Isaiah 53 Does Not Refer to Jesus

I agree with Pro. I have learned very much from extensive research, and I'm sure that he has too. I appreciate the approach that my opponent has made to this resolution; in a mature, scholarly fashion.Now without any further-or-do, let us end this debate.I. Historical evidenceEvidence 1:My opponent does not accepted the fact that this reference cannot be credible evidence. The fourth century was three hundred years after Christ's life on earth. Furthermore, the essay was written by Contra Celsus, based off of his own personal opinion; not the Jewish people.Evidence 2:How could one mistake the messiah, whom performs miracles and raises the dead? Either the disciples were mentally disabled, or they encountered a man of divine magnitude. Also, who is to say that Jesus didn't back up Isaiah 53? Simply because it was not mentioned does not prove a viable cause. As for Jesus and his brother, it is still reasonable to believe that they simply did not make the connection at the time; regardless of whether they were aware of this or not.II. Who is the servant?I stand corrected. My opponent has offered a valid response to my argument. Either way, this term can also refer to Jesus. In this manner, we can almost accept this as inconclusive; as it can go both ways. Still, my opponent has not addressed the usage of the pronoun, "he," which makes it acceptable to assume this term fits in the context of Jesus.III. Does Jesus fit the suffering servant?A. Despised and rejectedMy opponent has failed to explain exactly how I lack knowledge of the Hebrew language on this issue. I have clearly addressed the issue concerning disfigurement, moreover, I have explained how the context of Isaiah 53 requires a man, as opposed to a nation. My evidence still lies in accordance to the context of Isaiah 53. Refutation extended.B. Did not open his mouthIssue not even addressed. I have proven that Jesus did not speak against his afflictions, therefore, my refutation is still credible for this contention. Extended.C. OffspringConceded by my opponent. I have proven that Zera refers to a metaphorical "fruit," as I have proven that Ish refers to a physical man; because my opponent has not attacked my previous rebuke, Zera refers to metaphorical results in accordance to the context of Isaiah 53. Extended.D. ProlongedMy opponent misunderstood me. I was not referring to everlasting life, but to Jesus' prolonged life before he ascended into heaven. Prolonged being, the 40 days that he was on earth. This is credible, as Jesus could witness the fruit of his labor during this time. Extended.E. Violence (added as contention for sake of simplicity)My opponent has conceded this point; he has not refuted my rebuke to Jesus' lack of violence. Therefore, we can conclude Jesus was never violent due to my opponent's lack of addressing this.Final NotesI will say that I have learned so much from debating Mr.Infidel. I have learned so much more about Israel, and Hebrew, for the matter. I have learned about Israeli culture and faith, and even a little bit more about my opponent. I will also say, this has been one of the most productive debates that I have ever had the honor of being a part of. Never before, have I had an opponent so willing and passionate to discover the truth. In this, I applaud my opponent and sincerely recommend anyone and everyone to partake in a debate with him. He will be considered a challenge, but an distinguished one at best.As for the resolution, the rest is up to the voters. I have discovered a great deal more about my faith and that of my opponent's; enough to where I am even more confident of my own beliefs. My opponent has provided a well thought-out opinion in his final note; but the final opinion rests on that of the voters. Has truth been revealed in this debate? I believe it has.