Isaiah 53, 700 B.C: Historical Evidence of the Divine Omniscience.

[Bucky Ball]

Whether He was crushed "for" our transgressions or "because" of our transgressions, the meaning is ultimately the same. Christ died for our sins and because of our sins. Finally, note that in Isaiah 49, the Servant and Israel are clearly distinguished as two separate entities, the Servant as a Messianic Figure, Israel as the people He came to save along with the Gentiles: "And now the Lord says he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob [Israel] back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord and my God has been my strength—6 he says: “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob [Israel] and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”


This is the Prophecy Simeon cited in the Jewish Temple when the Child Jesus was brought to him, saying "A light to enlighten the Gentiles, And the glory of Your people Israel" (Luk 2:32). Jewish Tradition has understood these Servant Passages of the Messiah, as the Rabbis I cited show.

Finally, note that Biblical Figures are sometimes called by their ancestors, for e.g. the Messiah is sometimes called David, because He is a Son of David. For a similar reason He is sometimes called Israel, because He is a Son of Israel. Israel refers to the name of the Patriarch Jacob, whose name was changed by God to Israel. Here is one such passage: "My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees." (Ez 37:24). David in this passage stands for the Messiah, the Son of David. 

Regards, 
Xavier.

Bla bla bla. 
The servant IS ISRAEL, not one person.
When you actually decide to get a formal education in these matters, you will learn about the concept of "the remnant" in Isaiah.
According to the Book of Isaiah, the "remnant" (Hebrew: שְׁאָר, romanized: sh'ár) is a small group of Israelites who will survive the invasion of the Assyrian army under Tiglath-Pileser III (Isaiah 10:20–22).

Otherwise all totally and completely irrelevant. So you cannot defend your claim about the prophesy. 
So you obfuscate with other crap.  
BTW, you have no evidence (only in one gospel) that Simeon said anything, or that Jesus was taken to the temple. That would be a long trip, with a baby.
But thanks for reminding us ... the Greek word in the Simeon deal in Luke where he says "This child shall be responsible for the *rise* and fall of many in Israel, is the same Greek word used by Paul to describe the resurrection. A change in relative status, ("exalted" as Ehrman's book says) not "risen from the dead". Thanks for that. 

You are CHANGING the GOALPOSTS. 
You "believe" that a Christ dies for sins. You can't prove it, and the Jews didn't need a savior. They already had a sacrificial system. You're slapping your
present beliefs on top of a culture you know nothing about. It has a name. Presentism.  

Repeating your unsupported beliefs is worthless. You have NOT demonstrated the function of the Jewish Messiah was to save from sin. It was not. 
The QUESTION HERE is did Isaiah say anything about needing a savior, and since the Jews WERE ALREADY forgiven, and no savior was needed. He did not.
Your claim of prophesy here is totally bogus, and you have missed the entire point of Isaiah.

There is nothing in Isaiah 49, that creates a distinction between one person and the nation as a servant.
"He said to me, “You are my servant,
   Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”

Jesus didn't die for sins. He died because he was a criminal.
The thing is, if there was a Jesus, one of the tiny kernels of truth may be the ruckus he caused in the temple.
It says he overturned the tables of the money-changers. This ritually HAD to be done as Roman money was unclean.
The absolute center of Jerusalem's economy was the temple and all the fees and money-making that went with that.
It's impossible to over-estimate that. There were fees for everything for all the Jews who came to the festivals. Fees for the priests and buying the animals. fees to lodge, fees to eat,
fees to purify oneself before going to temple. Fees and more fees. A HUGE booming tourism temple economy. Here comes this wandering preacher from Galilee who threatens all this
by messing with the temple and the priests and sacrifice system.

In the Roman provinces there was a standing order to summarily execute trouble-makers. Jesus would have been a trouble-maker.
He was arrested and summarily executed. Peasants didn't get or need a trial, and NEVER in front of Roman aristocrats.
They also didn't get buried when they died. Traditionally they were left on the cross for a few days, which was absolutely humiliating.
(and that humiliation was what was feared), then tossed into a common grave.
He was executed just like any other trouble-maker. He was a criminal. His followers of course would be embarrassed, and had to cook up a reason to justify his death.
That was "oh, he died for your sins".