The prophecy in Isaiah 53 is Israel; not the Messiah.

I felt that each statement could have proceeded with “and it could mean this…” and it would have been the only validation for the interpretation needed for your viewpoint. Nothing was validated. To make a valid interpretation you must layout the following: 1) The interpretation must be held in antiquity. The earliest primary source must be cited which shows that this has been an interpretation “all along”. After all, if the interpretation you hold to be accurate is divinely inspired it will have its ground in antiquity. God did not “hold back” the truth to snooker everyone (Example: Mormon interpretations, Ellen g. White, Harold Camping etc. .) 2) My opponent’s interpretation must predate the Advent to Jesus Christ. Any interpretation at a later date would very likely be a “responsive” interpretation rather than a preexisting one. 3) This interpretation must have “weight” in the form of legitimate scholarship. 4) AFTER my opponent has laid out this framework he then MUST show why the interpretation he supports is accurate. He has not done this in his first round post. 5) My opponent must cite primary source documentation when citing an ancient scholar. I will show each of the following things. First I will cite: 1) Rabbinical Messianic interpretations of Isaiah 53 were pre-Christ to the exclusion of any national interpretation, including the Midrash and Talmud both interpreting the scripture as Messianic well after the advent of Jesus Christ. 2) I will show a national interpretation was a reinterpretation that is only recently viewed favorably by Jewish Rabbis’ and only held by a few select Rabbis’ starting in the Middle Ages, by no means the majority. 3) St. Mathew’s Interpretation of Isaiah 53 at the Time of Christ was clearly Messianic and Rabbinical Scholarship took no issue with such an interpretation until well into the present age. 4) I will also show the reasons that every Rabbi and Christian scholar throughout antiquity viewed “Israel” as a Title of the Messiah and not a nation. Contention 1: The Talmud and Midrash interpretations of Isaiah 53 (suffering Messiah) clearly believed prior to Jesus’ arrival by the Rabbinical community. A) The Babylonian Talmud, which is prior to Jesus’s advent on earth through 300 A. D. , discusses the different aspects of the Messiah and clearly interprets Isaiah 53 as Messianic and specifically gives the Messiah the title of “the Leper Scholar”(suffering servant). “The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. ”(Isaiah 53:4) . http://www.come-and-hear.com... B) There is no authoritative rabbinical support for anything but a personal messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 until the 11th century AD. (source: Rashi, Ibn Ezra) Nearly all the Rabbi’s held to ancient traditional Messianic interpretation until the recently shifting that interpretation. C) Even after the first “idea” of a nation of Israel concept comes from a 150 A. D. writing of Origen (Book 1 Chapter 55) (. http://www.newadvent.org...) no authoritative Jewish writings hold to a national interpretation of Isaiah 53 as my opponent describes. This viewpoint was available to the Midrash and the Talmud. Even though this interpretation was available to the Rabbis who wrote the Midrash and Talmud no rabbinical support was given to this viewpoint until even well after the start of Christianity all the way until the last two centuries. (Ibid) Clear factual understanding of the evidence: All of the Rabbi’s, who spoke the original languages in the Bible, never interpreted the language to mean anything other than a suffering personal Messiah. These facts alone are overwhelming to my opponents position. Contention 2: The New Testament (a Jewish writing) also interpreted Isaiah 53 as personal Messiah with no contest from the contemporary rabbinical community on this interpretation. Matthew 8:17 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases. ”[a] Contention 3: Clear breakdown of rationale with the text being translated as the nation of Israel pointed out by Origen. “Origen points out the distinction between the “Servant” and those for whom he suffers. Asking the question, if the “Servant” suffering is Israel, who are the people he suffers for? How is it he is led away because of the iniquities of the “People of God”? Since, the servant is the “People of God”? ” (Book 1 Chapter 55) . http://www.newadvent.org... Contention 4: The following is the list of reasons as to “why” all of the Jews and Christians have, throughout antiquity up to today, interpreted Isaiah 53 as a personal “Messiah Ben Joseph” So who is Israel if not the nation? A) Israel means Prince of God. Hebrew = “Ysr El” B) Israel is the title of the servant Messiah of God used by Isaiah. C) We see that indeed a single man, Jacob, was also called Israel and all his descendants are called to be “princes of God”. The entirety of the gentile nations was to be saved by the Israelis, (princes of God). The Messiah is the Prince of God that will do the job where the descendents of Jacob, Israel, failed. D) Not only is the Nation of Israel called Israel but the nation is also called Jacob and Zion quite a bit. These titles are often interchangeable. E) Isaiah utilizes multiple metaphors to describe different aspects of the Nation and of the Messiah. The Talmud does a great job detailing both aspects. (Ibid) F) All of 4 Servant Songs in Isaiah are laying out the failure of the nation to be God’s Israel and that God responds with providing himself a “True Israel (Prince of God) the Messiah. All servant songs are Messianic vs. failed nation. . http://carm.org... - The above source lays out a clear program of how the Messiah is the fulfillment of the failings of the nation. This is clear concept when the context is understood. G) All four Servant Songs clearly use personal language when discussing God’s Messiah and all the Rabbi’s that understood ancient Hebrew continue to affirm this view throughout antiquity. Rebuttal: Everything my opponent stated was refuted in the above details. Everything he “suggested those things meant” have a true meaning detailed by ancient Rabbinical and Christian Scholars which is in direct conflict. Harold Camping is a recent example (May 21st doomsday) where a recent interpretation can cause things to go horribly awry. I would recommend my opponent start by studying ancient writers who first dealt with these issues. My opponent must cite his sources for critical review and he must also give valid reasons for “why” those things mean what he states rather than what every biblical scholar in history has stated they mean. After, all I could state that all lions mean Zedekiah and just claim that. I need to prove why indeed it does mean that. In conclusion: I have shown both to my opponent and to the readers that no authoritative Jewish or Christian scholars support his view. Also, I have shown that all of the scholars in antiquity, that spoke the original languages, view a personal messiah being discussed alongside a failed nation. I have shown that first, a single person can hold the title Israel, then also the context clearly shows that God points to the nation as failed and the Messiah will fulfill the Israel concept in each requirement. A bit more study and the Messianic interpretation becomes the only interpretation you can hold to.