Burning Issues Surrounding
The Mâshiakh

While there are compelling reasons to reject many Christian interpretations about J*e*s*u*s (e.g. its supposed divinity and even its idolatrous Hellenist derivation), prophecies about the Jewish Mâshiakh remain solid. Jews cannot deny them out of a knee-jerk hate-mongering just because Christians quote them and attempt to apply them to their man-g*o*d, J*e*s*u*s. None of the prophecies below describe the Christian J*e*s*u*s — who is invalidated from the outset by D^әvârim 13.1-6. But they do apply validly to its polar opposite: the first-century Torâh-observant Ribi Y^әhoshua Bën-Yoseiph Bën-Dâwid from Nâtzrat.

Consequently, to condemn a Torâh-observant Jew, Ribi Y^әhoshua, for an idol concocted by Roman pagans over a century after his death (in 135 C.E.) constitutes sinat khinâm, l^әshon hâ-râ and khilul י--ה!

As a result, Jewish "anti-missionaries" cannot justify their current practice of contorting or perverting Jewish Scriptures simply to avoid Christian claims, which are invalid from the start.

The meaning of בר is confirmed in the earliest extant and most pristine source for Halakhic discussion on the planet: M^әnorat ha-Mâor by Yitzkhâq Abuhav. In section פ"ח, we find the context of son and fetus relative to בר inescapable in Mishlei Shlomoh 11.26:

"Rav Y^әhudâh said, Rav said: "Anyone who prevents Halâkhâh from the mouth of a talmid, even fetuses in their mother's stomach curse him." As it is said: "One who prevents a בר will be cursed by the nation" (Mishlei Shlomoh 11.26).

"There is no nation, except for fetuses. As it is said: "And from nation to nation [i.e. each nation] will be tough" (b^ә-Reishit 25.23). There is no בר except for Torâh. As it is said: "Kiss the בר lest he be angry" (T^әhilim 2.12).

An infant said…"

Contrary to the ancient Sages, modern Jewish commentators pervert translations of T^әhilim 2.12 to erase the original intent. The meaning of בר is also confirmed in Mishlei Shlomoh 31.2.

The Ivrit term בר is a cognate of the Aramaic בר meaning "son [of…]."

In 7 passages, בר means "clear": T^әhilim 19.9; 24.2; 73.1; Mishlei Shlomoh 14.4; Iyov 11.4 and Shir ha-Shirim 6.9-10.

In 7 passages, בר means "clarity," which is a cognate of "clear" above: Sh^әmueil Beit 22.21,25 (not 'cleanness'); Y^әshayâhu 1.25 (not 'purity'); T^әhilim 18.21,25; Iyov 9.30; 22.30.

There are a 14 passages in which בר refers to grain (not limited to corn or wheat, as KJV translates): b^ә-Reishit 41.35,49; 42.3,25; 45.23; Yirm^әyâhu 28.28; Yo·eil 2.24; Âmos 5.11; 8.5-6; T^әhilim 65.14; 72.16; Mishlei Shlomoh 11.26; Iyov 39.4.

Rendering the passage kissing "purity" (more accurately kissing "clear" or "clarified") or "product" (more accurately kissing clarified-grain) is convoluted. Both suggestions are ridiculous ploys – no has ever kissed (or can kiss) "clearness" or "clarified." Anyone going around kissing clarified-grain would be certifiably insane and described as an idolater worshipping grain. Such renderings are nothing more than a clumsy attempt to avoid the accurate translation, for no other reason than to avoid messianic implications – grinding a theological axe.

As mentioned above, the Aramaic בר (bar) is widely accepted to mean "son [of]…" In Mishlei Shlomoh 31.2 there's also no doubt that, in Hebrew, בר (bar) also means son. In all of the other passages, there's no doubt that the meaning is "clear" or "clarified" (in the sense of carefully culling out the bad and leaving the best). Most compelling, there is no case in which the term doesn't mean "clear" or "clarified." This strongly suggests that even in the cases of Mishlei Shlomoh 11.26 and T^әhilim 2.12 the meaning of "clear" or "clarified" remains consistent – but describing a "clarified-son."

Further, correlating בר with Torâh confirms that the messianic "clarified-son" must be 100% compatible and synonymous with – not contradictory to – Torâh.

The Mâshiakh will inspire many assimilated and estranged Jews to make t^әshuvâh to Torâh as well as gathering them to Israel (T^әhilim 107.1-3, 8-9; Tz^әphanyâh 3.20; Mikhâh 2.12; Yirm^әyâhu 29.14; Y^әkhëzqeil 11.17; 20.32-38, 40-42; 28.25-26; 34.10-16; 36.23-38; 39.21-29) after the Holocaust (Y^әkhëzqeil 37.1-10 with 11-14) under the Mâshiakh Bën-Dâwid (Y^әkhëzqeil 37.15-19 with 20-28).

First, read the overview to Talmudic references to Yësh"u.

The date given for the "hanging," the eve of Pësakh, agrees with the Gospel of John (19.14). This proves that the Talmudic discussion is based on Christian polemic entirely unrelated to historical Ribi Y^әhoshua – since:

1. The historical Ribi Y^әhoshua was celebrating the Pësakh Seidër with his talmidim on ërëv Pësakh (The N^әtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 26.20 with notes). Several proofs, including astronomical data and constraints of the Judaic calendar, demonstrate that the historical Ribi Y^әhoshua was executed on ërëv of the 7^th Day of Khag ha-Matzot – 3:15 P.M. Y^әrushâlayim Time (1315 UCT) Yom Sh^әlishi, Firstmonth (Babylonian "Nisan") 20, 3790 (0030 C.E.; The N^әtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 27.45 with notes).
   
   
2. The Yësh"u of Masëkët Sunedrion 43a, by contrast, has only 5 talmidim, 3 of whom are clearly Hellenists, not P^әrushim (Nakai, Neitzër, Buni, Todah and Matthai), not 12, and none of the names match those of the 12 talmidim of historical Ribi Y^әhoshua. (Matityâhu wasn't called by a Hellenist name until counterfeited by Paul, decades after the fact, and the Roman Hellenists in their Greek NT subsequent to 135 C.E. – which would prove the late apologetics were aimed not at historical Ribi Y^әhoshua, who was a P^әrushi Ribi, but at Paul's, and the Romans', Hellenist Christian idol and counterfeit.)
   
   
3. "In conformity with the Halâkhâh, (Masëkët Sunedrion 7:4) he was sentenced to stoning, the penalty for enticing, leading astray, or practicing sorcery" (EJ 10.15) – none of which are charges that any serious scholar dates much earlier than the 5^th century C.E., in response to Christian polemics related to the counterfeit (Yësh"u), entirely unrelated to the historical Ribi Y^әhoshua.
   
   
4. "After the stoning he was hanged, since all who are put to death by stoning are subsequently hanged, according to R. Eliezer who often transmits ancient Halâkhâh (Masëkët Sunedrion 6:4)." This, too, isn't the same as Ribi Y^әhoshua, who was charged with the political crime of usurping Caesar as king of the Jews – plainly written in Greek above his head on the Roman cross. The earliest, and well-attested historical, account of the execution of Ribi Y^әhoshua conforms to Roman law and is intractably irreconcilable with the halakhic death penalty.
   
   
5. The deaths of the 5 talmidim described in this section of Talmud bear no resemblance to the deaths of the talmidim of historical Ribi Y^әhoshua.
   
   
6. If this passage in Talmud is attributed to, l^ә-havdil, Ribi Y^әhoshua, then all of the historical sources contradict this section of Talmud, from Josephus, who describes the P^әrushim defending Pâqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq", to all modern historians in every leading university. Therefore, to hold that Talmud is authentic and reliable inescapably implies acknowledging that Talmud describes several apostates named Y^әhoshua. Jews for Judaism has even acknowledged that the Christian Yësh"u is NOT the same as the P^әrushi Ribi Y^әhoshua of Nâtzrat and Beit-Lëkhëm (click on the message relating to "Jews" in our Home Page).
   
   
7. Talmud speaks of numerous apostate messiahs in the messianic fervor prevailing between B.C.E. 2^nd century and the 4^th century C.E., not even counting Bar-Kokhvâ. Archeologists confirm that Y^әhoshua was a very popular name in 1^st-century Y^әhudâh. There are several accounts in Talmud that are each incompatible with the other, confirming that there were a number of apostates named Y^әhoshua; none of whom refer to Ribi Y^әhoshua. That non-existent association is the lazy assumption of uninformed non-scholars.
   
   
8. Perhaps surprising to the uninformed, this is further corroborated by the Birkat ha-Minim, the Notzrim and Jerome.
   
   

Although we know it was no longer true by medieval times, there is no assurance that, in Talmudic times, the acronym Yësh"u was even limited to one of who-knows-how-many apostate leaders named Y^әhoshua. The acronym Yësh"u, meaning "may his name be blotted out," could easily have applied to any apostate leader by any name. After a few years, people would have gotten the word who (this apostate leader, in a long string of apostate messiahs) "Yësh"u" was, and instead of continuing to call him by his name, "blotted out" his name by referring to him thenceforth solely by the acronym, Yësh"u. (By medieval times, this seems untenable since the primary example, Shabtai Tzvi, is nowhere (that I know of) called Yësh"u.)

Thus, either this passage in Talmud is rife with errors and unreliable or, most probable, a later redaction in response to Christian polemics and, therefore, directed at the Hellenized anti-Torâh Roman counterfeit and having no connection to the pro-Torâh P^әrushi Ribi Y^әhoshua.

Y^әshayahu 43.5-8; 54.6-9 — According to Sanhedrin 91b: "Let no one think that in the days of the Mâshiakh anything of the natural course of the world will cease or that any innovation will be introduced into creation, [which, by the way, would introduce a logical contradiction of the Perfect and Immutable Creator; ybd]. Rather, the world will continue in its accustomed course. The words of Y^әshayâhu: 'The wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the panther shall lie down with the kid" (Y^әshayâhu 11:6) are a parable and an allegory which must be understood to mean that Israel will dwell securely even among the wicked of the heathen nations who are compared to a wolf and a panther. For they will all accept the true faith and will no longer rob or destroy.

Khajai ha-Nâvi prophesied (2.7-9): "גדול יהיה כבוד הבית הזה האחרון מן-הראשון (Greater shall be the Kâvod of this latter House than the First).

Torâh documented the withdrawal of the Sh^әkhinâh from the Beit ha-Miqdâsh hâ-Rishon in Y^әkhëzqeil 9.3; 10.4, 19; 11.22-23. It never returned to the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini.

While the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini had "a" Mizbeiakh, it lacked the Eish mi-liphnei ha-Sheim that would have made it the legitimate שלחן (see Artscroll Yechezkel not, p. 650, to Y^әkhëzqeil 41.22 with Malâkhi 1.12). Five essential elements of kâvod, contained in the First Beit ha-Miqdâsh were never in the Second Beit ha-Miqdâsh: the Aron B^әrit ha-Sheim, the Kaporët, the K^әruvim, the Eish mi-liphnei ha-Sheim and the Sh^әkhinâh (Masëkët Yomâ 21b; Artscroll Yechezkel p. 691).

Yet, "this latter House" was destroyed in 70 C.E. without any of these five missing elements of kâvod ever having been in it!!!

Therefore, since "this latter House" no longer exists and these five essential elements of kâvod were never in it, the only possibility that this prophecy can ever be true is if the Mâshiakh was the Greater kâvod in the Second Beit ha-Miqdâsh.

Ribi Y^әhoshua, who taught in the Second Beit ha-Miqdâsh, is the only possible candidate to fulfill that prophecy.

Likewise, all similar scriptural passages dealing with the Mâshiakh [which would include those passages sometimes interpreted as his rebuilding the physical Beit-ha-Miqdâsh and Eiliyâhu ha-Nâvi; ybd] must be regarded as figurative. Only in the Days of the Mâshiakh will everyone know what the metaphors mean and to what they refer. The sages said: 'The only difference between this world and the Days of the Mâshiakh is the subjection of Israel to the nations.'" (Sanhedrin 91b; see Scholem, p. 28f).

"It is told of Rabi Hiyyâ and Rabi Shim·on that they walked in the valley of Arbela early in the morning and saw the dawn breaking on the horizon. Thereupon Rabi Hiyyâ said: 'So, too, is Israel's redemption; at first it will be only slightly visible, then it will shine forth more brightly, and only afterwards will it break forth in all of its glory.'" (Midrâsh Shir ha-Shirim Rabâh, VI, 10).

Ribi Y^әhoshua said, "Yet, as it was in the days of Noakh, so shall it be in the Sh^әkhinâh of the person [i.e., Mâshiakh]. For so they were in the days which were before the Mabul — eating and drinking, being fruitful and multiplying until the day Noakh went into the Teivâh. They did not know until the Mabul came and picked them all up. Thus shall the Sh^әkhinâh of the person [i.e., Mâshiakh] also be" (The N^әtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) 24:37ff).

All over the world, for the first time since 135 C.E. significant numbers of born Jews who had been following Christianity are being won back from Christianity & J*e*s*u*s to Torâh through the Sh^әkhinâh and (pre-135 C.E. pro-Torâh) teachings of Ribi Y^әhoshua reconstructed from the earliest extant sources and published by the N^әtzârim of Ra·ananâ(h), Israel.

N^әtzârim books expose the deception of J*e*s*u*s — the arch-antithesis of Ribi Y^әhoshua — which was perpetrated by the post-135 C.E. pagan Roman Hellenists through their allies, the Hellenist pseudo-Tz^әdoqim Kohanim (aka Kohanei hâ-Rësha), who had predominated the Beit-ha-Miqdâsh since Y^әhoshua Bën-Shimon II Bën-Tzâdoq (ca. B.C.E. 170). As these estranged and assimilated Jews discover how they've been duped by the Hellenists into Christianity, they are abandoning the Roman counterfeit, J*e*s*u*s, to instead follow the exact opposite, Ribi Y^әhoshua in non-selective Torâh-observance.

Our generation has already witnessed the prophesied re-establishment of the State of Israel which marks the end of the dispersion (the NT 'Times of the Gentiles') marking the beginning of the Messianic Era. Moreover, this generation has witnessed the 'regathering' of the people Yisra·eil to the land of Yisra·eil from the four corners of the earth.

"20:40 Since one who truly mourns the righteous is forgiven all his sins, the death of the righteous is an atonement for their entire generation. Many righteous individuals therefore voluntarily accepted suffering and death for the sins of their generation. In doing so, they followed the example of Moses himself who pleaded for his people after the sin of the Golden Calf, "Now, if You would, please forgive their sin. If not, You can blot me out from the book that You have written (Exodus 32:32). It was in this spirit that G-d told His prophet, "You shall bear their sin" (Ezekiel 4:4). Regarding the type of righteous individual who gives his life for his generation, it is also written, "Surely he bore our sickness and suffered our anguish… he was wounded because of our transgressions, crushed because of our sins, his injury was a healing for us" (Isaiah 53:4). When the innocent joyfully accept suffering, they hasten the redemption, as it is written, "You struck the one who rejoiced in doing righteousness… and now we are delivered (Isaiah 64:4)." — Aryeh Kaplan, "Handbook of Jewish Thought," (Jerusalem: Moznaim & Wagshal, 1979), chapter on "Apparent Injustice."

"20:44 There are times when G-d afflicts a person who is completely blameless and undeserving. Such afflictions are intended to attenuate the material barriers that obscure his light and strengthen him spiritually. He can then attain moral and spiritual heights beyond anything he was capable of realizing by his own efforts. These afflictions are called "sufferings of love" (יסורין של אהבה), regarding which it is written, "ha-Sheim corrects those whom He loves, just like a father [corrects] a child whom he cherishes" (Proverbs 3:12). If accepted with love, such suffering can bring a person to the loftiest spiritual heights, as the prophet said, "But G-d preferred to crush him with disease, [to see] if he would offer his soul as compensation… Surely, He will grant him a portion among the great" (Isaiah 53:10,12)." — Aryeh Kaplan, "Handbook of Jewish Thought," (Jerusalem: Moznaim & Wagshal, 1979), chapter on "Apparent Injustice."

"20:47 At times, G-d brings undeserved suffering to the righteous to test them and make them realize their true potential. Similarly, it may be to demonstrate their greatness to others and thereby sanctify G-d's name by showing how the righteous do not serve G-d out of any thought of reward but accept suffering and still do not depart from Him. However, in all such cases, such suffering brings about a greater future reward, as we find, "He may have sent hardships to test you, but it was so that He would eventually do [all the more] good for you" (Deuteronomy 8:16)." — Aryeh Kaplan, "Handbook of Jewish Thought," (Jerusalem: Moznaim & Wagshal, 1979), chapter on "Apparent Injustice."

Next (Suffering Mâshiakh): Rut Rabbah-5.6

Now we see a polyfractured (sectarian) fratricidal people, too many of whose religious shepherds take bribes, extort, wallow in l^әshon hâ-râ (each other as well as non-religious Jews, Reform Jews, Christian Jews, those they perceive to be 'Christian missionaries', etc.) and fester in internecine sinat khinâm. Concerning these shepherds who, by such khilul י--ה, "lose and scatter [His] sheep" י--ה has also prophesied: Yirm^әyâhu 23.1-12.

(Y^әshayahu 56.8 & 11.10, 12; 66.23; Z^әkharyah 14.16; as well as the Aleinu) — As the historically accurate, pro-Torâh, Ribi Y^әhoshua is becoming known again for the first time since 135 C.E., he is being widely recognized as the "emblem of the kindreds" and turning significant numbers of goyim toward Torâh. Most certainly, it is Ribi Y^әhoshua, more than any other in all of history, whom the goyim seek.

Ramb"m states of the Mâshiakh, "He will then arrange the whole world to serve only [Elohim], as it is said, 'For then I shall convert the lips of the kindreds to a ברורה (b^әrurah; clarified, clear) language for them all to call upon the Name of 'ה, and, as one, to serve Him" (Tz^әphanyâh 3:9 with Sanhedrin 91b; see Scholem, p. 28f).

The leadership of the legitimate followers of Ribi Y^әhoshua can only be found where he and the leadership of his original N^әtzârim followers were: within the legitimate Torâh-observant Jewish community in Israel. Today, the N^әtzârim are headed by an Israeli Orthodox Jew in good standing in the Israeli Orthodox Jewish community who is a member of the board of an Israeli Orthodox Jewish Synagogue — in Ra·ananah, a suburb 15km north of Teil Aviv.

The N^әtzârim have students in various stages of progress on every continent… more than 40 countries — from Africa, Asia and the Middle-East to several provinces of Canada; from Europe and Scandanavia to South America and several provinces of Australia and more than 38 states of the US; too many countries to list exhaustively, going completely around the world — a sampling shows students of the N^әtzârim in Israel and Far East countries including Japan, Singapore, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and the Philippines to Nigeria, Namibia and South Africa, Jordan, Finland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Greece, Austria, Britain and the Netherlands, to Washington, D.C., to Mexico, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Puerto Rico and the Antilles, to Argentina, Brazil, Columbia and El Salvador to Hawaii to Guam, New Zealand, Australia and more!

(Mikhâh 5.1) Beit Lekhem — which is now an Arab village!

It is well documented that Ribi Y^әhoshua was born in Beit Lekhem. Today, only Arabs are born in Beit Lekhem. The Israeli government has given Beit Lekhem to the Arabs! Therefore, only Ribi Y^әhoshua can ever fulfill this messianic prophecy!

See Hosheia 3.5, Yirm^әyâhu 30.9; et al. From the time this original prophecy was issued (ca. B.C.E. 465) this required documentation in the public genealogical registries.

"According to Hegesippus, Vespasian [69-79 C.E.], Domitian [81-96 C.E.] and Trajan [98-117 C.E.] hunted down all Jews of Davidic descent and executed them in order to extirpate the royal line on which the Jews had set their hopes" (Emil Schürer, The History Of The Jewish People In The Age Of J*e*s*u*s Christ," I:528).

"It was not without reason…" (Salo Baron, "A Social and Religious History of the Jews," II:121). "The authorities searched out the Jewish families descended from the house of David in order to destroy them and thus eradicate the last remnant of the nation's hope of restoration of the Davidic kingdom" ("Israel," EJ, 9:238).

The sole surviving exceptions are the two genealogies of Ribi Y^әhoshua.

Only after the Romans destroyed all of the Davidic genealogies except two (paternal and maternal genealogies of Ribi Y^әhoshua) have some ventured that the public genealogical registries weren't required for validation of Kohanim and the Mâshiakh.

However, even for valid Kohanim Scripture makes it explicitly clear that the required documentation by public genealogical registries cannot be circumvented (N^әkhemyah 7.63) (Kohanim today are ceremonial; honored as having traditional descent; but none would qualify for service in the Beit ha-Miqdash.)

The only historically authentic genealogies of the Davidic family from the public registries that survive today are those of Ribi Y^әhoshua.

Therefore, Ribi Y^әhoshua is the only possible candidate for Mâshiakh that there can ever be!

According to Ramb"m, if a scion of Dawid advocates "repairing the breaches in Torâh" and "prevails upon Israel to walk in the ways of Torâh… then one may properly assume that he is the Mâshiakh… "

"And if there arise a [scion] from the House of David who meditates on the Torâh and practices its commandments like his ancestor David in accordance with the Written and Oral Law, prevails upon Israel to walk in the ways of the Torâh and to repair its breaches [see discussions in Who Are the Netzarim?], and fights the battles of י--ה, then one may properly assume that he is the Mâshiakh" (Ramb"m Mâshiakh, last two passages of his code of laws, in the eleventh and twelfth paragraphs of the "Laws Concerning the Installation of Kings," Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, Schocken, 1971, p. 28).

Rambam rightly ruled out the arch-antithesis J*e*s*u*s, but he was never presented with the authentic, historical and Torâh Ribi Y^әhoshua and, so, never referred to him at all.

Unlike J*e*s*u*s (the Christian antithesis), Ribi Y^әhoshua is a documented scion of Dawid who advocated, and through his legitimate N^әtzârim followers continues to advocate, and will always continue to advocate, "repairing the breaches in Torâh" and "prevailing upon Israel to walk in the ways of Torâh."

Rambam also wrote: "The Mâshiakh will arise and restore the kingdom of David to its former might. He will rebuild the sanctuary and gather the dispersed of Israel. All the laws will be reinstituted in his days as of old [see discussions in Who Are the Netzarim?]. Sacrifices will be offered and the Sabbatical and Jubilee years will be observed exactly in accordance with the commandments of the Torâh. But whoever does not believe in him, or does not await his coming denies not only the rest of the prophets, but also the Torâh and our teacher Mosheh" (ibid.).

"Do not think that the Mâshiakh needs to perform signs and miracles, bring about a new state of things in the world, revive the dead, and the like. It is not so… Rather it is the case in these matters that the statutes of our Torâh are valid and forever and eternally. Nothing can be added to them or taken away" (ibid.).

Y^әkhëzqeil 44.1-3 — Not only is the East Gate closed, and controlled by Muslims, the Muslims have deliberately established a cemetary there to make it impossible for a human Jew (whom the Jewish Mâshiakh must be) to pass through without being defiled. No candidate for Mâshiakh can possibly fulfill the cited requirement — except Ribi Y^әhoshua who already fulfilled this requirement!

Citing 9.6 for this passage shows that the person uses the Christian OT, not a Bible. In the Bible, this passage is 9.5.

While Christian interpretations distort the pasuq to support the pagan mythological notion of a divine Christ, some Jewish interpretations contradict the constraints imposed by the cantillation.

The constraints of cantillation require, in an English parallel, the insertion of a pause (e.g. a comma, dash or semi-colon) at a spot that Jews have, apparently, found difficult to harmonize with Judaic concepts. The following resolves, finally, all of the aforementioned problems. The traditional Masoretic reading of the phrase under discussion is supported by both IQIs^a (the 'Great Isaiah Scroll' from Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls) and the Aleppo Codex. The latter also supports the Masoretic cantillation. (The cantillation wasn't committed to writing in the days of IQIs^a.)

The cantillation requires a short pause, roughly equivalent to a comma in English, after the word Jibor. Since other commas are needed in the English to separate adjectives, I'll use semi-colons (red in the transliteration) to indicate the cantillation mark. Thus, the cantillation forces the following phrasing:

ויקרא שמו פלא יועץ אל גבור; אבי-עד שר-שלום‮:

(wa-yiqrâ sh^әmo Pëlë yoeitz Eil Jibor; avi-ad sar- shâlom; "and he called his name 'Wonder,' a counselor of Eil Jibor; My Father is until [i.e. forever], a minister of peace").

"Counselor of Eil Jibor" refers to one who counsels others in the Spirit of Eil Jibor — just as I, and other Orthodox Jews, are servants (and, as we follow His Spirit, counselors) of Eil Jibor. This does not remotely suggest one who deigns to counsel Eil Jibor, Who is in no need of any man's counsel.

Notice also that most of the hyphens some interpretors use to string it all together as if it has to be one name are not only absent in the Hebrew, but precluded by the cantillation.

It's essential to understand that this passage was originally interpreted in its historical setting. That understanding remained unchanged for nearly a millennium and Scripture informs us that ha-Sheim doesn't change. The original meaning is the only true understanding.

Y^әshayâhu ha-Nâvi wrote this passage ca. BCE 720 relative to Âkhâz ha-mëlëkh (7.1). The child Y^әshayâhu names in 9.5 prophesies a wonderful and righteous son of the disappointing and evil Âkhâz: Khizqiyâh ha-mëlëkh (see M^әlâkhim Beit 18.3-8; 20.2ff; Divrei ha-Yâmim Beit 31.1-4). Nor was Y^әshayâhu the only Nâvi prophesying about the blasphemous rule of Âkhâz and the cleansing of Yisrâ·eil by his son, Khizqiyâh ha-mëlëkh. Hosheia ha-Nâvi (see 1.1ff) and Mikhah ha-Nâvi (see 1.1ff) were proclaiming parallel prophecies.

These prophecies about Khizqiyâh ha-mëlëkh were seen as harbingers of the role of the Mâshiakh. However, no one in Yisrâ·eil regarded Khizqiyâh ha-mëlëkh as divine!!! Before 135 CE, neither did anyone in Yisrâ·eil associate this prophecy with a "divine son." This pagan concept wasn't associated with this Scripture until the Roman Hellenists introduced their pagan idea into their budding Christianity some time after 135 CE.

Y^әshayâhu 9.5 was understood by the Sages as a general vision of the role of the Mâshiakh, but has never been regarded in Yisrâ·eil as suggesting divinity of the prophesied son / Mâshiakh. This is confirmed in that all three of these n^әviyim clearly prophesied within the teachings of Torâh (or they would have been stoned to death as heretics, not recognized as N^әviyim and included in the Bible). D^әvârim 13.2-6, along with a plethora of other Scriptures from Torâh, absolutely prohibits this post-135 CE pagan Roman, Hellenist-Christian, goyim fabrication.

Ha-Sheim doesn't change (Malâkhi 3.6; T^әhilim 89.35). The meaning of this passage from BCE 720 cannot have changed. For more than 8 centuries after Y^әshayâhu proclaimed this prophecy, Messianic implications remained strictly within Torâh constraints, envisioning a mortal human king patterned after Khizqiyâh ha-mëlëkh – whom NO one regarded as a 'divine son savior'!!! For these first 8 centuries, NO one in Yisrâ·eil would have even imagined that this prophecy by a Torâh-teaching Nâvi patterned his prophecy after the Egyptian I*sis and H*orus!!!

The implications of Christian claims is unavoidable: if the passage prophesies a 'divine son savior' then Khizqiyâh ha-mëlëkh HAD to have been the first 'divine son savior'!!! (Well, after H*orus anyway.)

The idea of a divine son savior doesn't predate 135 CE in the Judaic community. The conclusion is therefore unavoidable: The post-135 CE Christian innovation of a divine son savior, contradicting Torâh, cannot be true.

Confirming this, the concept of a divine son savior tracks back to the Roman religion of Z*eus and the Roman pantheon and, before that, the Greek g*ods and, before that, I*sis and H*orus in the Egyptian religion.

The 'divine son savior' concept has NO documentation in Tana"kh, is prohibited by Tana"kh, yet DOES track back to Roman, Greek and Egyptian religions. Hello?

Therefore, the Christian concept of a 'divine son savior' is nothing more than yet another repackaging of the religion of the pagans deriving from the Egyptian, Greek and Roman religions, explicitly prohibited by Torâh.

These adjectives modify Eil Jibor, not "Wonder," as "Father of until (i.e. Source of forever), Minister of peace." The child referred to — who, by the way, was born and lived during the time of Akhaz ha-Melekh (cf. 7.1ff) — was simply named פלא (Pëlë; wonder).

However, there's a far more crucial misconception regarding Hebrew names. I know a number of Jews named Y^әhoshua. Does that make any of them (and thousands of others like him) "the Savior" of Israel? The father of one of my daughter's schoolmates (before graduating from an Orthodox Jewish religious girl's school) is named אבי-עד (avi-ad; "Father of until," i.e. "Origin of forever"). Is my daughter's friend's father, therefore, divine? Or does his name simply honor י--ה?

The traditional Christian interpretation of Y^әshayahu 9.5 is another example of a pagan concept that was never raised until after 135 C.E.

According to Talmud (Sukah 52a), the coming of the Mashiakh Ben-Yoseiph is described as one "whose coming precedes that of the Mashiakh Ben-Dawid, and who will die in combat with the enemies of י--ה and Israel" (see also "Messiah," Ency. Jud., 11.1411).

The Midrash also declares that the Mâshiakh was prophesied to suffer for his people. Ruth Rabbah 5.6 explains that Rut 2.14 refers to the Mâshiakh. "Come here," Ruth Rabbah 5.6 explains, refers to approaching the royal Davidic palace. "Eat of the bread" refers to the bread of the royal palace and "dip your morsel in the vinegar" refers to the sufferings of the Mâshiakh, as it is said, "and מחלל (m^әkholal; he is pierced) מפשענו (mi-p^әsha·einu;as a result of our felonious-transgressions-of-Torâh)" — commentary to