The Tanakh describes Messiah as Divine

Rebuttals Deuteronomy (Devarim) chapter 4 The commandment is to not make a graven image. It does not say that G-d never has a form. In reality, mainstream Judaism accepts the idea that G-d may be seen in a physical form. The technical term for it is "Theophany". The Jewish Encyclopedia claims there are exactly four theophanies in the Jewish Bible [16]. The Jewish Bible actually supports the idea that G-d may chose to take a physical form. Although mainstream Judaism rejects the notion that G-d may chose to take a human form, this notion is not supported by the scriptures con has put forward. If mainstream Judaism accepts the idea that G-d may take physical form, then why should we accept con's interpretation (that G-d never has physical form) of Deuteronomy 4? Hosea (Hoshe'a) 3:5 This verse does not say that Messiah is not G-d. Furthermore, there are other places in the scriptures where G-d is referred to in two forms in the same verse. For example, Isaiah 48:16 "Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord God and His Spirit Have[a] sent Me." Footnotes: a. Isaiah 48:16 The Hebrew verb is singular. To be clear, this verse names G-d and the Spirit of G-d separately, but uses the singular tense of the verb when referring to the both of them as if they are two entities working as one entity. The verb being singular indicates that the Spirit of G-d may rightfully be called G-d. If you don't believe me, you can use biblegateway.com to look up Isaiah 40:13 or Isaiah 61:1. I could provide others if pressed. So then, we see that G-d is mentioned twice here in the same verse. If it may be done here, it may also be done in Hosea 3:5. This particular verse does not provide strong support for con's case. Sources Favoring Messiah Con claims I use sources that favor Messiah. This may be a mostly true statement. I have quoted Chabad, JewsForJudaism, the Jewish Chronicle, and the Kesher Journal directly. My favorite was the Jewish Chronicle, because it is a scholar respected by mainstream Judaism who claims the idea of a divine Messiah wasn't rejected by Judaism until it tried to separate from Christianity. Many of my other sources are pro-Yeshua (aka pro-Jesus) sources quoting Jewish rabbis such as Rabbi Hunah. So although they are pro-Yeshua, they are used to quote rabbis who were not. As the rabbis being quoted give support to the idea that Messiah could be divine, I was unable to find mainstream Jewish sources for such material for obvious reasons. Con wants to dismiss these sources out of hand for being bias on the issue, but con has not attempted to address their content, specifically, the quotes from non-bias rabbis who died before Yeshua was allegedly born. Isaiah 53 I'm glad con gave a rebuttal to this particular passage. Con claims that Christians are using an inaccurate version of the passage, thus the version I posted here is also inaccurate. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls are at odds with con's claim. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain what is known as "The Great Isaiah Scroll" which can be interactively viewed online [17]. This scroll is significant, because it predates Christianity by somewhere between 35 to 135 years. An English translation can be found online as well [18]. Isiah 53:10 translated from the Great Isaiah Scroll And YHWH was pleased to crush him and He has caused him grief. In contrast, the version quoted by con cannot be found in any ancient manuscripts until long after Christianity was established and Jewish rabbis were already attempting to distance themselves from it. Con claims that Isaiah 53 is about Israel suffering for itself, but again, this idea didn't come about until Judaism distanced itself from Christianity. The Talmud overwhelmingly gives Isaiah 53 a Messianic interpretation [19]. Again, I have to use a pro-Jesus source, because Jewish sources won't mention this. I should also point out that the Greek translation of the Tanakh, the Septuagint (named "70" in Greek after the 70 Jewish rabbis who translated it) agrees with the Great Isaiah Scroll but disagrees with Masoretic texts used by modern Judaism. All the evidence points to Jewish rabbis/scribes editing Isaiah 53 to distance themselves from Christianity. Isaiah 53 is a messianic prophecy by unbiased Judaism. Besides, Isaiah 53 strongly contrasts the sinless suffering servant from sinful Israel who rejects the suffering servant. Daniel 9 Almost every scholar, Jewish or not, knows that Daniel 9 is referring to the Messiah. The standard Jewish translation (JSP) of Daniel 9 uses "the anointed one" [20]. The fact that Daniel 9 refers to the Messiah has been clear from the beginning. The Talmud says so [20]. After Christianity began using Daniel 9 as evidence for Yeshua being Messiah, a two part curse was pronounced by Jewish rabbis over anyone who attempts to calculate the advent (coming) of Messiah using Daniel 9 [21]. Con has not given any sources to convince us that con's interpretation of this verse is the most valid. In contrast, I've shown both modern and ancient Jewish sources saying it is about the, not a, Messiah. Sources 16) http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com... 17) http://dss.collections.imj.org.il... 18) http://www.ao.net... 19) http://www.jewsforjesus.org... 20) http://christianthinktank.com... 21) http://amazingdiscoveries.org...