The Jewish religion should identify Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah

I used a single source for my arguments. I used citations and quotation marks in every instance of me using another person's words. I was also pretty open about using the same framework. If you feel like I was unfair than just don't count any of those arguments. The BOP is on my opponent and I can win this debate by just using rebuttals anyway.INTRODUCTIONMy opponent's entire case rests on Isaiah 53. This is a big mistake. All I have to show is that my interpretation of Isaiah 53 is more reasonable than pro's and I win this debate. I'll take this relevant point by relevant point, and you'll see how he's had to really distort the original meaning of Isiaih 53 as well as invent (dig up may be more appropriate) some kooky theories to make his arguments work. The Meaning of Isaiah 53If you fully read Isaiah 53 (found here https://www.biblegateway.com... 53 ), you'll see that it's clearly talking about the nation of Israel. The writer is trying to be poetic or just writes funny and continually refers to Israel as a servant or in the singular sense as if talking about a person. When I first read the popular verses from Isaiah, I read them out of context and thought it was an amazing description of what happened to Jesus. Here is one verse so you can see what I mean.Isaiah 53:5"5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."Amazing right? Here is one thing I want to bring your attention to. This verse is in past tense, it's not a prophecy. The "he" refers to Israel which I'll show you here in a minute. The writer is simply being poetic in his description of a past event that hit Israel pretty hard.Now my opponent is going to point out that a few long dead Jews thought this verse was in reference to some messiah figure. He's not going to explain the why or how but just show some old dead Jewish guy thought it was the case. Does this guy believe everything dead Jewish guys tell him. I mean if a dead Jewish guy told him he was the messiah, would he believe him?........Oh yeah, that's right. You may be asking yourself: "How does this guy know that Isaiah 53 is about Israel and not Jesus? (Besides the usage of past tense)" Well that my friends is a little something I like to call context. Let's go back to when this guy started his poetic rendition of the hardships of Israel. It's not too far backIsaiah 41:8"8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend."Here Israel is called servant and you can see all kinds of examples of this author referring to Israel as servant or him or some other singular way. I encourage the readers and even the voters to read Isaiah 52 and 54. It's extremely clear that both chapters refer to the nation of Israel. (It will just take a minute, again visit biblehub.)This is called context. The bible is translated and written in plain English. I encourage everyone to look at the context." According to modern Jewish scholarship, the earliest reference to this interpretation comes about 284 C.E, well after the establishment of Christianity"For one it's hard to get ahold of writing from much earlier than that. Another thing is that it's irrelevant what they thought. I could care less how Jews interpreted those passages 2,000 years ago. There is this odd appeal to nostalgia. People believe that the older something is the more accurate or pure it is, but that's bologna. My opponent is stating that Jews didn't hold a particular interpretation of Isaiah 53 until 200 and something AD. You can't say Jewish scholars all of a sudden became less accurate at interpreting scripture merely because Christianity came on the scene, that good sir is ludicrous (not the rapper).Doublemint Gum Double MessiahI want to take a moment to quote my opponent's source:"When and how this Messiah-conception originated is a question that has not yet been answered satisfactorily. It is not possible to consider Messiah b. Joseph the Messiah of the Ten Tribes."http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com...Let me put what he's using as a source and evidence for a double messiah in more plain English. Here it is in my own words."We don't know how the hell those dead Jewish guys came up with the double messiah theory."Dude, you can't just say some dead Jewish guys came up with a theory for a double messiah, so that makes the theory valid. You need to provide some supporting evidence, especially when your theories are so far in left field. So far pro has failed to support this theory except to say dead Jewish guys believed it once. Another thing is that the double messiah theory is a cop out. As I've shown in my previous round Jesus did not meet the qualifications of the messiah. My opponent has chopped off the qualifications Jesus didn't meet to form some argument based on some obscure ancient double messiah theory. At this point it doesn't even matter what argument I bring up. My opponent is going to say: "that may be true for the other messiah, but not Jesus".There is another reason the double messiah theory is a cop out. The story of Jesus as told in the bible would indicate a single messiah. This is why when Jesus failed to meet the qualifications of messiah, he promised to complete them When he returns at some later date which still hasn't occurred. Jesus and his followers didn't buy this double messiah theory and were probably unaware it even existed. CONCLUSIONMy counter rebuttals will follow in the next round. Just to summarize things for the readers. My opponent hasn't really offered any credible evidence for his position. He's equated the beliefs of others as evidence for his position or evidence against mine.Every single one of his arguments have basically been a logical fallacy known as....Genetic fallacy- is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.I want to end this round by providing a list of my opponent's most amusing genetic fallacies......"I have been unable to find a Jewish source that admits the Talmud agreed that Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah. There appears to be a targeted cover-up by the Jewish religion. This is an indication that they know that the scriptures appear to point to Yeshua as the Messiah, but they do not want to admit to it.""There are competing prophecies in the Tanakh regarding the nature of Messiah. This led to controversy among rabbis over how to identify Messiah. This led ancient rabbis to believe in two Messiah figures"" Modern rabbinic interpretation of this passage claims that Israel is the suffering servant that pays for the sins of the entire world. There are many problems with this interpretation. First of all, this interpretation came in the middle ages in response to Christian claims that Isaiah 53 referred to Messiah.""It is interesting to note that the idea of Messiah was a popular topic until about Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi in 200-250 CE compiled the Mishna. The Mishna almost never references Messiah; the Talmud, which was written before then, had many references to the Messiah""I previously addressed that by showing from Jewish sources that the Jewish people expected two Messiahs."