The Tanakh describes Messiah as Divine

Additional Rebuttals It's correct that the neighbors of Israel worshiped idols; and that one aspect of the outlined Devarim (Deuteronomy) command is that the Israelites shall not worship idols or "false G-ds", however the command is not exclusive to this only. Devarim 4:12-15 is clear in that the Israelites do not and are not recognize G-d in any visible form. The commandment also applies to identifying an image of G-d himself. To reiterate once more, it's not only man-made images that the Israelites are not to worship--they are also forbidden from worshipping all G-d made forms; such as the sun, the moon, and the stars. Before moving to the Theophany argument, I will clarify the previous inclusion of Yesha'yahu 9:5-6 (Isaiah) and why the prophecy is not refering to the coming Messiah. For example, the Christian Bible (namely KJV) states: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty G-d, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."The correct translation from the Hebrew Tanakh is: "The Mighty G-d is planning grace." not the term of "Counsellor, the Mighty G-d". No commas exist within the Hebrew language which again reaffirms the fact that many verses from the Tanakh have been mistranslated--namely to blend in with Christianity and appear Messianic in nature. The same thing is done with the phrase: "Marbeh misrah shalom qets kiche David mamlakh" which correctly translates in English as: "In token of abundant authority and peace without limit upon David’s throne and kingdom” but the in the KJV is (mis) stated as: "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom.”Perhaps the most important mistranslation is: "Yeled yalad ben nathan misrah shekem", which correctly means: "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders." However, in KJV it misleadingly states: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder."The difference here is that the original Hebrew text is speaking in past tense, while the Christian KJV text is terming the verse in future tense--as to make it appear as a future prophecy. Which now brings us to the actual meaning of the verse and why it is not messianic. The person who is being referenced in this verse is King Hezekiah; the reason why terms such as "mighty G-d" are used is because within the cultural and historical context that is how a King such as Hezekiah may have termed. In fact, it was common for earthly Kings to be referred to "L-rd of "L-rds" and "King of Kings". In 38:8, Hezekiah said to Yesha'yahu: "The word of the L-rd that you have spoken is good" For he thought "For there shall be peace and truth in my days".So, it was Hezekiah himself that was being referenced as the "Prince of peace". As for Yesha'yahu 7:14, which has also been used in your argument as a Messianic verse, this too has been significantly misrepresented. To fully establish what the correct prophecy the added context of verse 7:16 is needed, it states:"For when the lad does not yet know how to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you shall dread, shall be abandoned". Note that this "lad" is referenced as a normal boy and is not suggested as being Messianic in any way. As a fulfillment of the prophecy, Yesha'yahu 8:3 goes on to state: "And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son", and the L-rd said to me, Call his name Maher -shalal-hash-baz". In Yesha'yahu 8:4: "For, when the lad does not know yet to call "Father" and "Mother", the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria".To add further clarifiction, 8:18 reads: "Behold, I and the children of Israel whom the L-rd gave me for signs and for token of Israel, from the L-rd of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion". Whether the woman described previously is a virgin or not is also relevant. In the Hebrew text the word used is "alma" which would translate as "young maiden", highlighting this is important as the verse has been mistranslated (namely by Christian sources) as stating "virgin".Now, addressing further rebuttals"Con argues that G-d will not have any physical form. I will show that G-d is shown to have a form in some cases, even according to modern Judaism [round 4, source 16]."The main point here is that G-d, as indicated in the Tanakh will choose not to have any physical form--primarily because He does not wish to worshipped within physical form. The stated example of Yechezkel (Ezekiel) in fact makes more description on the four "creatures" within the divine chariot and in the full context of the Chapter offers little detail on an appearance of G-d. Moreover, there is also the fact that Yechezkel is a prophet endowed with the task of presenting the words of G-d to Israel. The verse does not contradict the command to the Israelites to not recognize a visible form of G-d--especially that representitive of a man. The Jewish Encyclopedia is also not definitive in its account of Yecezkel actually fully viewing G-d himself. "Con's second argument along the same lines is that man is not allowed to see G-d even in non-physical form. Con misuses Exodus 33:20 to support this claim, because Moses (Moshe) was forbidden from seeing G-d's face. However, the next 3 verses tell the story of Moses seeing the back of G-d."The inclusion of Sh'mot (Exodus) was to outline that that Israelites--and Moshe himself--did not actually see an G-d in any visible form during the Theophany that took place upon receiving the Torah. On the contrary to showing himself; only his voice can be heard. As well outlining this the verse also adds further indication of G-d not wanting to be viewed. The statement of: "Even if con did give an example where G-d is not seen" is contradicted by the fact that within Sh'mot I (as Con) gave an explicit example of G-d not being seen. As for the verse of Yesha'yahu 48:8, as no mention or even suggestion of the Messish is made; it is again irrelevant to Pro's argument. In addition, Hosea outlines no implication that the Messiah is G-d. Once more this would contradict the verse and undermine its context. Concerning the use of biased sources; Pro used sources which clearly stated Jesus as the Messiah, as the argument is centred around the Tanakh perspective of the Messiah this of course adds bias. As well as Jewish source Pro has also included Christian sources, which naturally favours the Messiah as Jesus and uses selective examples, either verses or otherwise, to provide "support" to this belief. The earliest known example of dispute of Yesha'yahu 53 is in fact longer that Pro seemingly believes. One such example is from the 248 cited by Origen. In Origen's Contra Celsus, written in 248, he writes of Yesha'yahu 53:"Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a dispution held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations". As for Israel not being "sinless", rather what verse 53 is implying is that the Jews are not guilty of the "crimes" that they have been accused of. Sources:(1.) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...;(2.) http://www.truthnet.org...; (3.) http://www.chabad.org...(4.) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...(5.) http://www.myjewishlearning.com...