NOT a messianic prophecy

DontNeedChrist:

The following will be refutations of so-called messianic prophecies that christians and the like love to point out are proofs of jesus' messiahship and fulfillment of the messianic agenda.

DontNeedChrist:

ISAIAH 9:6 (9:5 in the Hebrew Scriptures)

The christian translation (KJV):
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty G-d, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

The more accurate Jewish translation:
"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty G-d, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

The first huge problem for missionaries is that this passage is in past tense.

Yes, christian translations may put it in "future" tense (“for unto us a child is born”) but it is actually in past tense. "For a child has been born to us."

The difference is one of “active” and “passive” verbs.

• active verb: [subject] does [verb] to [direct object] (the man hit the wall).
• passive verb: [verb] is done to [subject] by [indirect object] (the wall was hit by the man).

In this case "was given" is passive, not active "is born."

Why do you suppose that the christian versions change the verb from passive to active? Because this is a "proof text!"

Let's look at each word:

כִּי - "For or because"

יֶלֶד - "a child"

יֻלַּד־ - "was sired" (past tense).To be future tense the יֻלַד - "was sired" would be conjugated (and spelled) differently. This is also referencing the father's participation in the birth (siring, aka "sperm" provider).

Check other passages in christian MIS-translations and it is clear that יֻלַד / "was born" is properly translated in other passages:

"a son was born; and he called" Genesis 4:26 is the NAS and "to him also there was born a son" in the King James Version (KJV).

Isaiah is speaking about an event which already happened (the birth of חִזְקִיָּ֫הוּ / Hizkiyyahu / Hezekiah), the son of King Ahaz.The birth of Hezekiah was important, and Isaiah prophesied in this passage that there would be peace when he reigned (which there was) after all the wars during his father Ahaz's reign. Hezekiah was known as the "prince of peace" because of his peaceful reign.

It takes place around the 4th year of King Ahaz' reign as king of Judah and Isaiah is giving Ahaz a prophecy about his son, Hezekiah.

If a missionary claims that this passage is a "prophetic future tense" (even though it is clearly in perfect/past tense) ask them how they know which passage is "prophetic future" and which is past since there is no grammatic difference. Native Hebrew speakers have never heard of the "prophetic future tense" -- it is a concept the christians invented for their proof texts.

Isaiah 9:6 is not messianic and not about jesus and it's actually Isaiah 9:5, not 6.

Zanjan: Are you doing the translations yourself?

Zanjan: Neither King Ahas or Hezekiah could be described as "...the almighty God, the everlasting Father....".

Meanwhile, Christians believe Jesus Christ was Almighty God, the everlasting Father but they can't call Him the Prince of Peace because He said He didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. That sword of truth was used to divide.

Furthermore, look at the context in the Hebrew Bible - it is "peace without end". Since when has that ever occurred in Israel?

Isaiah prophesied things thousands of years into the Jewish future so I'd suggest he wasn't referring to any of the above personages.

DontNeedChrist:

Zanjan: "Neither King Ahas or Hezekiah could be described as "...the almighty God, the everlasting Father....".

Reread what I typed. I never said those terms apply to Achaz or Hizkiyyahu. Those terms apply to G-d only. See below:

"...and the wondrous adviser, the mighty G-d, the everlasting Father, called his name, 'the prince of peace.'" The only term that applies to Hizkiyyahu is "prince of peace."

Regarding your peace without end comment, you left part of the verse out which states "FROM NOW and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this."

FROM NOW meaning Hizkiyyahu's reign. Did jesus reign over 700 years before he was born as king simultaneously with Hizkiyyahu? Really? When did jesus ever reign as king ever? It does not apply to jesus or the messiah. This "from now" was 700 years before jesus.

The "FROM NOW" passage can only mean from the time Isaiah is speaking. The "to eternity" could mean during the "eternity" (or lifespan) of Hizkiyyahu which G-d actually extended by fifteen years due to his merit -- or it might be a prayer, a hope on the part of Isaiah. Also bear in mind the very next line of Isaiah 9 begins a prophecy that the northern kingdom of Israel, who was idolatrous, will fall -- thus showing us that Isaiah knew that there would be no eternal peace "from now to eternity."

Was there peace from 700 years before jesus until his birth? Nope. Of course not.
The first two words of that section disqualify this as possibly being about jesus. The context and tense is proof. Cherry picking does you no favors.

DontNeedChrist:

PREFACE: The Book of Tehillim (Psalms) is poetry—a journal written mostly by King David. Several psalms were written by others ABOUT David. He recounts his emotions from both ends of the spectrum as he is pursued by his enemies. Psalms is not prophecy. There are no messianic prophecies in the Book of Psalms regardless of how many claims christians or others claim. Similarities with jesus are seized upon as "proofs" but when closely examined the arguments collapse.


Psalm 22:16 (22:17 in the Hebrew Scriptures)

The christian translation (KJV):

"For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet."

The more accurate Jewish translation:
“For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, at my hands and feet.”

The Hebrew phrase “k’ari” is accurately translated as “like a lion." The Hebrew word was mistranslated to “karu” which means “they dug” which isn’t even the same meaning as “pierced.” The Hebrew word for pierced was never originally in this verse. This is David documenting his feelings as his enemies close in on him in the present tense.

In Genesis chapter 49, Jacob describes each of the tribes—many times using animals as metaphors. Judah is like a lion.

Verse 9 reads:
"A cub [and] a grown lion is Judah. From the prey, my son, you withdrew. He crouched, rested LIKE A LION (k'ari), and LIKE A LION (k'ari), who will rouse him?"

The same Hebrew word "k'ari" is used here as in the psalm. No difference.

David uses many animals as metaphors for his enemies. In the very same psalm he uses terms like lions, dogs, oxen and bulls. He refers to himself as a worm. All metaphors. All consistent.

This psalm is written by David about HIMSELF who is deeply distressed while fleeing Saul and his troops. Half the kingdom was trying to kill him. David finds comfort in his faith in G-d, as he does in his other psalms. It’s written in the PAST AND PRESENT TENSE and is not a prophecy in any way. It's not a prophecy about crucifixion or jesus or the messiah.

Zanjan: DNC, I see what you're saying and, of course, Hezekiah was a righteous king but I wasn't finished with that.

When the Assyrians advanced on Judah, there wasn't peace, there was a crisis. It was the Lord who saved the kingdom, not Hezekiah because the Lord had promised to protect Jerusalem. Hezekiah didn't negotiate any peace treaty with the Assyrians so how could he be called the prince of peace when he wasn't a peacemaker?

He turned the people back from idol worship, a good thing, but I seriously doubt smashing their idols and forcing them to comply was a peaceful approach or smooth transition.

When Hezekiah waxed proud, there wasn't peace - God was greatly displeased. Isaiah rebuked Hezekiah and told him God's punishment was the removal of all the Babylonian's gifted riches and Hezekiah's descendants would be taken away to Babylon along with them.
I can't imagine the king and all of his subjects having any peace of mind knowing that.

Hezekiah had no more authority than any other **temporal** king - only a spiritual king would have more. It goes without saying a prince is the son of a king, or the son of a prince - like father like son. If there is a prince of peace, who is the king of peace? Christ was not a temporal king/prince and Hezekiah's father was a wicked man.

Eternity has no time or space. There's nothing in this whole verse (which originally had no grammar) to indicate how long the peace would last. We agree the verse is directed to God - "to Him who increases authority and for peace without end". From "now to eternity" can only indicate 'at this moment and always.' Nothing is "always" with humans.

Hezekiah left no influence behind and nothing enduring except this story. His successor, his son, was a wicked man. There's nothing more I can say about that.

Zanjan: Psalm 22. Since when were the righteous NOT attacked by the wicked? This is a predictable pattern of behavior, involving a classic dynamic.

How much more so when that righteous person is a Prophet or Revelator of God. They all suffered what no ordinary man suffered; magnify it at least tenfold for Them because they're pure and innocent. How grave the injustice!

Jesus cited the first words of this Psalm (one every Jew knew by heart) while He was dying on the cross, not to show that it was a prophecy but that parts of it reflected how He was being treated.

The trick is the vinegar and sponge on a stick - would one normally have these things laying around at a crucifixion?

What if Jesus hadn't said, "I thirst"? Psalm 69:21b: “For my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.”

A dying person is thirsty but can't drink (like in the Psalm) - that's why we dip a sponge on a stick into water and swab their mouth and lips. They don't have to ask - their dehydration is visible. How did Jesus make the soldiers cast lots for His garments, like in the Psalm? How would Romans even be aware of this Psalm?

When the Psalm was written, it may have been metaphorical but when it played out in reality, as a pattern, that made parts of it prophetic. The author is uncertain.

I don't think King David was prophet material; more likely *parts* of this psalm may have been borrowed from the Prophet Nathan, counsel to David. No one argues that Jesus was a son of David - that is, a descendant of the same tribe.

Zanjan: David did all his fighting before he became king. He was a soldier who killed many men so no, he wasn't innocent. He started out as a man after God's own heart - courageous, strong and obedient - yet still just a fallible man who had a few major slips. Meanwhile, he won all his battles; his enemies weren't a challenge, not even Saul.

The wicked are like ravening wolves. Both wild dogs and lions are apex predators but the lion is used as a kingly symbol, all the way back to ancient Egypt. The only way either can "dig into you" is if your body is already dead and they're tucking into the meat for dinner. OTH, pride can dig into you but it's rather thorny (Paul's lament).

Do you know who your enemy is? It's someone who gets in your way. Who was in King David's way when he wanted Bathsheba for himself?

The fang and claw of an enemy can damage you but nothing pierces like the stab of a broken heart. King David was certainly not overcome by rejection after being rightly chastised and punished by God. However, he was tragically overcome by grief for his favourite son, Absalom, who had, in the end, turned against him.

Liken this event to Jesus weeping over the Jews, the first who should have known who He was.

So, DNC, you're correct - there's nothing to suggest messiahship in these Psalms but they do indicate who is true.

DontNeedChrist:

This next one is in fact a messianic prophecy but not how christiains characterize it. The christian claim is this is a prophecy of the birthplace of the messiah — namely Bethlehem. This is not the case.

Micah 5:2 (5:1 in the Hebrew Scriptures)

The christian translation (KJV):
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

The more accurate Jewish translation:
"And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore."

Bethlehem Ephrathah was a clan within the tribe of Judah. In fact, the verse clearly states that it was least among the clans of Judah. The christian translation leaves that part out. Bethlehem, in the original Hebrew is Beit-Lechem, the house of Lechem (lechem means bread), and can refer to a city OR clan. In this case, since the text says CLAN, it means CLAN. So this verse is referring to a certain CLAN within the tribe of Judah that originated in Bethlehem NOT where the messiah will be born. It doesn't matter what city the messiah is born in, just what CLAN he is from in regard to this verse. The phrase "and his origin is from old, from ancient times," simply means the messiah will come from a family with a long lineage—The House of David.

This is not a prophecy of the birthplace of the Messiah. The town of Bethlehem was the place from which King David's family originated, and this verse speaks of Bethlehem as the messiah's ANCESTOR'S place of origin, not his place of birth. It doesn't matter where the messiah will be born. The Hebrew text clearly states that the messiah's ANCESTORS (David and his family) came from Bethlehem, NOT THE MESSIAH HIMSELF.

Zanjan: Note that the Bible mentions the tribe for both David and Jesus; it mentions members of their clan by name - a clan is mediate, family, too biologically close to marry each other. A tribe is a number of clans. The clan, itself, is not meaningful with regard to things of the spirit.

Bethlehem was already established when both of them were born.

At the time, there were two Bethlehems; both are there to this day. There’s the traditional city IN Judah, and the lesser city, originally known as Bethlehem of Zebulun, located 10 Klms (6 miles) Northwest of Nazareth.

The southerly location was also 10 klms (6 miles) Southwest of Jerusalem – tricky, huh? David was anointed king in this location, which is near Hebron, as the text says. There is speculation he was born there but no text to back that up. (Saul was crowned king at *the Gilgal*, a place where the people congregated, not a city).

Obviously, a person from one tribe could live anywhere they chose.

While I hesitate to refer to the NT, one historical event is significant - Herod should have known were to look for the infant Messiah but He didn’t. He swept the whole land, as far as the coastal regions.

The House of David can only refer to David’s biological family. David didn’t come from royal lineage – he started a new one. The Throne of David was a temporal throne, which ended 2 thousand years ago and can’t be recovered.

“The phrase "and his origin is from old, from ancient times,"

This could refer to God (the Ancient Beauty, Ancient of Days) or Abraham. See, Israel was initially Jacob, not a land – the Israelites were individuals belonging to the right Spirit; they were lovers of God, those who no longer put themselves first. All the Prophets of God were descended from Abraham and always will be.

Therefore, the messiah of the *Israelites* would definitely need to be a prophet of God. But the Jews (meaning one who comes from Judah) never saw their messiah. Nobody rescued them. Only a Child of Israel knows how to rescue himself and others.

DontNeedChrist:

Again, Tehillim (Psalms) is NOT prophecy. It's poetry. There are no messianic prophecies in Psalms regardless of any christian claim.


PSALM 110:1 (KJV) —
"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

More accurate Jewish translation:
"Of David a psalm. The word of the Lord to my master; 'Wait for My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet.'"

The misapplication of this verse to jesus stems from a mistranslation as if G-d were speaking to a second god or to Himself "My LORD said to my Lord." An English reader would be forgiven for thinking the two words in Hebrew are identical.

They are not.

The first word translated as LORD is G-d's holiest name in Hebrew. יְהֹוָ-ה The second word translated as “Lord" is a totally different word. It’s לַאדֹנִי (adoni) which means my master, or my lord but does not refer to G-d Himself. So we have two completely different words with different meanings but the English MIS-translation hides that from the reader.

The word אָדוֹן / "adon" is a root word which can be used to speak of G-d or humans -- but the word in the psalm is not אָדוֹן / adon.  In the psalm it is אֲדֹנִ֗י / adoni which is only used to speak of human masters, not G-d.

adoni is singular and has the possessive suffix “my” added to it.

אֲדֹנַי adonai is plural, again with the possessive suffix “my” added to it, and is translated as“gentlemen!” or “sirs!”

In this line the poet has G-d speaking to someone the poet considers his human master (lord). HUMAN MASTER, NOT G-D. The christian translation would have the reader think that G-d is talking to Himself since they claim jesus is G-d or at least a part of the godhead.

The author of this psalm is not David. This psalm was written by someone else about David – thus it is David who is the psalmist's master.  The poet is imagining G-d speaking to David and saying "don't worry about your enemies, I (G-d) will get rid of them for you."

Did G-d get rid of jesus' enemies?

Nope.

jesus' enemies killed him.

The most important point of all regarding this psalm is that HEBREW HAS NO CAPITAL LETTERS. (Ironic to have to use capital letters in English to drive home this point.) So to translate one word in all caps and the next which just a title cap is not only completely inaccurate but highly misleading.

This passage has nothing to do with the messiah, or anyone ascending to sit next to G-d literally (this is a POEM not a prophecy so the poet is speaking allegorically and stating that King David has been anointed by G-d to be His king).  

E s s e n c e: DNC, thank you for explaining so eloquently.

DontNeedChrist:

Zanjan, I deleted your post because it fails to even remotely address the subject matter. Please try to be coherent in your ramblings if possible.

Zanjan: I spoke to the text - the subject matter. I think you didn't like what I said about " the footstool".

If a dynamic is real, it will be repeated. When it is, people think that's a prophecy.

DontNeedChrist:

That was the only part that pertained to the subject matter. The rest was unrelated and a head scratcher at best just as the last part of your most recent post is.

DontNeedChrist:

LEVITICUS 17:11 is often cited to "prove" that blood atonement is needed to atone for sins. The KJV translates it like this: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

This interpretation has problems. First, the passage does not say that blood is the ONLY means to atone for souls, and, in fact, the Torah lists several other means -- e.g. flour (Leviticus 5:11), money (Exodus 30:15-16), jewelry (Numbers 31:50) or putting fire from the altar in a censure (Numbers 17:11).

In addition, Hosea 14:3 says that our lips (i.e. prayers from our lips) can substitute for bulls (i,.e. blood sacrifice), Micah (6:6-8) says G-d wants a good heart rather than blood sacrifices, and the both Isaiah (1:11) and the Psalmist (40 and 50) say that G-d does not need or care about blood sacrifices. Blood is JUST ONE of many means for atonement.

Secondly, Leviticus 17:11 speaks of atonement ("kapare" in Hebrew) for our souls, but not for 'sin' -- i.e. an act of intentional wickedness. What else could atonement be for? The Torah evidently has additional uses for the word, because it speaks of atonement for acts committed by mistake (which we do not usually consider sins), and also speaks of making atonement for the altar (Exodus 29:36). The word here may have the implication of making durably holy by applying a coating (see the story of Noach's ark), but whatever the meaning, one cannot impute deliberate wrongdoing to an altar.

One cannot apply this verse to jesus' blood in any event, because it specifies blood on the altar, and jesus did not die on any altar, let alone the altar in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem which is clearly the altar Leviticus is referring to.

Finally, the verse is taken out of context. Verses 10 to 14 say (KJV):

10: And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

12: Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

13: And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

14: For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

In other words, the verse has nothing to do with salvation. It is about the dietary laws -- specifically, the comments about the life being in the blood are an explanation for the prohibition against eating blood.

This verse has nothing to do with jesus, the messiah, crucifixion, blood being the ONLY means of atonement or atonement of the soul in the future.

E s s e n c e: What I have noticed is that even when presented with evidence that can be found in a non-pseudo-theological knowledge, where you have to do some appropriate research done by people who REALLY know and understand Judaic writings which are Jewish Scholars.

This people must possess certifications that are traceable to see the lineage from where they got educated. Instead people like Zanjan who believes to know it all and knows nothing of it all, go to pseudo theological education that has an agenda based in ignorance to create a narrative that suits their ignorance.

They spend so much time trying to destroy Judaic writings and create their own interpretations to build their religious beliefs by destroying others, believing they are the only one's that hold a truth over all.

DontNeedChrist:

GENESIS 3:15 –
"And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel."

This episode in Genesis is the punishment G-d places on Chava (Eve) and the serpent.

Christians claim this passage is messianic and somehow foretells the "virgin birth" because it speaks of the "seed of woman" and women don't have seed (men do).

The word translated as "seed" is זרע [zera]. It literally means the living offspring from the parent. For women this would be translated as "egg" or "ova."

This term is not used uniquely of Chava (Eve). Hagar (the concubine of Abraham who gives birth to Ishmael) is also described as having זרע [zera] --- so there goes the whole "seed of the women" claim. There are other instances in the Torah and Tanach where females are attributed with "seed."

All of Hagar’s descendants, considered as a group, are called “her zera” in Genesis 16:10.

All of Rebecca's descendants, again considered as a group, are also referred to as “her zera” in Genesis 24:60.

In Isaiah 54:3 the prophet, addressing an unnamed 'akarah (childless woman) who represents the depopulated city of Jerusalem, says: “your zera [offspring] will inherit whole nations and they will repopulate deserted cities.”

With that part of the verse cleared up we move to the second part, "He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel." Christians claim this is a foretelling of jesus defeating satan. Since it's already established that "seed" simply means offspring it does not refer to any individual.

All Genesis 3 is saying is that the live offspring זרע (zera) of Eve will hate the live offspring (zera) of the serpent. Nothing more or less. There was nothing unique about the fact that Eve had zera. The plain meaning is clear -- and Eve was not unique in being a woman with "seed."

haSatan is a Hebrew word meaning adversary. There is no devil in the Tanach (or in Judaism). In any case the word satan is not used ANYWHERE in Genesis 3:15. It simply refers to a serpent who is a "beast of the field." An animal. Not the devil. Not satan.

Genesis 3:15 has nothing to do with the messiah, jesus or satan. This is just a forced attempt to christianize Hebrew scripture and with close examination it fails.

DontNeedChrist:

Missionaries claim Psalm 30:2 is a prophecy about the resurrection of jesus.

They claim its fulfillment is documented in the book of Acts among others in the NT.

Acts 2:32, KJV:
"This jesus hath G-d raised up, whereof we all are witnesses."

Psalm 30 begins with:
"A song written by King David to be sung at the dedication of the first Temple built by his son, Solomon. It begins "A mizmor (psalm) for the inauguration of the Beit HaMikdash (the Temple), by David.

"I will exalt You, O Lord, for You have raised me up, and You have not allowed my enemies to rejoice over me."

Problem is, jesus' enemies DID rejoice over him -- one proof this psalm does not fit jesus.

The psalm continues:
"O Lord, I have cried out to You, and You have healed me. O Lord, You have brought my soul from the grave (sheol); You have revived me from my descent into the pit."

Far from dying and resurrecting, the psalmist is thanking G-d for SAVING HIM FROM DEATH. David is speaking of his life not being taken -- not a soul that died and was resurrected. David speaks of G-d healing him (ergo he did not die and resurrect as claimed by christians): "O L-rd, I have cried out to You, and You have healed me."

This psalm is King David's song of celebration. David speaks for the Jewish people, proclaiming a renewed devotion to G-d and offering thanks to Him for being saved from death and destruction even though he had many enemies throughout his life.

There is no biblical prophecy that the messiah will die and be resurrected as a matter of fact, if a person dies before fulfilling all the messianic prophecies he is NOT the messiah.
Jews DO believe in resurrection -- but this psalm does not discuss resurrection. If one misread it as such then the resurrected one would have to be David who wrote the psalm (as the author speaks of G-d saving him from his enemies -- it is not a prediction of someone else, aka jesus).

When the TRUE messiah comes the righteous will be resurrected and the soul reunited with body. If the Tanach tells us that one day ALL the righteous will be resurrected, how can one person dying and resurrecting be a prophecy about the messiah who is one person? If anything, since ALL the righteous will resurrect, jesus' supposed resurrection is the OPPOSITE of a messianic prophecy. We know the prophecy of ALL the righteous being resurrected has never happened even to this day.

There is no prophecy in the Tanach that the messiah will die and be resurrected, and Psalm 30 is not about resurrection, it is not a prophecy and it does not fit jesus whose enemies killed him (rather than he being saved from his enemies as is the person in the psalm).

JX Amaro: Re: Psalm 22

In the last two sentences of the sixth post of this thread, DNC states in regard to Psalm 22:
“It’s written in the PAST AND PRESENT TENSE and is not a prophecy in any way. It's not a prophecy about crucifixion or jesus or the messiah.”
A couple postings down from this, he doubles down on the point:
“Again, Tehillim (Psalms) is NOT prophecy. It's poetry. There are no messianic prophecies in Psalms regardless of any christian claim.”

As Christian claims are apparently unacceptable, let's see what Rashi, considered one of the greatest of all the Jewish commentators, had to say. Contrary to DNC's wild and dogmatic claims, Rashi believed that Psalm 22 was a prophecy of the future and about the Messiah!

Here is verse 2 (a): “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”
And here is Rashi's commentary on that part of the verse: “They (the Jews) are destined to go into exile and David recited this prayer for the future.”
Now take note of verse 27: “The humble shall eat and be sated; they shall praise the Lord, those who seek him; your hearts shall live forever.”
And here is Rashi's commentary on the timing of the verse, at what time the above would occur: “At the time of our redemption, in the days of our messiah.”

So much for DNC's claim that Psalm 22 has nothing to do with the Future, Prophecy or the Messiah. Zonk. Zonk. Zonk. Three strikes, you're out.

If you seek to fact-check this, go to this link (and make sure to hit the “Show” button near the top to see Rashi's verse-for-verse commentary):
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16243/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-22.htm

(Note: On the whole “kari/karu” business and pierce/dig etc, I have already addressed that – exhaustively – on page 4 of the thread entitled, “Blatant Mistranslations?! Contextual Dishonesty?!...” OP: amoregrowers.)

E s s e n c e: he is using Rashi to make his case without understanding the language of root and branches used by Rashi.
Just another delusion based in what is unknown.

DontNeedChrist:

Let's examine David's words here:
“My G-d, My G-d, why have you forsaken me?”

This is a prophecy? How? Because jesus parroted his words on the cross? So what? Did David foretell that a man would be crucified and would say those exact words? NO. These are David's words as he cries out to G-d in anguish feeling separated from His Creator. This is no prophecy. It's the furthest thing from prophecy.

"As Christian claims are apparently unacceptable, let's see what Rashi, considered one of the greatest of all the Jewish commentators, had to say. Contrary to DNC's wild and dogmatic claims, Rashi believed that Psalm 22 was a prophecy of the future and about the Messiah!" – JX Amalek

Here's a newsflash for you. Rashi was not a prophet. What you present is his COMMENTARY. His OPINION. Rashi is entitled to his opinion but it's not halachah. There are plenty of sages that disagree with Rashi on many issues and I'm sure there are many that would disagree with him on this one as well. You think opinion is prophecy? You are sadly mistaken. Your arguments are a joke.

David did not utter a prophecy in this passage and Rashi does not prophecy at all as he is not a prophet. He offered his opinion. Big difference. You need to improve your study skills in a big way. "Zonk, zonk, zonk." I would say nice try but it's not even close to nice.

E s s e n c e: DNC
I give two thumbs up.
Nicely done, to the point, eloquently and based on facts.

JX Amaro: This is the most bonkers and absurd straw-man argument I have ever seen on Wire. Where do I say Rashi is a prophet? Cite the paragraph. Cite the sentence. Where? I cite Rashi as a COMMENTATOR giving his opinion that Psalm 22 is a prophecy and I listed links to the source material. This is gross intellectual dishonesty on DNC's part. Anyone can read my post, assuming DNC doesn't take it down. And anyone can see that it has not been edited by me. I never stated Rashi is a prophet. This is truly pathetic. I'll bet real money that DNC will take his absurd post down within 24 hours and offer no explanations. LMAO!!!!!!