Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[WonderingWorrier]

It doesn't specifically say Yeshua is the return in that verse; yet the context that he has to be the Bridegroom, is shown in the prophetic Messianic promise.

Thats right. Like I said it does not say Jesus is the bridegroom in the story.
So how do you think Jesus has to be the bridegroom?

It is these verses that say Yeshua is specifically the one who will return, as it says "me" (Matthew 23:39, Luke 13:35), and with the name of the Lord of Creation - as Revelation 3:12 also relates.

Yes it does say "me". But its not specifically saying Jesus will return.

As it says "you will not see me until".
While talking multiple times within the chapter in question about the blind.

He says:
"Woe unto you ye blind guides".
"Ye fools and blind"
"Ye fools and blind"
"Ye blind guides"
"Ye blind Pharisee"

Do you notice a theme?

Perhaps Jesus was able to give sight to the blind, if you know what I mean.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Check the Hebrew, too, there is a similar mistake made with God's promise to David "a priest will walk ahead of the anointed forever" when it's talking about Messiah as the priest Himself.

So who is the man with the rod of iron in your opinion, since hundreds of other verses show Jesus reigning on the Earth during the Millennium?

So do you think these words are a mistake?

"And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

And I will give him the morning star".

Revelation 2:26-28


Because it seems clear that Jesus is not talking about himself.


I have an opinion of what the rod of iron is. Not who.

 

[rosends]

1) The verses shared contain "himself" in Hebrew and English

The ones you cited have "himself" in the English but not the word "lo" in the Hebrew, and that was your claim. Remember, you wrote in post 296, "You are saying לּוֹ isn't "himself"? Here are some uses:" and then gave your verses which did NOT have that Hebrew word in them.

2) You have yet to explain how you came to understand how hundreds of translators all translate the same verses in the same way

I have to explain how they all made the same mistake? Simple -- they mostly rely on a single source translation which made an interpretive choice without any explanation. You have yet to explain how the English versions ended up with a word that isn't in the verse, and a word that doesn't mean what they have in the English.

--and how you claim they ALL are liars

Again (are you reading ANYTHING?) the word "liar" is YOUR word. I point out a mistake or a questionable (and unexplained) interpretive choice. You can keep making unrelated statements all you want -- you are only showing the absolute emptiness of your textual beliefs and understanding. WHy not just answer the two very specific and text based points I made:
The Hebrew word based in "see" and the Greek word based in "see" that become "provide" in your English version -- why?

The use of "himself" when that word is missing in the Hebrew and the only related word "lo" does not necessarily mean "himself" (as shown in a variety of verses). And in the verse where it DOES mean "himself" the KJV does NOT use "himself." Why?

If you can't answer these then what more could you possibly have to say? I mean, I'm sure you'll find something irrelevant, but the facts remain, in your face and in the public eye and you haven't the skill or foundation to disprove what I have shown.

 

[wizanda]

So how do you think Jesus has to be the bridegroom?

I understand based on prophecy that the Lord of Creation (Yahavah) will become our Salvation (Yeshua/Yehoshua) - Exodus 15:2, Psalms 118, Isaiah 12:2.

In Isaiah 61:10, Isaiah 52:10-14 the spirit of Salvation (H3444) is place into the Messiah, as a Bridegroom ready to marry Israel.

In Isaiah 62:5 the Lord is the Bridegroom, that has brought Salvation to our people in the Messianic Age, and is thus then married.

In Matthew 9:14-15+, Mark 2:18-19+, Luke 5:33-34+, when John's disciples ask why Yeshua's disciples didn't fast, he defines himself as the Bridegroom prophesied+ to come in the Messianic Age.

I have an opinion of what the rod of iron is. Not who.

So what do you think the 'Rod of Iron' is?

In my opinion.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I understand based on prophecy that the Lord of Creation (Yahavah) will become our Salvation (Yeshua/Yehoshua) - Exodus 15:2, Psalms 118, Isaiah 12:2.

In Isaiah 61:10, Isaiah 52:10-14 the spirit of Salvation (H3444) is place into the Messiah, as a Bridegroom ready to marry Israel.

In Isaiah 62:5 the Lord is the Bridegroom, that has brought Salvation to our people in the Messianic Age, and is thus then married.

In Matthew 9:14-15+, Mark 2:18-19+, Luke 5:33-34+, when John's disciples ask why Yeshua's disciples didn't fast, he defines himself as the Bridegroom prophesied+ to come in the Messianic Age.

I'm trying to follow your line of thought.

It seems you keep showing bible verses that are connected to Jesus by assumption rather than having clear connection. Because you say things that are not there in the verses that you use as reasoning.

It seems you have done it again.
So Jesus mentions while the Bridegroom is with them they cannot fast. That is not clearly defining himself as the Bridegroom as you say.


Consider Jesus also says:
"But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days".


Because the voice of the Bridegroom is not heard.

"And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived". Revelation.


And I wonder maybe fasting is like the famine.

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord": Amos.


Listen carefully and I will try to show you my opinion.

I think God is the Bridegroom.

It seems to clearly say so in one of the verses that you quoted telling me it is Jesus.

For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee. Isaiah.


God is the husband
For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. Isaiah.


And this verse is about the wife of God, and his children:

Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table. Psalm.


I can show you connections:

Goup1 - Group2 - Group3
Brass - Silver- Gold
Corn - Oil - Wine
Cattle - Goats - Sheep

The wife of God is the grape vine (wine), and the child of God is the olive tree (oil).

Can you notice the wife is in the same group as sheep?

It is a connection to the marriage of the lamb.




The Messiah is not the bridegroom. And the Messiah is not the wife.

As the Messiah is a man of Oil. The Messiah is a man of the Star.

Group1 - Group2 Group3
Corn - Oil - Wine
Moon - Star - Sun


The Messiah is a child of God (Olive tree).

 

[WonderingWorrier]

So what do you think the 'Rod of Iron' is?

Rod of Iron = Earthly correction.

I mentioned it earlier.

Here:

Iron consequences?

Since the rod is for correction.
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. Psalm.

And Iron is the Earth, and above the earth is the heaven called brass.
And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. Deuteronomy.

(Above brass is silver, and above silver is gold).

South - North - West - East
Iron - Brass - Silver - Gold

Perhaps the rod of iron is Earthly correction.

I could expand on that further.

To better show the connection.


Consider the treasury of the Lord:

"But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the Lord: they shall come into the treasury of the Lord". Joshua.

Iron - Brass - Silver - Gold


If the Earth is Iron and the heaven above the Earth is brass (Above brass is silver etc).

As it is said:

"And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron". Deuteronomy.


Then Earthly metals of brass, silver, and gold would still be just iron.


Hence:
"Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days". James.


There is a difference between Earthly treasure, and Heavenly treasure:

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal":
Matthew.

The Earth and the heavens is the treasury of the Lord.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Rather than being an obstacle to belief in Jesus as the 'anointed' of God, the two genealogies, in Matthew and Luke, provide support for his credentials not just as the Son of David, but as the Son of Man and Son of God. The beauty and harmony of the two genealogies makes it possible for us to see that Jesus fulfilled all these roles.

The problem for Torah Jews is that invaluable genealogical records, available to the first Christians, were lost in the destruction of Jerusalem. This needs to be highlighted, because the books that the Gospel writers wrote were based on available information and genealogies.

Since the loss of these important genealogical tables, which played a crucial role in the religious life of Judaism, there exists a problem that is not easily resolved. How will Torah Jews recognise the Messiah? For a start, they have concluded that the Messiah is only a man, despite the problem arising from Psalm 110:1, and other passages of scripture, which indicates that an exalted 'Lord' stands between David and God the Father. Jesus raised this issue with the Jews of his day, and they had no answer [Matthew 22:41-46].

So, as the day of the Messiah's appearance draws near, Torah Jews are left in a confused state of mind. Will the Messiah appear 'lowly, and riding on an ***' or will he descend upon the clouds of heaven as the King of Kings? It's hard to see him doing both!

Then we have the whole issue of the nature of man, and how the appearance of a man-Messiah can contribute to a change in man's nature. If God is the only Saviour, then a man-Messiah will make little difference to the salvation of men.

Here's an example of the confusion!

The way to understand Isaiah 53 is to understand that the remnant of Israel suffers vicariously. It is not about the messiah, much less Jesus, who was not the messiah.

 

[wizanda]

The way to understand Isaiah 53 is to understand that the remnant of Israel suffers vicariously. It is not about the messiah, much less Jesus, who was not the messiah.

Firstly Israel's suffering, can not pay for sin; repentance does, and repentance in terms of changing our ways.

Isaiah 52:10-14 is paraphrasing King David in Psalms 89:19-21...

Where in the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Isaiah 52:14 there is an additional Yod on the word 'Marred', which then makes it , 'I anointed' - i.e the Messiah.
[GALLERY=media, 8710][/GALLERY]
With the additional Yod, it makes it the same as the Psalm, where the "my servant" isn't ambiguous in Isaiah 52:14, it is literally referencing David as stated in Psalms 89:20.

In Isaiah 52:10 it says Yeshuat Eloheinu - which is to say the Salvation (H3444) of God was placed into the sanctified vessel of David (Isaiah 52:11), to be the Suffering Servant.

We should use the real Hebrew name Yehoshua/Yeshua, as in my understanding jy+sus (יסוס) is ancient Hebrew for 'a beast that will trample down', and jy+ses (יסס) is 'a beast that will tear away' (Matthew 7:6).

If we understand the prophetic timeline of the Messianic references, the 'Messiah' had to come before the 2nd temple destruction Daniel 9:26 = Jeremiah 25:29-38 = Zechariah 11:1-14...

Thus Yeshua's warnings of the fulfilment of Zechariah 11:1-14 were accurate, and the Curse of Moses (Deuteronomy 28) was placed on the Children of Israel as stated...

Where they eat each other's flesh at the 2nd temple destruction (Zechariah 11:9 = Deuteronomy 28:53-55), and then the Diaspora happened among the nations...

Which to me by definition, would mean Yeshua had to be the Messiah, to have had that level of authority.

In my opinion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Firstly Israel's suffering, can not pay for sin;

Not according to Isaiah 53.

 

[wizanda]

Not according to Isaiah 53.

So you're going to defile the Law, and Isaiah's own statements, to make a case that Isaiah 53 is about some form of brutal torture of a people, for some form of atonement??

Can you show a logical case that proves David in Psalms 89:19-21 wasn't being paraphrased by Isaiah 52:10-14; thus David isn't the 'my Servant' referenced, and thus then isn't the returning Messiah as prophesied?

In my opinion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So you're going to defile the Law, and Isaiah's own statements, to make a case that Isaiah 53 is about some form of brutal torture of a people, for some form of atonement??

Can you show a logical case that proves David in Psalms 89:19-21 wasn't being paraphrased by Isaiah 52:10-14; thus David isn't the 'my Servant' referenced, and thus then isn't the returning Messiah as prophesied?

In my opinion.

I'm simply saying that Isaiah 53 refers to the obedient remnant of Israel. This is based on the fact that earlier in Isaiah, the servant is identified clearly as Israel.

 

[wizanda]

I'm simply saying that Isaiah 53 refers to the obedient remnant of Israel. This is based on the fact that earlier in Isaiah, the servant is identified clearly as Israel.

Most times Isaiah used the term 'Servant' it is specific to whom Isaiah is speaking about; in Isaiah 52:13-14 it is paraphrasing the Hebrew in Psalms 89:19-21, are you saying Isaiah is wrong, and David is not the Messiah?

In my opinion.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The way to understand Isaiah 53 is to understand that the remnant of Israel suffers vicariously. It is not about the messiah, much less Jesus, who was not the messiah.

If one is to suffer vicariously, one must not be governed by a sense of justice. Justice is 'an eye for an eye' and demands (re)payment, whereas vicarious suffering takes the suffering deserved by others without any thought of receiving recompense. This l call 'mercy' (or 'unconditional love'), and the only one capable of offering such mercy on a worldwide scale is God!

To suggest that an unrighteous people has suffered for humanity is, lMO, to confuse the wages of sin with vicarious suffering.

If you believe that the remnant of lsrael are living with new hearts and a new spirit, then when did that change occur? Something important has to have happened for Jeremiah 31:31 and Ezekiel 18:31 to have been realised.

I believe l know who supplies the new heart and the new spirit. The Son of man is raised for this purpose, and he does not return until his mercy has been exhausted (which can only be when people are no longer repenting). When he does return, the whole world will recognise him!

When Samuel anointed David to be king, was he a king on the day of his anointing?

 

[rosends]

Most times Isaiah used the term 'Servant' it is specific to whom Isaiah is speaking about; in Isaiah 52:13-14 it is paraphrasing the Hebrew in Psalms 89:19-21, are you saying Isaiah is wrong, and David is not the Messiah?

In my opinion.

David was anointed with specific oil according to 89:21, therefore he was a messiah. And therefore, Is 52:13-14 (speaking in future tense) is not talking about David. Instead of jumping between texts to find an antecedent for "servant" it makes much more sense to stay within a text. One could look at Is 20 which identifies Isaiah as servant, or Is 22 which calls Elyakim servant. Maybe you prefer Is 37 which calls David the servant of God. But starting in Is 41, the nation is called "servant" repeatedly. Verse 9, though, has it as an understood continuation of verse 8, so the text need not be explicit because the subject is known. Is 42:1 mentions the servant again and doesn't specify the nation BUT it uses the b-ch-r (chosen) root to identify the servant and that's the same root used as connected to the nation in 41, so the identity is still the nation. 42:19 asks about the servant and how it does not listen to the God or heed the prophets. 43 uses the "servant"-"chosen" combination again so the subject is still the nation. Chapt 44 explicitly identifies the nation as the servant 4 times. 45, 48 and 49 all have the continuing explicit connection of servant and nation.

Now chapt 50 shakes things up because after the first couple of versesx, the prophet speaks of himself and calls HIMSELF the servant but by the time you get to 52, you have God, through the prophet, describing His relationship to the nation and calling THEM (it) the servant. Note that the prophet started talking of the people and God in verse 9, so when verse 12 comes around, they are still what is being spoken about/to. And remember, the content of Is 53 is the reaction of startled non-Jewish kings who suppose that Israel suffered because of the sinfulness of non-Jewish nations.

So no David here.

 

[wizanda]

David was anointed with specific oil according to 89:21, therefore he was a messiah. And therefore, Is 52:13-14 (speaking in future tense) is not talking about David. Instead of jumping between texts to find an antecedent for "servant" it makes much more sense to stay within a text.

I believe we can show that the prophets use future tense to imply something will happen.

I'm not jumping around trying to find a justification for the usage of 'My Servant'; there are 4 keywords paraphrased by Isaiah 52:13-14 citing Psalms 89:19-21...and another in Isaiah 52:10, showing that was Isaiah's intended contexts.

Especially when we've added the additional Yod found in the Dead Sea Scrolls to the word 'Marred' in Isaiah 52:14; making it 'I Anointed'.
[GALLERY=media, 8710][/GALLERY]

And remember, the content of Is 53 is the reaction of startled non-Jewish kings who suppose that Israel suffered because of the sinfulness of non-Jewish nations.

That conclusion is overwriting what was already prophesied specifically about the Messiah, with later Rabbinic ideas.

Plus to accuse God of torturing the Jews because of other's sin, is against what is prophesied...

The Curse of Moses (Deuteronomy 28) was placed on Israel for their leaders rejecting the Messiah in Zechariah 11:1-14; where I believe they can be freed of the Curse, when they've accepted Messianic prophecy.

In my understanding Isaiah 53 is a riddle, and test: where the word 'Rumour' (שׁמוּעה) in verse one, links Isaiah 28:9-19 making the Bed of Adultery (20-21); thus claiming anyone was tortured for other's sin, is against the Biblical standards.

In my opinion.

 

[rosends]

I believe we can show that the prophets use future tense to imply something will happen.

Sure, but David happened already so a discussion of the future is not a discussion of David.

I'm not jumping around trying to find a justification for the usage of 'My Servant'; there are 4 keywords paraphrased by Isaiah 52:13-14 citing Psalms 89:19-21...and another in Isaiah 52:10, showing that was Isaiah's intended contexts.

Here -- I'll post both sets of verses you just cited. I saw letter sets that are repeated and I colored them for you

כִּ֣י לַ֭יהֹוָה מָגִנֵּ֑נוּ וְלִקְד֖וֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ֣ל מַלְכֵּֽנוּ׃

אָ֤ז דִּבַּ֥רְתָּֽ בְחָ֡זוֹן לַחֲסִידֶ֗יךָ וַתֹּ֗אמֶר שִׁוִּ֣יתִי עֵ֭זֶר עַל־גִּבּ֑וֹר הֲרִימ֖וֹתִי בָח֣וּר מֵעָֽם׃

מָ֭צָאתִי דָּוִ֣ד עַבְדִּ֑י בְּשֶׁ֖מֶן קׇדְשִׁ֣י מְשַׁחְתִּֽיו



הִנֵּ֥ה יַשְׂכִּ֖יל עַבְדִּ֑י יָר֧וּם וְנִשָּׂ֛א וְגָבַ֖הּ מְאֹֽד׃

כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר שָׁמְמ֤וּ עָלֶ֙יךָ֙ רַבִּ֔ים כֵּן־מִשְׁחַ֥ת מֵאִ֖ישׁ מַרְאֵ֑הוּ וְתֹאֲר֖וֹ מִבְּנֵ֥י אָדָֽם

Nothing else is "paraphrased" and the overlap of words is not particularly statistically significant. I can find three shared letter sets in most any selection of verses from different texts. What is important is how the words are used and their contexts, not as words but as phrases (which in these verses, don't overlap). One of those sets is not even a shared root. You want to connect them by looking at the DSS and deciding that the spelling in one of the Isaiah scrolls is preferred over the spelling in another one. This bespeaks a misunderstanding of the scrolls and their role and the presence of variants and mistakes in the scrolls (see here for more) and displays a lack of understanding of biblical Hebrew grammar.

That conclusion is overwriting what was already prophesied specifically about the Messiah, with later Rabbinic ideas.

No, that's a fact based on the actual words of the text. Just read it and keep track of the pronouns. I have done this in another thread -- I can link to it if you would like. Your understanding is a reverse engineering starting with a necessary conclusion and then a selective misreading to justify it.

Plus to accuse God of torturing the Jews because of other's sin, is against what is prophesied...

Yes, tell that to the foreign kings who made the statement. That's the point!

 

[wizanda]

Sure, but David happened already so a discussion of the future is not a discussion of David.

The Bible teaches reincarnation, and David is specifically stated as the resurrected Messiah in all these verses (Ezekiel 34:23-24, Ezekiel 37:24-25, Jeremiah 23:5, Jeremiah 30:8-9, Jeremiah 33:15, Hosea 3:5, Isaiah 55:3, Isaiah 22:22, Isaiah 9:6-7, Revelation 5:5, etc).

You want to connect them by looking at the DSS and deciding that the spelling in one of the Isaiah scrolls is preferred over the spelling in another one.

It is hardly going to be more Marred than any other man, as that makes no sense that God sends someone deformed to fulfil prophecy.

I believe the additional yod is missing from the main versions we have, which is where religious prophecy has become messed up; as people believed Isaiah 52-53 was Messianic.

Your understanding is a reverse engineering starting with a necessary conclusion and then a selective misreading to justify it.

Are you kidding; I'm literally an archangel sent by God with the name meaning Exegesis in Persian (Zand), to fulfil your prophecies before the Great Tribulation, and then Judgement Day.

I fulfilled Revelation 10 three years before reading the Bible; which is about archangel Sandalphon being sent with the final Trumpet.

Then I've spent the last 20 years studying religion, and debating the 7th Beggar for the last 16 years (a professor of Kabbalah on Paltalk) to fulfil Rabbi Nachman's statements - with him rejecting the whole thing for you all.

During that time of trying to prove that Messianic prophecy was stipulated in the Tanakh, I've had to do lots of studies to prove that things existed in the Bible to show the case.

Thus over that time have realized the reasons you're all not getting Messianic prophecy, isn't because the Rabbinic Jews purposely want to go against the Messiah, it is because of basic language errors which could be fixed - otherwise from what I've been shown, and prophecy states, God cleanses reality, and removes you all.

tell that to the foreign kings who made the statement.

The persecution among the nations was prophesied in Deuteronomy 28, etc, for having rejected Messianic prophecy; not because God wants to bring some form of atonement.

We can not judge the Bible prophecy based on other people's misconceptions, yet by what is stipulated.

In my opinion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Most times Isaiah used the term 'Servant' it is specific to whom Isaiah is speaking about; in Isaiah 52:13-14 it is paraphrasing the Hebrew in Psalms 89:19-21, are you saying Isaiah is wrong, and David is not the Messiah?

In my opinion.

The servant metaphor is used throughout Isaiah, and refers to Israel.

If you want to change the topic and talk about Psalm 89, please do the courtesy of quoting it.

The psalm is a completely different text from Isaiah. Each Psalm has its own set of metaphors. So there is not a problem with David being a servant in Psalm 89:21, yet the servant being Israel in Isaiah.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If one is to suffer vicariously, one must not be governed by a sense of justice. Justice is 'an eye for an eye' and demands (re)payment,

I don't see why not. "An eye for an eye" simply means that the judicial punishment of a crime must be proportional to the crime. What do you think it should be instead? No punishment for crime? Two eyes for an eye?

whereas vicarious suffering takes the suffering deserved by others without any thought of receiving recompense."

Sorry but I don't see how that conflicts.

 

[rosends]

The Bible teaches reincarnation, and David is specifically stated as the resurrected Messiah in all these verses (Ezekiel 34:23-24, Ezekiel 37:24-25, Jeremiah 23:5, Jeremiah 30:8-9, Jeremiah 33:15, Hosea 3:5, Isaiah 55:3, Isaiah 22:22, Isaiah 9:6-7, Revelation 5:5, etc).

I think you are mistaking a statement about the house of David (his descendant) with a statement about literal reincarnation. If you think it means a literal resurrection then the resulting leader would be David and no one else, including Jesus. So you have just outmoded the entirety of belief in Jesus as anything. Well done.

It is hardly going to be more Marred than any other man, as that makes no sense that God sends someone deformed to fulfil prophecy.

Well, again, you misread. The comment is that the servant is perceived to be marred by others. Do you think God thinks his people are marred?

I believe the additional yod is missing from the main versions we have, which is where religious prophecy has become messed up; as people believed Isaiah 52-53 was Messianic.

Great. I believe that the DSS are in genizah for a reason. IIRC the Isaiah B scroll doesn't have the yod in it at that point.

Are you kidding; I'm literally an archangel sent by God with the name meaning Exegesis in Persian (Zand), to fulfil your prophecies before the Great Tribulation, and then Judgement Day.

I fulfilled Revelation 10 three years before reading the Bible; which is about archangel Sandalphon being sent with the final Trumpet.

Then I've spent the last 20 years studying religion, and debating the 7th Beggar for the last 16 years (a professor of Kabbalah on Paltalk) to fulfil Rabbi Nachman's statements - with him rejecting the whole thing for you all.

During that time of trying to prove that Messianic prophecy was stipulated in the Tanakh, I've had to do lots of studies to prove that things existed in the Bible to show the case.


Thus over that time have realized the reasons you're all not getting Messianic prophecy, isn't because the Rabbinic Jews purposely want to go against the Messiah, it is because of basic language errors which could be fixed - otherwise from what I've been shown, and prophecy states, God cleanses reality, and removes you all.

So you are predicating your rectitude on being an archangel? OK then -- nothing else to say other than "up your meds." I expect angels of any sort to be familiar with Hebrew grammar and linguistics and you are not.

The persecution among the nations was prophesied in Deuteronomy 28, etc, for having rejected Messianic prophecy; not because God wants to bring some form of atonement.

Great -- tell the foreign kings. They are the ones who made the claim.

We can not judge the Bible prophecy based on other people's misconceptions, yet by what is stipulated.

So you should be saying "the foreign kings were wrong -- the nation of Israel isn't bringing any sort of atonement for them" because that's what the text stipulates.