Jesus cannot be Messiah

Why do you keep appealing to the Talmud? If a woman is with her child and she needed to urinate, she should not urinate directly in front of the child but rather should stand to the side and urinate (Bechoros 44b) (Gittin 69a) To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix it with honey and eat it. Sanhedrin 55b Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 (24) I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum. The Talmud is full of wierd crap, completely irrelevant to the Tanakh. I remember reading in the Talmud an intense debate about the following: if a woman is a virgin and can't resist her urge for sex, she should have unnatural sex (anal) and her virginity will be retained. I think this went on for 10 pages. Suddenly it switched to this topic: The son of David will reveal himself with a smile. Why? Because it's written, "his teeth are white as milk." Then the rest of the entire volume debated whether the fruits of the fruits of a field should be considered the fruits of the field, or the fruits of the fruits. I kid you not. (It was about how a husband has ownership of his wife's property unless she conditioned it: the field is mine, but I wave my rights to the fruits of the field etc) I don't care about Judaism's various interpretations, I'm arguing the author's intent 1 Chron 28:5 "of all my son's, (for the Lord has given me many sons) He has CHOSEN Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. Solomon did nothing to earn his election, his election was unconditional. God excluded all of Davids sons and chose Solomon. 2 Samuel 12:25: When Solomon (shlomo peaceful) was born, God named him Y'deedeeyah, Yahweh's precious (one), my translation. Solomon must be in jesus's pedigree. Zech12:8 2 camps "the feeble and the house of david." Compared with Zech12:12 two camps "house of david....and..house of Nathan." The Davidic dynasty and the feeble (ordinary non-royalty folk) Nathan and his descendants are clearly distinguished from the house of david (the monarchy) Eleeka: Since you don't say WHO Isaiah 53 is talking about, or how it absolutely excludes Jesus - then it isn't really relevant. Again, I would appeal to the plain-reading of the text. You didn't read my round 2. I know I'm boring, but geesh, at least read it. The prophecy stuff: I'll just cut to the chase. Isaiah chapter 53 has nothing to do with jesus. Isaiah chapters 40-66 are concerned with Cyrus's edict to return to Jerusalem and rebuild it. 52:11 Hey, leave Babylon and return the temple stuff Nebuchadnezzar took. 54:3 resettle the desolated cities in Israel when you get back. The in-between hyperbolic descriptions of a human sacrifice in chapter 53? Lamentations 5:7 'Our fathers sinned and are no more; we carry their sins." The 50 plus years of captivity saw a new generation suffering for their fathers' mess. A proverb arose from that: our fathers ate some sour grapes, but our teeth are set on edge. Psalm 44:22 " it is for God's sake we are given to death, we are sheep to be sacrificed." Bible writers assured the returning exiles that their misery was part of God's plan. Their misery was like a guilt offering. Were they forever cursed for their fathers' idolatry? No, they paid the price in captivity. Jesus's (supposed cruci-fiction) did nothing for 6the century exiles, the exiles suffering in Babylonian captivity was their guilt offering. Isaiah 40:1,2 speak to jerusalem....comfort, comfort my people.....her sin has been removed, for she received of the Lord double for all her sins Observe: Jerusalem was to warmly welcome the returning exiles. Jerusalem's sins were removed. Jerusalem's misery during the Jews absence, and the Jews misery in Babylon was the means of purging the two parties. It was two parties purged from sin that were being reunited. That's the context of 40-66 Cyrus's edict for the two to rejoin, Providence of God thingamajig. Eleeka, Some of your stuff was ad hominem. Clear sign of throwing in the towel! Stop being a Christian!