Many points from that article may be mentioned here but this is specifically also for a response to the Rabbinic Jews on this subject.
For those who want to know who Uri Yosef is, I'll let his site speak for itself:
"Professor Uri Yosef was born, raised, and educated in Israel, and completed his higher education (Ph.D. and M.B.A.) in the US. A researcher, scholar, and former tenured professor, Uri speaks at various Jewish venues about the efforts to counter Christian missionary groups. Uri's background in languages includes: Hebrew (native tongue), English, German, and Yiddish on a fluent level."
Now onto some of the points he raised in his article on Isaiah 53. I haven't read the first article on the Defense of it talking about Israel, but I have read the second regarding Jesus, that I will definitely respond to. The points I will look at in particular are the New Testament questions which are found in the article itself.
One thing I will say off the bat, I don't dismiss the interpretation in the historical context or the Messianic context speaking of Israel, but even granting it as Israel will not deal with the Messianic application. For example the RMBM (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon aka Maimonedes), treats Isaiah 9:6 as messianic or Isaiah 9:5 as the Hebrew Bible has it numbered. He also differs from Christians, particularly Trinitarians in his application of the titles of the person, including El Gibbor or Mighty God. That's one example. But moving on.
Let's begin with the first point, Isaiah 53:12:
"The New Testament contains explicit references to several Biblical
personalities who were God's servants – David (Luke 1:69), Moses
(Revelation 15:3), and "the prophets" (Revelation 10:7). However, nowhere
do the authors of the New Testament refer to Jesus as God's servant, nor
does anyone ever explicitly call him My servant. The expression My servant
appears only once in the New Testament (with several variations on the
capitalization, depending on version and, at times, the phrase is also modified
with an added adjective), at Matthew 12:18, where it is an allusion to Jesus,
although it occurs there in a reference to Isaiah's First Servant Song (Isaiah
According to Christian theology, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, and is the
Son “personage” in the triune godhead for most Christians, all of which
components are claimed to be of "equal" status. But, how can Jesus be
God's servant if they are "equals"? After all, a servant is lower in status, or
"subservient", to his master. Complex, convoluted, and unconvincing
answers to this question, which are often based on circular reasoning, are
offered by missionaries. Contrary to those explanations, the authors of the
New Testament state the "bottom line" on several occasions, such as:
John 15:15(KJV) – Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not
what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of
my Father I have made known unto you. [See also Luke 7:8, 12:47.]
Therefore, from a Trinitarian Christian perspective, it would not be appropriate
to associate the title My servant with Jesus as being God's servant. Are not
the three components of the triune godhead co-equals in every way?
A further search of the New Testament for indications that Jesus prospered,
or acquired wisdom, yields the following passage:
Luke 2:52(KJV) – And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with
God and man.
Once again, one must question whether this can be an attribute of God. After
all, the Hebrew Bible teaches that God does not change (Malachi 3:6), yet
here the New Testament clearly states that Jesus was "growing up", i.e.,
changing. Secondly, since God is omniscient, i.e., all-knowing, how was it
possible for Jesus to learn more if he were this omniscient God?
The authors of the New Testament refer to Jesus being exalted (Acts 5:31;
Philippians 2:9). However, there is nothing found within the New Testament
to support the rest of the verse Isaiah 52:13. Concerning the matter of the
servant being lifted up and made high, how could this possibly refer to a
divine being? Recall that the prophet Malachi declares how God does not
change! The only (implicit) reference in the New Testament to any kind of
"lifting up" of Jesus is during the event of his crucifixion, when he had to be literally raised unto the cross, which placed him in a higher position than the
people who may have stood around on the ground. "
To accuse Trinitarians of circular reasoning when it comes to responding to the objection against the Trinity is not a response unless you can show that we are engaging in this. Firstly, The Trinity is the teaching there is ONE God and only one, but this one God is also three distinct persons. The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Father. That's the first point. Second, when we say that the persons are co-equal and co-eternal, that is in referrence to their essence and nature, not their position and status.
Philippians 2:5-11 says the following:
"5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."
Not only is Christ in nature deity, he also did not consider his equality something to be grasped or held onto. He willingly laid aside his divine perogatives, not his divinity, and took the form of a servant. Christ is God, but he is not the Father and is the servant of the Father, there is no problem with Isaiah 53:12 applying to Jesus in light of the Trinitarian context. Jesus IS hyper-exalted by the Father, he regains his divine perogatives after going back to heaven. As for Jesus growing and other issues like him not knowing the day or the hour, that demonstrates he is fully human, but doesn't refute him being fully God for the reasons above, regarding his perogatives.
As for being lifted up and made high, that does refer to Christ's exaltation, which Isaiah 53 does confirm.
If Uri is interested, he can check out my articles on the Trinity, especially my response to Tovia Singer on the subject.
Also, on a quick note, Malachi doesn't deny God the ability to become man, it says:
3 “I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty.
2 But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, 4 and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the Lord, as in days gone by, as in former years.
5 “So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the Lord Almighty.
6 “I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord Almighty.
The text doesn't have anything to do with the hypostatic union, in context, it demonstrates that God is still the same, Yesterday, Today and Forever. He is the same God who blesses and curses those who obey or disobey.
Next we shall move on to Isaiah 53:14:
"The accounts of the events leading up to the crucifixion include several
descriptions of how Jesus was handled by the Roman soldiers. Apparently
the Romans (verbally) mocked him, they placed a crown of thorns on his
head, spat on him, and hit him on the head, either with a reed or with their
hands (e.g., Matthew 27:27-30, John 19:2-3).
From the treatment described in the New Testament, and given that this took
place over a short period of time prior to his crucifixion, could the appearance
of Jesus have been marred and his features disfigured to such an extent that
he was unrecognizable as a person?
What did Jesus look like throughout his entire life span prior to this
treatment? Was he also in this condition? If he were in this condition, why
would God have chosen such a damaged body for Himself? Quite to the
contrary, the authors of the New Testament describe Jesus as handsome
and popular with the multitudes (e.g., Matthew 21:9; Luke 2:52), an image
that is depicted in many later works of art. "
Isaiah 53:14 doesn't speak of Jesus' entire life as a whole, the description of his visage was how he looked in his suffering. As he went to Calvary, his appearance was marred, the people mocked him amongst other things. Also the appeal to Jesus seen as handsome in works of art is to be honest a red herring, not to mention those who did the art work didn't know what Jesus looked like to begin with.
Next, Isaiah 53:1
"This verse is cross-referenced with two verses in the New Testament, John
12:38 and Romans 10:16, both of which allege that the Jews who, even after
having seen Jesus perform miracles, refused to accept him. How could the
context change so drastically and have the “voice” suddenly switch to the
Jews when the previous verse speaks of the startled kings of many nations?
Rather than it being the Jews who speak here, starting at this verse, those
kings of the nations begin to realize that what they had perceived in the past
is not what they are witnessing. Thus, the authors of these cross-referenced
passages in the New Testament either misrepresented or misunderstood
Isaiah's words and attributed them to the wrong "speakers"."
Uri goes back to Isaiah 52:10 briefly regarding the arm of the Lord and the Gentile Kings, but what I will focus on here is the New Testament question. Uri's interpretation that it's referring to the kings and not the Jews, while interesting, doesn't take into consideration that it is NOT just the Kings that didn't believe the report, the wicked remnant among the Jews did not believe it either. It is not a case of John attributing it to the wrong people, he as actually applying it correctly.
Think about it, the Rabbinic Jews often say Isaiah 53 is referring to the rightous remnant of Israel or both the Messiah and the rightous remnant right? But does that mean every Jew in the land believed the report? The answer is yes to the first question and the answer is no to the second. If there is a rightous remnant, there have to also be unbelievers around them. Unbelieving Jews would also be alongside the Gentile Kings in not believing the report. John's application of the verse is correct and valid, considering the Pharisees DID NOT BELIEVE. Also in Isaiah's day, only the rightous remnant among the Jews believed the report given by Isaiah, not the Jews as a whole.
Now we shall move onto Isaiah 53:2.
"It was noted in connection with Isaiah 52:13 how the New Testament depicts
Jesus, with his handsome appearance, charismatic personality, and wisdom, as constantly gaining popularity among ever growing multitudes. If that was
true, how could the present verse possibly refer to the massive rejection of
Jesus' message by the Jews at the time of his death? Quite to the contrary,
the New Testament indicates that, even within Jerusalem itself, great
multitudes were still loyal to Jesus as he was on his way to being crucified:
Luke 23:27(KJV) – And there followed him a great company of people, and of
women, which also bewailed and lamented him.
As it regards his followers outside of Jerusalem, it is most likely that they were
unaware of the events that transpired in the capital and, thus, they would not
have rejected him at that time.
With approximately 2/3rd of the world's Jewry in the first century C.E. living
outside the Land of Israel, it is also likely that the majority of his Jewish
contemporaries in the Diaspora never even heard of Jesus. Even the well known historian Philo of Alexandria [20 B.C.E-50 C.E], a contemporary of Jesus, never mentioned him in his works. Clearly, the rejection of Jesus by the Jews was not yet an issue at the time of his death."
Again, the text in Isaiah 53:2 is referring to the suffering of Christ, not his life as a whole. People mocked him and rejected him as I mentioned earlier in this article. This issue has already been covered.
Moving on to Isaiah 53:3
"Terminology similar to the language found in Isaiah 53:3 is used by the
authors of the Gospels in reference to Jesus for the very short duration of the
events that led up to his crucifixion. Otherwise, and quite to the contrary, the
Gospels abound with language that gives a very different picture of Jesus.
The phrase "… despised and forsaken by men …" cannot be reconciled with the
way Jesus is described in the New Testament, according to which he was
In his youth, he was loved by all (Luke 2:40,47,52)
He was a popular preacher (Mark 3:7-9)
He was "praised by all" (Luke 4:14-15)
He was followed by multitudes who later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 4:25, 21:9-11)
When it was time to take him away to be crucified, Jesus had to be spirited away since the rulers feared "a riot of the people" (Mark 14:1-2)
The cross-referenced verse, Luke 18:31, is out of context with respect to the
language in the Hebrew Bible, where the expression בותֹ אֹ כְ מַ אישִׁ (ISH
mach'oVOT), a man of pains, appears in connection with the servant. When
a person is described in the Hebrew Bible as "a man of …", the common
implication is that such a condition has been present for a prolonged period of
For example, the phrase היםÏִ אֱ אישִׁ (ISH E-loHIM), a man of God, in
the Hebrew Bible (e.g., 1Samuel 9:6) signifies that the person was devoted to
God for a long time, perhaps even for a lifetime. Other examples of this kind
include references to tribal affiliations, such as מיןִ יָנְבִּ אישִׁ (ISH BinyaMIN), a
man of [the Tribe of] Benjamin (e.g., Judges 20:41). Therefore, when the
phrase "… a man of pains, and accustomed to illness …" is said to apply to Jesus,
one must ask:
Where in the New Testament is Jesus described as having
been afflicted with disease, and for how long did this condition last? If he
were in this condition, one would have to wonder why God would choose to
put Himself into such an afflicted and decrepit body, and how Jesus could qualify as an "unblemished sacrifice" being in such an "imperfect" body."
I'll deal with the last point first. The NT commonly uses typology to point to Christ. Christians are aware that an unblemished lamb refers to it not having any physicial defects on the lamb itself. The point of Jesus being the unblemished lamb is in referrence his sinlessness. That's the typology used by the NT.
Second, Despised and forsaken of men refers again to his suffering before the cross, not his life as a whole as mentioned already. One way of Jesus being a man of pains and accustomed to illness is not his condition as such, but what he observed around him regarding the people, even those rightous people, certainly that was for a long time.
Third, Barnes in his commentary has suggested the following which can be found here http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/53-3.htm:
"A man of sorrows - What a beautiful expression! A man who was so sad and sorrowful; whose life was so full of sufferings, that it might be said that that was the characteristic of the man. A similar phraseology occurs in Proverbs 29:1, 'He that being often reproved,' in the margin, 'a man of reproofs;' in the Hebrew, 'A man of chastisements,' that is, a man who is often chastised. Compare Daniel 10:11 : 'O Daniel, a man greatly beloved,' Margin, as in Hebrew, 'A man of desires; that is, a man greatly desired. Here, the expression means that his life was characterized by sorrows. How remarkably this was fulfilled in the life of the Redeemer, it is not necessary to attempt to show.
And acquainted with grief - Hebrew, חלי וידוע viydûa‛ choliy - 'And knowing grief.' The word rendered 'grief' means usually sickness, disease Deuteronomy 7:15; Deuteronomy 28:61; Isaiah 1:5; but it also means anxiety, affliction Ecclesiastes 5:16; and then any evil or calamity Ecclesiastes 6:2. Many of the old interpreters explain it as meaning, that he was known or distinguished by disease; that is, affected by it in a remarkable manner. So Symm. Γνωστός νόσῳ Gnōstos nosō. Jerome (the Vulgate) renders it, Scientem infirmitatem. The Septuagint renders the whole clause, 'A man in affliction (ἐν πληγῇ en plēgē), and knowing to bear languor, or disease' (εἰδὼ; φέρειν μαλακίαν eidōs pherein malakian). But if the word here means disease, it is only a figurative designation of severe sufferings both of body and of soul. Hengstenberg, Koppe, and Ammon, suppose that the figure is taken from the leprosy, which was not only one of the most severe of all diseases, but was in a special manner regarded as a divine judgment.
They suppose that many of the expressions which follow may be explained with reference to this (compare Hebrews 4:15). The idea is, that he was familiar with sorrow and calamity. It does not mean, as it seems to me, that he was to be himself sick and diseased; but that he was to be subject to various kinds of calamity, and that it was to be a characteristic of his life that he was familiar with it. He was intimate with it. He knew it personally; he knew it in others. He lived in the midst of scenes of sorrow, and be became intimately acquainted with its various forms, and with its evils. There is no evidence that the Redeemer was himself sick at any time - which is remarkable - but there is evidence in abundance that he was familiar with all kinds of sorrow, and that his own life was a life of grief."
Onto Isaiah 53:4 this time.
"The use of the cross-referenced verse, Matthew 8:17, is likely to have been
motivated by the author’s desire to promote the idea of vicarious punishment,
an unfortunate misinterpretation of Isaiah 53:4.
Where in the New Testament is Jesus ever described in terms of such
language, especially as being smitten by God? Nowhere is Jesus described
as being sickly, oppressed, and smitten by God. While on the cross, Jesus
allegedly complained to God about being forsaken (Matthew 27:46; Mark
15:34), yet King David said that a righteous person is not forsaken by God:
Psalms 37:25 – I was young, I also aged, and I have not seen a righteous man
forsaken and his seed seeking bread.
Was Jesus righteous? If, as missionaries claim, he was God, how could he
forsake himself, or be unable to help himself while on the cross? "
Once again there is a lack of understanding regarding the subject of the Trinity here. When we say Jesus is God, that doesn't mean he is the Father in heaven. It is the Son speaking to the Father, not speaking to himself. Also, Jesus is quoting from Psalm 22, recognised universally among Christians as such and is also a vindication of God's servant not only in the Messianic application but also in the historical one I.E David. Matthew understood Isaiah 53:4 as referring to Jesus bearing our disease and infirmities by healing people from them and setting them free from it. He is not suggesting Christ literally became sick or infected by them in that sense.
Furthermore, When Jesus said "My God My God why have you forsaken me?", The judgement he bore for our sake was over. There was no complaining at all, nor did he become a sinful reprobate either, he simply bore our sins and God's wrath was poured out on him. the phrase it is finished, or at the end of Psalm 22, for he has done it, signified the end to which the servant is vindicated.
Let's move on the Isaiah 53:5
"As can be seen from the number of cross-referenced verses to it, the authors
of the New Testament quite fond of this verse in their efforts to design and.
promote the notion that the death of Jesus effected the atonement of the sins
of others. Yet, aside of the mistranslations in the KJV, human vicarious
atonement is strictly prohibited according to the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Exodus
32:31-33; Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 24:16; 2Kings 14:6; Jeremiah
31:29; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Psalms 49:7-9. "
The texts below will need a separate article to address. However I will briefly mention that Moed Qatan 28 a (or b), speaks about the death of the rightous making atonement. However, the interpretation of this tradition in the Talmud will need a discussion page for people to speak about this text, because I have come across other interpretations of that text.
Now then, Time for Isaiah 53:6
"The New Testament contains many references to Jesus taking on the
people's sins and dying for them (e.g., Matthew 26:28; 1Corinthians 15:3;
1Peter 2:24; 1John 3:5), though none testify to the text of Isaiah 53:6,
according to which this was inflicted on him by the people at God's request.
In fact, some passages in the New Testament claim that Jesus may have
done this at his own behest:
Galatians 1:3-4(KJV) – (3) Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and
from our Lord Jesus Christ, (4) Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver
us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
The closest the New Testament approaches the concept that God may have
had a hand in the event is in passages such as the following:
John 3:16(KJV) – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
1John 4:10(KJV) – Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
However, none of these passages reflect the context of Isaiah 53:6 and,
perhaps, that is the reason they are not cross-referenced to this verse.
Even though the alternative rendition is neither found nor acknowledged in
Christian translations, does the New Testament describe any situations where
Jesus interceded on behalf of someone who oppressed him? While no such
accounts are recorded about the Pharisees, who were alleged to be his
enemies, one such passage concerns the Roman soldiers who put Jesus on
Luke 23:34(KJV) – Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what
they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Based on this passage, Jesus is given the benefit of the doubt with respect to
Isaiah 53:6. "
Jesus' intercession not only would refer to the Romans, but also the intercession he makes for the people of God in heaven. Regarding Isaiah 53:6, why would it need to be? 1 Peter 2:24 actually paraphrases that verse and the others would have no need to quote it, the writers of the New Testament counted on the fact their audience would know the TANAKH inside and out.
Isaiah 53:7 next.
"There are several cross-referenced citations of this verse in the New
Testament, as indicated below the translation. All cited verses, except for
Acts 8:32, describe how Jesus stood silently when questioned by Pilate and
the High Priest. Acts 8:32 is a "quote" of Isaiah 53:7, which, according to the
context in Acts 8, was the passage the Ethiopian eunuch read and asked
Philip to teach him of whom Isaiah was speaking. Philip responded that it
was speaking of Jesus. So, the overall impression of these references to this
verse is that Jesus was quiet on his way to be crucified.
The Gospel accounts contain (conflicting) accounts that describe Jesus as
anything but silent in his own defense before the High Priest:
John 18:19-23(KJV) – (19) The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of
his doctrine. (20) Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in
the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret
have I said nothing. (21) Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I
have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. (22) And when he had thus
spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand,
saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? (23) Jesus answered him, If I have
spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
Jesus also protested when questioned by Pontius Pilate: John 18:33-37(KJV) – (33) Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and
called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? (34) Jesus
answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
(35) Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have
delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? (36) Jesus answered, My kingdom is
not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,
that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
(37) Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou
sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the
world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth
heareth my voice.
Jesus also prayed at the cross, as was noted in the discussion of Isaiah 53:6.
Then, according to the Gospel accounts, Jesus did not remain silent when he
was on the cross, with his last words being reported differently in three of the
Matthew 27:46(KJV) – And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me? [See also Mark 15:34; Luke 23:46; John 19:30.]
In fact, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus screamed so loudly while
on the cross that it might have even caused an earthquake:
Matthew 27:50-51(KJV) – (50) Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice,
yielded up the ghost. (51) And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain
from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Moreover, it seems that Jesus tried to save himself from death with prayers:
Matthew 26.39(KJV) – And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed,
saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not
as I will, but as thou wilt. [See also Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42]
Hebrews 5:7(KJV) – Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers
and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him
from death, and was heard in that he feared;
Jesus did not go willingly to his death, and he protested loudly against it,
contrary to Galatians 1:4, cited earlier in reference to Isaiah 53:6.
These accounts in the New Testament contradict the claim that Jesus was
silent before his accusers, and that he humbled himself and did not open his
mouth. The encounters with the Jewish and Roman authorities involved
strong verbal confrontations and did not feature a silent and meek Jesus.
Quite to the contrary, he is depicted as presenting a strong defense of himself
and for his teaching."
Jesus only prayed that if it was possible to have the cup or God's wrath taken from him, but submitted to the Father's will, as he said "I came NOT to do my will, but the will of him who sent ME". Regarding the subject of Jesus being silent, that is easy to address. The phrase not opening his mouth doesn't mean he didn't speak, it means Jesus is not opening his mouth to resist his death. He doesn't plead to the Jews to spare his life, but rather goes through with it, though he is not suffering for wrong doing. Psalm 22 has already been covered. His speech is not opening his mouth to plead for freedom.
Next Isaiah 53:8
"The New Testament does not describe Jesus as being taken out of
imprisonment and from judgment, and cut off from the land of the living, i.e.,
exiled from the Land of Israel.
Even with the numerous references in the New Testament to the idea that
Jesus died for the sins of mankind, according to the description of the servant
in this verse, and as further supported in the Hebrew Bible, this could not
possibly be the case. First, it was already demonstrated that the servant
described here in terms of a compound noun is a plurality, a group of people,
not an individual. Second, the claim in the New Testament is that Jesus,
who, according to Christian beliefs, is God incarnate in the flesh as a human
being, was offered as a sacrifice in order to pay the ransom for people's sins
and thereby providing their salvation through the shedding of the human
blood of his human flesh. In other words, it was Jesus the human being and
not Jesus the divine being that allegedly served as the sacrificial offering for
the atonement of humanity's sins. Yet, according to the Hebrew Bible, this
scenario is not possible:
Psalms 49:8 – A brother cannot redeem a man, he cannot give his ransom to God.
Compare this with the KJV “Old Testament” rendition:
Psalms 49:7(KJV) – None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give
to God a ransom for him: Both versions clearly convey the same message, that one human being
cannot redeem another. On the other hand, according to the New Testament,
the human, not the divine, aspect of Jesus was offered as a ransom for the
salvation of mankind. Which source should be accepted as the authoritative
one – the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament?"
It was not the human Jesus who died on the cross, it was the God-Man. Jesus as the God Man DIED. The objection to God dying is also covered in the objection here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/classical-trinitarian-objections.html.
Also, Rabbinic commentators do interpret Isaiah 53 as a referrence to the Messiah although their interpretation is VASTLY DIFFERENT to the Christian interpretation. This point is elaborated on in my response to Shadid Lewis on Isaiah 53 here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-shadid-lewis-on-isaiah-53.html
Psalm 47:9 shows that one is incapable of ransoming another, I can't and Uri can't. Yet Jesus claims to be able to ransom MANY lives, because if he is rightous, which I am convinced he is, then he is able to redeem us because he is the God-Man. In light of this, Both the OT and the NT can be accepted.
I shall address the other texts in another article if the Lord Wills.