I have just read your harsh reply to my post and to be honest, such an unjust rebuke has left me worried. If only it were my simple assertion about the Messiah that provoked it, I would just try to prove my point and that would be all. But you go to such extremes with your debasing animosity that I will now have to address it fully.
First off, it was an erudite teacher of mine, a Jesuit preceptor in my school, who told me many years ago that Jews tend to believe in a divine Messiah. And since I had no reason to question his claim, I included it in my post. After all, I remembered it most vividly. But then, this would not be enough for you, so I have additionally made a quick research on the Internet.
And lo, I have found there is at least a major school of thought that based on an important, I would say central, quote from the Bible, says the Messiah is a divine personality (“God himself”). You may find the article here: http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/jahtsidqenu.html .I will quote a few paragraphs from it:
"In it, we see revealed that the Messiah, the Branch whom God was going to raise to fill the throne of David, would be given the name of the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, YHWH Tsidqenu (Wnq@d+x! hw*hy!). As we will see below, this phraseology points us to the divine nature of the Messiah, specifically that He was to be YHWH Himself. Below, this shall be briefly explored, and some of the more common Jewish objections to this proposition will be examined.
Let us look at the passage in question,
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jeremiah 23:5-6)
From what is said in this passage, we see that this portion is specifically Messianic in content. This is seen both from the term "Branch" (tsemach - jm^x#), and from the Davidic ancestry of the King who was to be raised up.
The name "Branch" is almost universally accepted as Messianic, both by Jews and Christians alike. This term is a metaphor, literally meaning "shoot" or "sprout", and signifies the new life that Messiah was to bring to the Davidic monarchy, which was presumed dead. Further, the implications of the name were that Messiah would bring new life to all mankind, not just to His people Israel. This description as "Branch" appears several times in the Hebrew scriptures. It appears in Isaiah 4:2, where the Messiah's presence in the coming Kingdom is described as "beautiful" and "glorious". In Isaiah 11:1, the Branch is said to come from the "stem of Jesse", and is filled with the Spirit of God. In Jeremiah 33:15, the Branch again is said to come from the royal line of David. Yet, this same Branch from the royal line is termed God's servant in Zechariah 3:8, and is described as a man who will carry out God's work in Zechariah 6:12.
The rabbis recognised that Branch was a name for the Messiah. R. Y'hoshu'a notes this as a name for Messiah from Zechariah 6:121. Rav Huna also refers to this as a Messianic name2, with Buber concurring in his commentary notes on that statement3.
[…]
Most interesting to our point here is that many of the rabbis recognised that the Messiah would be God. R. Abba bar Kahana explicitly stated that the Messiah's name would be "LORD (Adonai)", and quotes Jeremiah 23:6 as evidence8. Smith remarks that the Jewish teachers frequently interpreted this name in Jeremiah 23:6 as a personal name of the Messiah (rather than as a title for Israel or Jerusalem) in the Targumim, Midrashim, and Talmud9. In the Peshikta Rabbah, we find the statement,
"You find that at the beginning of the creation of the world King Messiah was born [and] that he emerged in the thought [of God] even before the world was created..."10
And so on, so forth. See in: “The LORD our Righteousness
Jeremiah 23:5-6 Shows That the Messiah Was to be God Himself."
I say, iIf you had taken the trouble to look at Jeremiah 23:5 you might have seen my claim was not unfounded.
Here is another biblical quote in an article, this one from 1. Isaiah 9:6 (in http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/questions/JesusisGod.htm), plus a few paragraphs in it:
“‘For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;’ This child which is born is called El-Gibbor, which as I’m sure you know is 'Mighty God' and is never used of a man. Avi-Ad is literally ‘Father of Eternity’ and could never describe a mere man.
In the Targum of Isaiah we read: "His name has been called from old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, the Anointed One (Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us."
Midrash Mishle, S. Buber edition: The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Pele ["Miracle"], Yo'etz ["Counselor"], Mashiah ["Messiah"], El ["God"], Gibbor ["Hero"], and Avi 'Ad Shalom ["Eternal Father of Peace"]
The great rabbi Ibn Ezra said: There are some interpreters who say that ‘wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father’ are the names of God, and that only ‘prince of peace’ is the name of the child. But according to my view, the right interpretation is that they are all the names of the child. (Walter Riggans, Yeshua Ben David [Wowborough, East Sussex; MARC, 1995], p. 370)
My note: here the source may be Christian but you will agree it rightly applies to our case.
As to the corpus of your other implications, I see them crumbling down like a house of cards since you have built them up from imaginary elaborations on my supposedly faulty sources (or "fairy tales" as you derisively call them). However, this post is becoming too lengthy and I am afraid I must stop here. I will just copy a few paragraphs from a recent post in my forum that might give you an indication of how I deal with my sources.
"To me at least, however, […] the fact remains that we seem to be on the verge of a hugely important shift of age that promises a complete global change for good in all respects. One of the things that have always attracted me is the study of these age shifts in every society and in the world at large. Even to the untrained eye, they always seem to have occurred at a moment of special transcendence for humankind, and been marked by the presence of a multitude of visionaries and their teachings. And, most importantly, by new religious beliefs.
Still more, every time a great shift of age has occurred, a great personality has reformulated and, in some cases, changed the existing beliefs to a great extent. Some of these teachings were considered absurd, others were seen as revolutionary. And some were regarded as heretical by the existing religious hierarchies. Some of them were pure nonsense, that’s for sure. But some would prove to be of such an immense worth that they have lasted till our days. And for some reason, they attracted the simple people. As to their teachers, they were seen as revolutionary, heretical, or downright cheating rascals by the existing hierarchies. But, for some reason, maybe by dint of their strong personality, or the fact that they radiated a god-like nature, they attracted multitudes. I am awaiting such a great personality to manifest soon.
In fact, I have been privately studying the deeds and writings from likely candidates yet unfortunately to no great avail till now. But some of the channeled messages do have a certain prophetic quality that makes me think there is more in them than mere divination. Many things have occurred as anticipated by these messages. And their authors reminded me of the old prophets and, by comparison, I can say there probably are great and not as great prophets now, and sometimes there may also be one or two irrelevant messages from them that we can simply put aside, such as people would surely do with the old prophetic messages in all their diversity. And just as would happen in the past, I mean in times of great social and religious ebullition, there also are in our time multitude of false prophets that we can and must completely ignore.
Summing up, from now on I will try to only post such messages as seem to me transcendent and reliable, but will always try to write a few introductory lines or add a commentary whenever I feel there are any dubious points in them. Above all, I will keep only posting those messages that really resonate with me."
Blessings,
Miguel