Isaiah 53 Does Not Refer to Jesus

My opponent continues to impress me with his arguments.Rebuttal: Round ThreeHistorical EvidenceMy opponent states that the "Jewish people have always understood Isaiah 53 to refer to Israel."Evidence 1:My opponent has submitted a topic that could neither prove nor disprove his case. Although Celsus did in fact concede to my opponent's viewpoint, this in no way can prove the actual historical and cultural aspects of Isaiah 53. Mainly because Celsus' essay was based off of opinion. Opinions will not be considered evidence. Furthermore, his essay was published circa 248 A.D. [1] -not even remotely close to the time period to whom which Isaiah 53 was addressed.Evidence 2:As it appears that my opponent has provided valid evidence to support his claim, let us observe the endeavors of this particular instance. I assume that my opponent is referring to:"Jesus went on to say, 'In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me.' At this, some of his disciples said to one another, 'What does he mean by saying [this]..? They kept asking, 'What does he mean by "a little while"? We don’t understand what he is saying.'” John 16:16-18(If this is not the verse that was referred to, I would ask my opponent to please clarify.)The twelve disciples were not Jewish Pharisees; although they were raised in a society were Jewish law and religion was mandatory for boys growing up [2]. It is unlikely that they made the connection with what Christ was saying. Previously, they were fishermen and tax collectors; people who were too occupied with self-benefit to regard the importance of scripture. It was only after Christ's ascension did they begin to grow in their understanding.Rebuking the rebutsI. Who is the suffering servant?I do, in fact, concede that Israel is "God's Servant" in the sense that Israel would someday give rise to the Son of Man. Adding, I would never refute what the scriptures say; so we must hold it valid for this debate. Jesus, was and is "Good news" to Israel at the time; God planned through his prophet, Isaiah, that he would send a "servant" to man to reconcile his people back to Him. In this sense, it was not "out-of-the-blue" That Isaiah would deliver this message, but very relevant for the time. As Israel desperately wanted God to dwell among them and their lives, hence came Jesus.Something that would seem "out of place" would be the almost random apparent usage of the pronoun, "he;" as it is not used throughout the adjacent scriptures.Furthermore, ‘aḇ·dî is used to term "The Servant" in Isaiah 53:11. This term is only used when referring to a specific person [5]. Therefore, the entire nation of Israel would certainly be out of the question.II. Does Jesus fit the description of Isaiah 53?A. Despised and rejectedMy opponent reiterated an already refuted case. Let us further investigate the Hebrew that my opponent has graciously provided:אּישׁThis term, ’îš (ish), can be defined as so:Ish: a man as an individual or a male person; often used as an adjunct to a more definite term [3]."Ish" is used to describe "a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief." Since "Ish" is generally used only to adjunct a more definite term, it would only make sense that "Ish" is referring to a literal man. Ish, in the context, always refers to a literal man [4]. Although "ish" is sometimes used to describe multiple men, it would not make sense for the Hebrew to refer to the entire nation of Israel. This is because "Ish" refers to man/men/mankind specifically. It is true that people of the Jewish descent have been/are ridiculed, depicted as sickly looking creatures. Nonetheless, this is not what Isaiah is referring to, he is referring to a physical mutilation not a genetic characteristic:"Just as there were many who were appalled at him his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness" Isaiah 52:14The term used for "marred" is "mishchath." "Mishcath" literally means "disfigurement," however, it derives from the word, "shachath," which means "to go to ruin" or better yet, "to destroy/to corrupt/ to ruin. [6]" Therefore, Isaiah is referring to a man (ish) that was ruined (shachath) beyond human likeness... Does this sound like someone familiar?B. Did not open his mouthThis is not contradictory in any way. Both verses regard Jesus' trial, but at different instances of time. Both instances could easily have happened consecutively without any contradictions or conflicts. Even in this verse, Jesus does not oppose the charges set against him (as Isaiah 53 states). Therefore, my rebuke still stands.My opponent supplies a commentary from an unknown source. Moreover, I would like to remind my opponent that many Jewish people did complain against God. I would advise my opponent to read the book, Night, by Elie Wiesel [7].D. OffspringMy opponent states the following quote:"[zera] ALWAYS REFER TO A LITERAL OFFSPRING!"Incorrect. Allow me to direct my opponent to the following verses:"Woe to the sinful nation, a people whose guilt is great, a brood (seed {zera}) of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him." Isaiah 1:4"On the great waters came the grain (seed {zera})of the Shihor; the harvest of the Nile was the revenue of Tyre, and she became the marketplace of the nations." Isaiah 22:3As one can see, zera is not always used to denote "literal" offspring. It is better to view the context of which the word is used, in the context of Isaiah 53, "seed" would mean "plant" or "fruit" as in "result of one's labor." I stand with my original rebuke.E. ProlongedIn the context of "prolonged days;" prolonged, meaning, "extended." As in, he remained on earth longer than he had planned, after resurrecting; demonstrating his power over death. Let me address the quote "he never dies." with some scientific fact:Entropy: Everything tends toward disorder [8]Jesus (God), subjected himself to the Law of Entropy, or the Second law of Thermodynamics so that his body may die. Why? To make the Ultimate human sacrifice worthwhile. By conquering death and defeating the very law that he created, he proved that he is God. Case Closed.II. If not Jesus, who?My opponent has conceded this; not attempting to refute Israel's history of violence and lack of specific details thereof denounces his case for this contention as conjecture.One last argumentConsidering that my opponent will only be given one last chance to rebuke my second rebuttal, I would like to add an argument for my case. Considering that my opponent has the BoP, I will not hold it against him if he refuses to address it, as it is not required for his position. Furthermore, this argument will only be stated to prove my case, in that Isaiah 53 IS referring to Jesus, and that Jesus IS in fact, the messiah.-Observe the word, Yahweh. It is the name for the Judeo-Christian God. -The Tetragrammeton is the shortened version of the whole phrase of Yahweh.-YHWH-YHWH means: Yodh Heh Waw He [9]-Yodh (Closed Hand) Heh/He (Behold) Waw or Vav (Nail) He/Heh (Behold) [10]Therefore, YHWH, or Yahweh is "Behold the nail, behold the hand." Does this sound like someone familiar?ConclusionI have addressed all of my opponent's contentions. I look forward to the closing round.Onto Pro.[1] http://www.nndb.com...[2] http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mag/TSmgenB3.html[3] http://concordances.org...[4] http://concordances.org...[5] http://concordances.org...[6] http://concordances.org...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...(book)[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...[10] http://seekfirst.com...