the Common Era. One would think that if it was made up by Rashi, then this would not have been the case. Instead, any examination of a history text will show that Christians persecuted Jews during the first thousand years of Christianity (and afterward!), and that the Jews resisted Christianity, even at the expense of their lives.

The fact of the matter is that this lie can be proven such by relying on Christian texts. In the third century, the early church father Origen wrote a volume entitled Contra Celsum, a criticism of a pagan scholar who spoke against Christianity. Origen told of a time when he had approached a group of Jews, and tried using Isaiah 53 as a tool aimed at evengelizing them. "Those whom the Jews regarded as learned" explained to Origen the Jewish interpretation of the fourth Servant Song, and it took place nearly a thousand years before Rashi lived. For proof, see this Catholic website, with Contra Celsum translated online, chapters 54 and 55

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isai53c.html

As for maimonides, well he taught against Jesus being the messiah. He also stated that if the person is slain, we know they are not the messiah.