Deceptive Placement Of The False Prophet Into The Old Testament
Why Jesus Isn't Fulfilled In Prophecy As Deceptively Taught
The Infamous Isaiah Scam
Many times we heard that Jesus is who they say he is simply because they say he's written in Isaiah as the suffering servant. First off, almost anyone can be fit into Isaiah, and one day in sentencing does not a sufferer make when the New Testament shows a well received icon opposite of anyone suffering or despised.
The text has to be read in context and known about who Isaiah is referring to in context with his whole writings. Then you have to realize who Isaiah already exposed as the Messiah through the oral traditions and through the commentary. Isaiah first of all mentions the Prince of the Congregation-"Michael", as the Davidic Messiah (scroll 4 Q285 Fr. 5 which is written in the Book of Isaiah & In the "Isaiah Commentary" scroll: (IQSb,v 20-29), who slays by strokes (writings)with his sword (words), and claims "He'll Proclaim liberty to the captives" (Those bound by the Roman Authority) (Isaiah lxi,I)
Lastly we see it's in Isaiah 44-45 where the redeemer changes Cyrus heart and in Dan 10 the person battling the concious of the King/Prince of Persia is none other then Michael.
That should close the argument right there, but to put this confusion to rest, lets look at who Isaiah calls suffering servant. Even though I fit the suffering servant verses to a tee, it's still not about Messiah. Let's examine them in context;
Isaiah 53:5 is plural and present tense not singular future tense to place their false prophet in the text that wasn't even Messiah text.
The proper translation is as follows: "They (Israel) were wounded because of our sins." Now, the last sentence of Isaiah 53:5 is falsely translated by Christians as; "by his bruises we are
healed." However, The original Hebrew text is written in the past tense,
which means the translation is: "And by his bruises we were healed."
Lastly, Isaiah 53:9 is supposed to be plural as in Graves not singular Grave.
These minor errors or twinkings show a whole different picture whereby it's about "their wounds & graves", seen here as being about many people, not one singular person.
Looking at the Chapters following Isaiah 53, we see they obviously talk about his children & their place (land), & virtually every bad thing that happens to the suffering servant of Chapter 53 is explicitly stated as happening to Israel. Is it any more obvious when Chapter 54 ends as:
"This is the heritage of the servants of the L-rd and their vindication is from Me, declares the
L-rd."
Now in context we can see also the preceding chapters reveal the same thing.
Israel is explicitly identified as God's servant fourteen times in the context of Isaiah,
as well as some of the other Hebrew prophet's text like; Jer. 30:10, Jer. 30:17, Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22,
as well as new testament Lk. 1:54.
Isaiah himself is even mentioned a few times as a servant.
So, Isaiah is the servant to Israel and Israel is the servant to the nations.
Isaiah 53 is only understood properly when read in the context of Isaiah but also the Jewish Bible as a whole, because portions like the Mikeitz talks about holding the unpopular truth till the time it's revealed in the future. Therefore to hold the covenant of God is to be unpopular with the transgressors, thus you become a suffering servant for holding these unpopular truths.
Jewish and Christian scholars agree that chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13. Israel in the singular is called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10, 52:13)
In 53:1 "And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
In Isaiah, and throughout the Jewish Bible , G-d's "arm" refers to the physical redemption of Israel from the oppression of other nations (see, Isa. 52:8-12; Isa. 63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19; Ps. 44:3).
In 53:3 "Despised and rejected of men."
Clearly the feeling towards Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be a match to Jesus with the Christian Bible showing a man who was supposedly "praised by all" (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25) a far cry from being despised by all. Notice they always want it both ways and use double standards to deceive.
Now often confusing is this verse which obviously doesn't fit any beautiful portrait of a Messiah.
That's because it's not about Messiah and misrepresented. In Isaiah 52;13-15
"...My Servant (Israel)will act wisely...His appearance was so disfigured...His form marred...so will He sprinkle many nations (or, 'so will many nations marvel at Him')...
This basically reveals the scattering (sprinkling) of his people to be dispersed to many nations and if you look at the Country of Israel, it's so disfigured and deformed as it doesn't have any unison boundaries and constantly gets 'marred' by land deals.
Then we have the Virgin debate in Isaiah 7:14 that doesn?t even deserve my time explaining, because first off that's borrowed supernatural myths fro Horus, Mithra, Krishna, and Baal, all similar made up deities predating Jesus. Secondly the accounts through historical records and the Talmud show Mary wasn't a virgin and had Jesus by an adulteress affair which is why Joseph is not mentioned in the raising of Jesus.
Thus in Revelations it talks about the Harlot Church because it's the mother of many sects acting like a harlot, but also because it was originally founded on the deception of the Virgin Mother who was actually a Harlot according to many accounts and testaments.
Besides the word Almah is used in the Hebrew text & is now admitted by most modern Christian translators trying to correct Matthew's mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14.
Revisionists who have revised the scripture say it should have read Young Woman (ALMAH), as the Hebrew language has separate words for Virgin altogether (betoula, betouli, or tahor).
Lastly the text is about a mere sign of the time given to Ahaz (when read in context), by saying to the king you will be given a sign. Never mentioning the child (King Hezekiah Ahaz's son) was anything but a sign and what good is this sign to Ahaz 600 years after his death? Once again Jesus is not found in this, because Jesus wasn't named Immanuel and wasn't a sign for Ahaz in his day and age. All put together it shows an attempt to deceive and place the idol in text.
In line with this Isaiah scandal we have:
ISAIAH 9:6 which is a continuation of CH 7 and 8 regarding this King Hezekiah of Judah who was the son of Ahaz.
"For to us a child has been born, (King Hezekiah)
to us a son has been given, and the government is upon his shoulder"
(Hezekiah inherited his father Ahaz's throne. Hence, the verse states that "the government *is*upon his shoulder," in the present, not that it "will be" in the future.)
"and he called his name Wonderful in Counsel"
G-d's counsel to Hezekiah was quite prophetic in nature and he as King became a great counsel (father figure).
"Mighty G-d, the Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
With G-d’s Might he prevailed against the Assyrians and also prolonged his life to be a great father (great counsel) to the kingdom of Judah.
Also Hezekiah's name imply attributes of G-d
The last part about "prince of peace" (which never fit Jesus or his Church) is in regards to peace enjoyed by the kingdom after the defeat of the Assyrian army.
It doesn't get anymore obvious, who was placed in scripture to deceive, but we will continue to other prophecy tampering anyway so we can all learn how to spot the manipulations of text.
On to more mistaken interps and deceptive placements into prophecy.
The ZECHARIAH 12:10 Scam
"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication, and they will look onto Me whom they have pierced and they will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep for Him like the weeping over a first born.
The Christian translation of this passage is being outright deceptive. The words "Me" and "Him" makes it quite obvious that the text is speaking of two different subjects and the term 'they have' speaks of past or present tense whereby 'they will' would be used for future tense. The gospel of John acknowledged this and therefore rendered the passage deceptively as, "they shall look on Him (instead of ME) whom they pierced." This New Testament mistranslating and twist of Zechariah demonstrates that the New Testament is fallacious. To look onto me who is pierced, but morn another (him), is two separate people. One is pierced and one mourned and not one person who's pierced and mourned. Big difference. Plus the correct translation of Zechariah 12:10 should be.
"they will look onto Me concerning whom they have pierced and they will mourn for him".
Now in context Zech paints a picture far from the missionary claims
(Zec 12:3). On that day, G-d Himself will defend Jerusalem and destroy all of its enemies
(Zec 12:4-9). G-d will pour out a spirit of grace and supplication toward the Jews. Grace is requested from G-d and supplication are directed to G-d.
(after Jesus supposedly was pierced these events didn't happen, in fact the time to follow the Jesus period is quite the opposite, so in no way did Zech. verses have to do with Jesus, yet they still make that deceptive claim knowingly.)
I also want to point out the deception that goes unoticed with selective use of verses people try to correlate through common words or events. In this case they place Jesus in any verse about a pierced person even though millions of people who have been pierced can be placed in the verses as well. The deception comes from chosing not to place him in verses of a pierced man when that man is refered to as the fallen prophet aka Lucifer.
Why would he be in one verse about piercing but avoided when we read the Dragon was pierced-Isaiah 51:9 and iconographs depicting the battle (remember the sWORD is the JUDGING word that comes from out of my mouth).
Isaiah 14:19: The Morning Star (LUCIFER) is pierced with a sword (Revelation 22:16 & John 19:34). Ezekiel 28:7 I am going to bring foreigners against you, the most ruthless of nations; they will draw their swords against your beauty and wisdom and PIERCE your shining splendor. (Once again shining admission in Rev 22:16 and pierced in John 19:34.)
Dan 8:25 Satan shall be broken without hand (like Dagon = the fishman idol god called the devil who's son was Baal. In 1 Samuel 5:3-4 Dagon fell breaking off his palms).
So we see how selective recognition and reasoning allows for some verses to be erroneously placed while others which are damaging go completely unrecognized or spitefully avoided.
Now onto Psalms;
The Hebrew version does not mention any pierced hands or feet. It simply reads;
"For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have enclosed me; like a lion, they are(present tense, not future tense) at my hands and my feet" (Ps. 22:17). Also the book of Acts 5:30, 10:39, 13:29 and 1 Peter 2:24 as well as the reported accounts in the Talmud and Roman historian?s text, show Jesus was stoned then hung on a tree. (No mention of nailing to a cross which was adopted in aprox 300-340 ad) So there could be no pierced hand or feet. Another problem with that is also the fact hands weren?t nailed as it wouldn't have held up the weight of the body, as it was wrists that were nailed, thus the deception in paintings of nailed hands was done to deceptively place Jesus in this Psalms verse. Now the original Tanakh version of Psalm 22:8 It says; 'are' my hands and feet, not mentioning pierced. Once again Jesus deceptively placed in scripture.
Mistake of Assuming the Daniel verse;
As with the Isaiah text, Daniel clearly shows who Messiah is by roles and titles, but this time DIRECTLY BY NAME, and also by hint to the given name, 'NIGHT'.
Daniel explicitly says MICHAEL is "the Anointed One"(I.E. MESSIAH),& 'the Prince'. (DAN ix,25)
Daniel 7:13-14 In his NIGHT Vision, he sees "the likeness of a human being who came with the clouds of heaven... and he was given... an everlasting dominion which will never pass away"
Dan12:1 Michael the great (prince)chief of your people rises not mentioning angel. Since Daniel gets his revelation of the time to come from a messenger Michael, the term angel simply means messenger and no further assumptions or portraits should be forbiddingly placed, then the meaning itself in context, by the word conveyed as just a MESSENGER.
Dan 12:1-3 further reveals the Messiah roles mistakenly placed as Jesus? roles.
"At that time there shall arise Michael, the great prince, guardian of your people;
It shall be a time unsurpassed in distress since nations began.
?At that time your people shall escape, everyone who is found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; Some shall live forever, others shall be an everlasting horror and disgrace." Proving these Messiah roles are Michael's, who rises at this time to his claim as
"Shiloh" (one who's right it is). :4 mentions traveling here and fro to gain knowledge which describes the INTERNET where by people travel the globe through this new media of communications to gain knowledge.
Dan 10:21 "But I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince." Obviously this shows the Old Testament which is an earthly text, being adhered to and best interpreted by Michael who must be a man as expressed in book of
Joshua 5:13
where the captain of the host of HaShem (Michael) is "ISH"=a Man.
Dan 9:24-25 is what they use to place Jesus in texts while neglecting to mention these other verses, they neglect to see the possible error because Daniel 9:2 talks of seventy years and the event and 24 mentions "Seventy weeks of years".
The first Jewish temple was destroyed by the
Babylonians on the ninth day of the Jewish month of Av,
which works out to Aug. 10, 586 B.C. It was partly rebuilt
by Jews from Babylon 70 years later, starting in 516 B.C.
If you interpret it as seventy sevens or weeks of years=490 years, then that would bring the date to
aprox 96 BCE however since Daniel existed before the events around 600+bc then it might match the time
around 168bc with Antiochus destroying Jerusalem and the Temple.
It also possibly predicts what happened in "70 ad" but way after Jesus passed, but ironically at the time Michael (the Prince) leaves the temple mentioned in Rev 12 and the Romans destroyed the temple. Trying to place this Dan prophecy in assumptions is not something that can be honest, because it's never certain since it's not messianic like claimed & the words are broadly used that could have many meanings or lesser importance then given them.
So placing Jesus in this text is absurd, especially
since 9:24 true translation says:
"to anoint a holy of holy places"
**(Notice anoint (messiah) here is about anointing a place not a man & not talking about an anointed man.)**
9:25: "from the time the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem was issued",(This never occured in Jesus era)
"until an ANNOINTED ONE".."a ruler"
**(many people and prophets are anointed even today evangelists claimed to be anointed of G-d and it says 'AN' anointed one not 'THE' anointed one- notice the NT manipulates the bible by adding 'THE' to the translation & lastly Jesus was never a ruler.)**
Furthermore the historical Jesus (Yeshu ben Pandera) actually existed a lot earlier then they try and place him which makes their dating of Daniel's 70 weeks that much more clumsy.
This is all redundant considering who really is revealed in Daniel like in 12:1 who stands up for Judah which is needed in secreting Jermeiah's savior & Lord of Righteousness in 23:5-6.
Daniel was told to SEAL UP the book, and that the meaning
of the vision would be revealed at the time of the end. (See Daniel 12:4,9)
Which these things are now being revealed as 'how will they rise', and 'why will they be in shame'.
Now on to the Micah Assumptions;
The Hebrew Bible ( Micah 5:1-2)
First off scholars agree Jesus would have been born outside of Bethlehem and was only placed in this birthplace just to fit miss interpretation of this prophecy. However, it never even says Born in Bethlehem it just says; "Out of thee Bethlehem ,which art little (referring to clan) to be among the thousands of Judah, shall go forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel". Proof of this, beside the precise wording used, is the fact Micah (5:1-2) is in the wrong gender to refer to a birthplace. The verse in Micah is in the "MASCULINE GENDER" and birthplaces are "Feminine", as anyone who has studied Hebrew grammar knows. Of course, the person who wrote, (MATTHEW) using the words "Born in", changed the words deceptively and didn't know Hebrew so it shows it wasn't Matthew who wrote it.
Another thing is that this verse is about "Bethlehem Ephrathah" which is the name of a person: Bethlehem the son (or grandson) of Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 4:4, 2:50-51). So the Micah prophecy refers to a descendent out of "Bethlehem Ephrathah's" lineage, who would be a king, which Jesus was neither of that lineage or ever a king.
FINALLY WE SEE WHERE JESUS HIMSELF TOLD THE DISCIPLES TO PLACE AND FIT
HIM IN TEXT:
Luke 24:44-45 "Then he said to them, 'everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms.' (Meaning, fit me in every verse to make me out to be the one, because we see how they manipulated and lied about Psalms to try and fulfill these things. Ironically
this was also prophecized about in [Daniel 11:14], "The renegades among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble."
Can there be a greater stumbling block than creating the opposite of peace for your people while dispersing them and leading them to slaughter instead of gathering them and liberating them as the role of Moshiach was written. Causing man to alter and banish t he Torah while deceiving men into worshipping other gods,
also against the role or Messiah, which was to bring them to know the Torah and for
all to worship the same God.
