The Jewish religion should identify Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah

Con: "My opponent's entire case rests on Isaiah 53. This is a big mistake." Con refused to give a rebuttal in round 2 to my round 2 arguments. When Con claims that my entire argument rests on Isaiah 53, Con is only addressing my round 3 rebuttal. Con has completely ignored my opening arguments which include Daniel 9 which is a better argument than Isaiah 53 in my own estimation. Con: "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)." In this case, there is a strong argument that older sources are more pure. After Christianity was established, the Jewish religion had to counter the claims of Christianity. In other words, later interpretations of the Bible would be bias against Christianity. Any Jewish writers that came before Christianity would be unbias on the matter specific to Christianity, because they wouldn't know of it. Additionally, the Bible was written in the mother tongue of ancient Jewish writers, giving them a clearer understanding of the intent of the original authors than even modern Hebrew speakers. The 70 rabbis who produced the Septuagint would also be unbias toward Christianity, because the Septuagint was produced hundreds of years before Christianity began. The authors of the B'rit HaDasha (New Testament) quoted the Septuagint heavily. The oldest manuscripts of the entire Bible we have are from the Septuagint [1]. Additionally, the Septuagint was quoted by early Jewish historians such as Philo and Josephus [1]. The veneration with which the Jews had treated this version [the Septuagint] (as is shown in the case of Philo and Josephus) [because Philo and Josephus quoted the Septuagint], gave place to a very contrary feeling when they [the Jews] found how it could be used against them in argument: hence they decreed the version, and sought to deprive it of all authority. [1] As I previously pointed out, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide evidence that Isaiah 53 was altered after the establishment of Christianity to refute the claims of Christians. The Great Isaiah Scroll predates Christianity and differs from the Masoretic texts found after the establishment of Christianity in meaning, specifically in the chapter of Isaiah 53 [2]. To be specific, the ancient Great Isaiah Scroll agrees with the ancient Septuagint where ever it disagrees with the modern Masoretic text used by Jewish scholarship today. So the claims that Con makes regarding Isaiah 53 are based on changes to the text that occurred only after Christianity was established. Con seems to agree with my assertion that the modern Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 was established after Christianity was established. This furthers my assertion that modern Jewish thought on the Bible is bias. Contrary to Con's assertions, this is why it is important to go back to the earliest commentaries possible. Con provides a modern reference stating that Messiah ben Joseph couldn't be the Messiah of the Ten Tribes. However, this reference does not provide a single premise by which that claim can be tested or falsified. It appears to be an assertion of bias against Christianity, and not an assertion of fact based on available evidence. In contrast, I have provided evidence from unbias, ancient Jewish scholarship providing evidence that Yeshua Jesus did in fact meet the prophetic criteria not just of Daniel 9 and Isaiah 53, but of additional prophecies such as the lineage from King David. I provided a rebuttal of Con's assertion that Messiah had to come from David on his father's side even though he didn't have an earthly father. I showed that both his mother and his adopted father were in the line of David. Con failed to address my rebuttal. In fact, Con failed to address the majority of my objections to his opening arguments. Con seems to either consider his opening arguments are trivial or simply not understand his opening arguments, which is dumbfounding considering his claim to not have plagiarized. Con provided so little objection in his previous round that I have very little to give a rebuttal to. Given I have opening arguments left unaddressed, I maintain my assertion that the rejection of Yeshua Jesus as the Messiah is based on bias instead of available evidence. I have shown the post-Christian alteration of the Bible in support of this bias. 1) http://www.ecclesia.org... 2) http://www.ancient-hebrew.org...