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

[Simon Moon]

Isaiah 53 is simply, and demonstrably, not a prophecy about Jesus.

The "suffering servant" being referred to, is Israel itself. Not a person, and certainly not a person in the future.

It is not even ambiguous!

All one had to do is HONESTLY. examine the passages that precede Isaiah 53, and follow it.

Israel is referred to as God's "servant" throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10).

I mean seriously, it is spelled out about as clearly as the Bible can be. But of course, to a true believer, the Bible is the "big book of multiple choice".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You want Pissant to stop lying? Good luck with that.

[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.

[Nishant Xavier]

"The prophet office did not include foretelling future events"

Lolol, has to be the most hilarious things I've ever read.

The very definition of a Prophet is to foretell future events.

Every Israelite Jew knows that the Prophets foretold the Messiah.

Don't have time to type out detailed replies now, but will get back to that later after work.

For now, an video on how a person from a Jewish background who hated Jesus Christ slowly had his heart opened to the Gospel by the Holy Spirit as the evidence became overwhelming.

https://youtu.be/ubdqM3JwkAA

"Once an Enemy, now a Brother | Israelis meeting their Messiah"

"Noam, from a religious Jewish background, saw our evangelistic videos and started spewing out curse words at us. But then something beautiful happened...

God is opening the eyes of the Jewish people to their Messiah more than any time in 2,000 years!" May Rabbi Yeshua help our Jewish Friends come to see the wonderful Truth in time. The Gospel really is Good News - that's what it means - Good News for All People everywhere, but especially for the Jews and the People of Israel, that God loves then with a Special Love and wants them to recognize their own Jewish Messiah.

[Angrboda]

You don't have time to talk, but you do have time to spam us with a cheesy Youtube video. Thanks a million, pal!

[Fake Messiah]

For now, an video on how a person from a Jewish background

Talking about Jews and Isaiah on youtube

[Bucky Ball]

"The prophet office did not include foretelling future events"

Lolol, has to be the most hilarious things I've ever read.

The very definition of a Prophet is to foretell future events.

So you falsely and ignorantly claim,
it may be the definition where you come from, but not in the halls of real scholarship.
Prophesy is not about sooth-saying. It was forbidden. We get that your level of education about religion is about the 2nd Grade level.
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/rel...508899007/
You can cherry-pick any bullshit from anywhere, as you do.

But do please, continue to demonstrate your total ignorance of ancient Hebrew culture. 
You're nothing but an ignorant amateur.

https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780765799982/Me...prophecies.
Their role was NOT to be a soothsayer.
"Their task was to warn, criticize the morals and ethics of their day, and counsel and comfort the Israelite people."

"Today’s world misunderstands prophecy. We see it as a foretelling of the future, but that is not what prophecy was about in the days when the various books of the Bible were written, and prophecy is not about fortune-telling today, either.

A biblical prophet’s purpose was to hold up a mirror to society so believers could see who they really were and how they were acting. A prophet held a yardstick to society and said you are or are not measuring up to God’s standard. For example, the prophet Nathan confronted David when the king had Uriah killed and took Bathsheba as a wife. Because of Nathan’s words, David recognized his sinfulness, accepted the consequences and repented.

Prophecy sometimes includes a statement about what will happen in the future. But this soothsaying should not be viewed as definite, unchanging predictions of what is to come. The prophet is saying, "If you continue your evil ways, this is what will happen to you in the future. If you change your ways to conform to God’s desires, your life will have a different future.” "In the familiar story about Jonah, the prophet goes to Nineveh at God’s insistence to tell the Ninevites they will be punished for their sinful ways. The Ninevites respond to Jonah’s prophecy by atoning for their sins, and God refrains from sending down His wrath. Jonah, then, is upset because God forgives the Ninevites. Jonah feels like a fool for expressing the prophecy.

But in the story, Jonah did not understand the purpose of prophecy. Prophecy is never about telling the future; it is always about attempting to change current behavior to be in line with God’s laws and desires for humankind. When that purpose is accomplished, there is no need for the undesirable future to occur." "Likewise, prophecy may tell of good that will happen if believers take the proper path. When the society or individuals fail to follow that proper path, of course, that future will not occur, and painful consequences will follow."

[GrandizerII]

"The prophet office did not include foretelling future events"

Lolol, has to be the most hilarious things I've ever read.

The very definition of a Prophet is to foretell future events.

Nah, that may be the modern definition, but not the historical one. A prophet was supposed to be a spokesman for God, not a predictor of the future.

[The Grand Nudger]

Today, we call them pundits.

[Bucky Ball]

"The prophet office did not include foretelling future events"

Lolol, has to be the most hilarious things I've ever read.

The very definition of a Prophet is to foretell future events.

Nah, that may be the modern definition, but not the historical one. A prophet was supposed to be a spokesman for God, not a predictor of the future.

That's precisely his problem. He knows ONLY the current definitions and thinking about everything. 
He has no clue what the historical realities were.
He constantly commits the historical error called "presentism". He has no clue what that is, as he is no scholar of anything.

"A prophet is not an oracle; a prophecy is not a prediction. Precisely because Judaism believes in free will, the human future can never be unfailingly predicted. People are capable of change. God forgives. As we say in our prayers on the High Holy Days: “Prayer, penitence, and charity avert the evil decree.” There is no decree that cannot be revoked. A prophet does not foretell. He warns. A prophet does not speak to predict future catastrophe but rather to avert it. If a prediction comes true it has succeeded. If a prophecy comes true it has failed.”
https://www.rabbisacks.org/quotes/prophe...rediction/

(On NOT predicting the future)
"This is no minor detail. It is a fundamental feature of Jewish spirituality. We believe that we cannot predict the future when it comes to human beings. We make the future by our choices. The script has not yet been written. The future is radically open."
https://www.rabbisacks.org/covenant-conv...he-future/