The scriptures do in fact indicate two comings of Christ if you know how to read them properly. Even some Jewish commentators find two different Messiahs in the Hebrew scriptures, the Suffering Servant and the Warrior King, ben Joseph and ben David being the names they assigned these two anointed ones I think though I may not remember the names rightly. And some even considered that there might be three Messiahs. This is because the scriptures present different portraits of Him. (A book on Jewish Messianic teachings by Raphael Patai, a nonChristian Jew, is my main source for this information).
"Read them properly"
You mjean, like taking things out of context and mistranslation, and ignoring all the details that don't coincide with your predetermined belief?
Isaiah 52 and 53 are talking about the Nation of Israel. If you read it in context, Isaiah explicitly identifies the servant as that nation of Israel
Isaiah 41:8-9 But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, â€œYou are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.â€
Isaiah 44:1 But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!
Isaiah 44:21 Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant; I formed you; you are my servant; O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.
Isaiah 45:4 For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I called you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me.
Isaiah 48:20 Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it out to the end of the earth; say, â€œThe Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob!â€
Isaiah 49:3 And he said to me, â€œYou are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.â€
Here is where you are not understanding what a messiah is. In Jewish culture , messiah, means 'Anointed one'. Kings are considered 'anointed ones', as well as the high priest in the temple. That means Cyprus was a messiah.. a king.
In this case, the author of the Book of Daniel , which was written in 164 BCE, was writing a propaganda piece to try to encourage people against Antioch IV.
W. Sibley Towner writes: "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 696)
Louis F. Hartman writes: "Having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing, until relatively recent years Jews and Christians have considered Dn to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. Inasmuch as chs. 7-12 are written in the first person, it was natural to assume that Daniel in chs. 1-6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. There would be few modern biblical scholars, however, who would now seriously defend such an opinion. The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. An author living in the 6th cent. could hardly have written the late Hebrew used in Dn, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri, which date from the end of the 5th cent. The theological outlook of the author, with his interest in angelology, his apocalyptic rather than prophetic vision, and especially his belief in the resurrection of the dead, points unescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. His historical perspective, often hazy for events in the time of the Babylonian and Persian kings but much clearer for the events during the Seleucid Dynasty, indicates the Hellenistic age. Finally, his detailed description of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35) contrasted with his merely general reference to the evil end that would surely come to such a wicked man (11:45), indicates a composition date shortly before the death of this king in 164, therefore probably in 165." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, p. 448)
But, they misuse the passage.. they use a bad translation, they read it out of context of the 4th servant song, and they read it with Jesus colored glasses.
It's Jewish scripture.. you Christians just stole it.
As a matter of fact, the anti-semetic tone of the one, claiming the 'jews perverted it',, demonstrates it's lack of credulity.
As for the 'ancient Jews knew it to be the messiah.. they don't back that up at all. That is what is known as 'an unsupported claim'. Indeed, in 'The Dialogue with Trypho' , Justin Martyr acknowledges that Trypho said that the Jews said it was about the nation of Israel.