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

[Bucky Ball]

The meaning of the words ‘bruised for our iniquities’ [Isaiah 53:5] is, that since the Messiah bears our iniquities

Whoever it was or was not, it absolutely cannot be Jesus. 
His Fifth Evangelist told him the suffering and bruising was already accomplished.  
And forgiveness had ALREADY been done. 

"Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.
Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her
that her hard service has been completed,
that her sin has been paid for,
that she has received from the Lord’s hand
double for all her sins.”  Isaiah 40:1

His fundamental exegetical error, is that he is going about it exactly backwards. 
He insists on interpreting what something from an ancient culture with totally different ideas about a subject with present day ideas, so it can come out to mean what he needs it to mean,
and slaps his present day ideas onto the similar words (often incorrectly translated as he was shown), from his modern day faith concepts. 

He did the exact same thing with "son of god" business.
He insisted on slapping his own present day faith concepts, which developed for centuries, directly back onto ancient Jewish culture, for which the term had a vastly different meaning.
I'm not sure what the academics would call this sort of coarse ignorant crass classless blatant denial of historical facts. I even showed him from a Jewish source how he was wrong.
As long as he can ignorantly claim it, centuries later, supports his modern day faith, that' all he cares.

Presentism :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism..._analysis)
"In literary and historical analysis, presentism is a pejorative term for the introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy when writing about the past.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives the first citation for presentism in its historiographic sense from 1916, and the word may have been used in this meaning as early as the 1870s. The historian David Hackett Fischer identifies presentism as a fallacy also known as the "fallacy of nunc pro tunc". He has written that the "classic example" of presentism was the so-called "Whig history", in which certain 18th- and 19th-century British historians wrote history in a way that used the past to validate their own political beliefs. This interpretation was presentist because it did not depict the past in objective historical context but instead viewed history only through the lens of contemporary Whig beliefs. In this kind of approach, which emphasizes the relevance of history to the present, things that do not seem relevant receive little attention, which results in a misleading portrayal of the past. "Whig history" or "whiggishness" are often used as synonyms for presentism particularly when the historical depiction in question is teleological or triumphalist."

This is a very typical common amateur error, which he would have been taught about had he ever really been educated in History or the Bible.

In general amateurs and fundamentalists have a very hard time with this sort of thing, (they are known as "literary devices"),
(Fundamentalists *need* things as children need things, ... they need them to be literal),
and there are many used in the Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature. Isiah used one. He called ISRAEL *the* servant and used the literary device of "naming" the nation as (singular)
the "servant". "He was bruised for our iniquities" etc is simply the continuation of the SAME literary device used throughout Isaiah.
Israel had done the suffering he was talking about, and thus WAS ALREADY forgiven. The words "He was bruised etc" are IN THE PAST TENSE. It's NOT about a future event.
The suffering in Exile was a past event.

It' s simply amazing that he can't get that meanings and concepts CHANGE, and he can only accept one (ONLY) which slaps his present ideas, on top of ancient words that are somewhat similar.

The Book of Isaiah was written for the ancient Jews to help them understand what happened and why they had SUFFERED THROUGH the Exile.
It's NOT a prediction of more suffering. The prophet office did not include foretelling future events, until much much later.
Cherry-picking one line from an entire text and claiming it predicts something is about as ignorant and nonsensical as one can get. Yet they do it ? Amazing the stupidity.