If there is a substantial connection between the SoM and the prophets, how come you can't see the usual NT reading of the prophets about prophetic or Messianic mission things?
Here's why: because you always start with 2P2P and assume the Bible is going to validate it, instead of 'in the Seed, meaning one person, all the world will be blessed' with the offer of justification from sins.
There is no wishful thinking about NT theology, it combines the resurrection and Messianics with justification. Smack in the middle of Is 53 is: 'by his experience, the Righteous One will justify many.' Too bad for wishful 2P2Ps!
I've met very few books based "Bible experts" whom I have I found free of what you are obviously clueless you are doing.
You are obviously projecting your practice of reading your already set in stone bias, into a thing - you are projecting that as supposedly being what all Dispys are supposedly doing.
Most bookworms - and you have long since proven you are that - will automatically conclude that all Dispy's get all their ideas from books "about."
Ideas which they then supposedly read into the Scripture.
And yet, I have often proven I well understand both where you are coming from and what you are seeing, even though it is clear that your approach is not all the result of your obvious over reliance on books, but is that, plus your own approach.
Meaning, not all Dispys approach the Scripture with some sort of a schematic, already in hand.
For, for me at least, that is not what Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is about.
That is what books "about" are "about" - but it is not what actual, Mid-Acts Bible Study is about.
It only appears that way to both the outsider, and the novice, who remains one...
Actual Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is nothing more than a handy label, one is to discard each time one approaches the Bible, until after one's present study of one thing or another, bears whatever fruit it does.
Each study, and each "problem" is different.
And new...
Watch a couple of the better Mid-Acts Dispensational Bible Teachers on YouTube.
What you find is that they are far and away much more nuanced than the rest.
That obviously, they have each diligently sought to carefully examine the sense of just about every word in each passage, through a highly rigorous comparison of just about its every word, with other passages where similar themes, subject, narrative, use, and so on, are found.
When you do that, you find yourself really getting at what is under every rock on a thing.
And you find you have started out anew, from scratch, each time.
You find each time you have dissected a frog in biology class, has not only been its uniquely it's own unique dissection, but each with its own unique contribution to your better understanding of the whole.
Fail at that, and you end up at...the traditions of men.
Ever at odds with the next advance in medicine.
Obviously, your kind either never picked up on, or very soon forgot the elementary school "moral of the story" lessons that were those highly fascinating accounts of such as a Marie Curie, or a Louis Pasteur - each of who's unique distinctions had met with the fierce opposition that is the traditions of men.
You're a dime a dozen, IP.
Nevertheless, Romans 5:8 towards you.