Deuteronomy 4:15-20 re-examined

It is often asserted by Rabbinic Jews that Jesus stands condemned by these texts and thus Christians are guilty of constructing an idol when they bow down to him as God in heaven.
Let's look at the texts individually.

"Deuteronomy 4:15 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. 20 But as for you, the Lord took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are."

Let us start with the first verse. The revelation at Sinai is mentioned and that none of the Israelites ever saw an image when God revealed himself.

There is a warning and exhortation in verse 16-18 against constructing an idol for the sake of worship, considering already in the 613 commandments idolatry is out of the question. This point is hammered home throughout the TANAKH, Especially in the book of Isaiah itself. There is a clear cut and dry statement not to build idols to bow down to worship or even prostrate in mere obeisance to them, especially statues of Mary and Jesus.

If Jesus is God in the flesh, there is nothing wrong with praying to him, singing to him or worshipping him. This doesn't justify bowing to a statue of him which I need to make very clear.
Christians are not guilty of constructing an idol when they bow to Christ, We do not bow to his flesh, we bow to the one who tabernacles among us. No violation of the passage so far.

Now some who are reading this will say: "But limiting to building idols means you are allowing worship of the sun, moon and stars". Well, no we don't, The next passage is also an exhortation not to bow down to the sky, sun, moon, stars and other things. It is not bowing to idols only that is forbidden, but also bowing down to what is in the sky and the seas below.

I have yet to see Christians bowing to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars all the heavenly array in this day and age and in the past.

Hopefully this article will be of use.

Answering Judaism.

Examination of some arguments raised by "Supplement to Contra Brown" 5

Here are some more arguments by Yisroel Blumenthal that need addressing at this juncture. Let's carry on then.

" IV. 23. Page 215
Brown acknowledges that the written Torah standing on its own is inadequate to sustain the ongoing life of a people. The question that must then be asked is: How then did God, who presented the Law to Israel, expect it to be observed by all generations of Jews? (Numbers 15:37-41). If His Law is perfect, as Scripture attests (Psalm 19:8, then He would have had to provide, as an integral component of the original Law, some method of dealing with the ever-changing life of a nation. The only viable claim to possession of such a method is the claim of Rabbinic Judaism. There is no competing claim."

That begs the question Mr Blumenthal, How does one determine that the orah Torah goes back to Moshe? I find it strange that an oral Torah was codified after the time of Yeshua. I have been informed however that some Jews regard the Prophets (Nevim) and the Writings (Ketuvim) but I am not sure how they are classified as such. But I find it strange that the Talmud, the Orah Torah, was something that was later written down and not codified through the centuries until years after given at Sinai. It's a bit neat for reality. There is no doubt that general principles in the Torah can be carried out, like the principle of restitution after wrong doing, which is indeed biblical. Hmm, this is a tricky issue indeed.

"IV. 24. Page 215
Brown claims that Yeshua presented a “better way”, a method of observing God’s Law that is superior to the method presented by Rabbinic Judaism.
The test of history invalidates Brown’s claim. Yeshua’s way brought the Crusades, Inquisition and the perpetration of the holocaust unto his followers. Is this the “better way”?
Brown argues that “real” Christians love Jews, and I do not doubt that many Christians today sincerely do love the Jewish people. My question is as follows: Do the Christians today love the Jews more than Jesus and his apostles?
Most Christians would argue that Jesus was the epitome of love, and that their own love is only a mirror of Jesus’ love for Israel. If this premise is true (and I highly doubt it) then how can modern Christians be sure that their own grandchildren will not be killing Jews? If Jesus and Paul, who loved Israel more than modern Christians, and presumably who could see into the future with greater prophetic clarity than modern Christians, could not ensure that such atrocities will not be committed in their name – how then could modern day Christians be guaranteed that their own descendants will not commit atrocities in their name? And if you tell me that precautions are being taken that these atrocities not be repeated, then why could Jesus and Paul not take these same precautions?"

Throughout the subject of my writings, I have come across the constant reminder of atrocities in the name of Jesus. Jesus himself predicted that MANY would fall away from him and Paul even said that there are some who have departed from the Faith, found in Matthew 24:10 and 1 Timothy 4:1. Again, the idea that true Christians would dare commit the holocaust and other atrocities against the Jews is nonsense, the New Testament rejects the idea catergorically and I have to keep reminding Blumenthal of this. Revivals do not cause a permanent change, they allow a return to God and then for while apostatize again. It happened with the Jewish People in the TANAKH and it happened with the Church. It is a sad case but also inevitable because we are a fallen race. We don't know what the future holds, all we know is that not every Jew and Christian who has ever lived will be saved. Again I ask Blumenthal, Did those Christians who killed the Jews do what Jesus said? Yes or No?

"III. 26. Page 186
Brown talks of a “rapidly growing underground movement of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews” who believe in Jesus. Of-course since this imaginary movement is “underground”, Brown will not be able to supply us with names and addresses. He expects his readers to take his word for it."

Why should he? There are conversions to many faiths that happen without our knowledge and right under our noses.

"III. 27. Page 189
“Messianic prophecies are not clearly identified as such.”
This is amazing. Brown believes that the main purpose of the Jewish Bible is to predict the advent of the Messiah, yet the prophecies are not clearly identified?! And on what basis can he make such a preposterous statement? The prophets gave us a clear hope for Israel’s future. There are many prophecies in the Jewish Bible which clearly talk of the Messianic era, and of the Messiah. These include but are not limited to Numbers 24:14-19, Deuteronomy 4:30, 30:1-10, 32:43, Jeremiah 3:14-18, 16:14,15,19, 23:3-5, 30:3,7-11,16-25, 31:1-39, 32:37-44, 33:6-26, 46:27,28,50:4,5,19,20, Ezekiel 11;17-20, 17:22-24, 20:40-44, 28:24-26, 34:9-16,22-31, 36:6-16,22-38,37:1-28,38:1-48:35, Isaiah 1:26, 2:2-4, 4:2-6, 10:33-12:6, 24:21-25:9, 30:26, 34:1, 40:1-11,41:10-20, 43:5-10, 44:1-5 49:8-26, 51:11,22-52:12, 54:1-55:5, 56:7, 60:1-63:9, 65:17-25, 66:10-24, Hosea 2:1-3,16-25, Joel 3;1-5, 4:1-21, Amos 9:11-15, Obadiah 1;17-21, Micha 4:1-7, 5:1-13, 7:8-20, Zephaniah 3;9-20, Zechariah 2:9, 8:2-8, 14:3-21, Malachi 3:4,16-24, Psalms 51:20,21, 69:36,37, 98:1-3, 102:14-23, 126:1-6, Daniel 2;44, 7:18,22,27, 12:2,3,  Can anyone question the fact that these prophecies are the hope and promise of Israel’s glorious future? How can Brown say that messianic prophecies are not clearly identified? More important is the question; Why does Brown say that the messianic prophecies are not clearly identified? The obvious answer to this question is that Brown never seems to have approached scripture with an open mind. It seems that he never asked himself; What would a Jew before Jesus’ times have believed about the Messianic era? What would scripture have taught him about the Messiah? Who and what does God encourage us to hope for? Had Brown asked himself these basic questions, he would have realized that the scriptures are very clear on these issues. The problem is that Brown started the other way. He first came to believe in Jesus. He then looked back into the Jewish scriptures and tried to understand Jesus’ claim that the prophets predicted his coming. Things tend to get quite murky if you read the book that way. When Brown tells us that Messianic prophecies are not clearly identified as such, he is admitting that the preconceived notions of Christianity cannot be readily seen in the Bible."

How do we know what is and what isn't Messianic? That is what Brown has often said in his debates with late Rabbis David Blumofe and Immanuel Schochet that it comes down to interpretation of the passages to determine what passage is Messianic or not. That is the ultimate question, The nature of the Messiah and what his mission would entail.

"IV. 2. Objection 5.9
Brown addresses the question of the “virgin birth” of Jesus. How could anyone know if this event ever happened? Aside from Mary herself, no one could verify this event. This fundamental of the Christian faith stands of the testimony of one woman who has every reason in the world to lie – if she ever actually claimed a “virgin birth”."

But for what reason would she lie? Also, How does he know ONLY Mary saw it, Joseph witnessed it as well. But certainly I am happy to set up a page where many people can talk this issue out. There are two options, Either the angel who came to her was telling the truth, or he set up a satanic deception. I am inclined to think it was the former.

"IV. 3. Objection 5.11
Brown discusses the Jewish objection that argues that if Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father, then Jesus was not a descendant of David on his father’s side. This tells us that Jesus could not be the Jewish Messiah. According to the Jewish Scriptures, the Messiah must be a descendant of David from his father’s side.
Brown responds on behalf of Christianity: “Obviously, you don’t believe in the virgin birth, otherwise you would not be raising this objection.”
Here Brown tries to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant witticism. Of-course we do not believe in the virgin birth, but how does this relate to the objection at hand? Christians acknowledge that Jesus’ mother did not claim that her son’s father was a descendant of David. This simple fact disqualifies him from being the Jewish Messiah. The fact that Mary gave us a fantastic story concerning her son’s conception does nothing to change this basic fact. Unless a woman points to a man who is a descendant of Judah as her son’s father, then by Torah law, this child does not belong to the tribe of Judah. If no man from the House of David steps forth and claims to be the father of a given child, then this child has no claim to the Davidic throne."

I have written on the subject of the genealogy issue in three articles under the banner of "Rabbinic Dilemma 101". The next point that Blumenthal raises has to do with tribal lineage coming through the woman, which I do disagree with Brown on. However I contend the virgin birth would not disqualify Jesus, which I explain in the following articles:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/rabbinic-dilemma-101.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/an-addendum-to-rabbinic-dilemma-101.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/rabbinic-dilemma-101-revisited.html

I leave you all, including Blumenthal to judge my words on these pages.

I'll address more points in the future if the Lord Wills me to do so.

Answering Judaism.

Examination of some arguments raised by "Supplement to Contra Brown" 4

Here is another article taking a look at some more arguments raised within Supplement to Contra Brown. Let's take a look at some more shall we.

"II. 15. Page 131
Missionaries quote Psalm 45:7 as a proof that the Messiah is to be divine. The Psalmist literally addresses the king with the words “Your throne God forever”. The Jewish response to this missionary argument points out that the word used for “God” does not necessarily have to be translated that way. The same word could refer to a human judge. Furthermore, in context of the complete scripture we understand that the verse cannot be calling a human divine. Brown responds to this objection by advising his readers; “Try this simple test: Write out the verse in Hebrew by itself, give it to anyone who is fluent in biblical Hebrew and ask him or her to translate the verse.”
In the same vein I would suggest that the readers take Jesus’ statement to the Jewish people in John 8:44, 45: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth ye believe me not.” Ask them if the man who spoke these words was or was not a racist anti-Semite."

Psalm 45:7 is used by many to show the Divinity of Christ, including me. However, I am willing to set up a page where one can talk about this Psalm in particular on request. But Blumenthal's challenge about the subject of the anti-Semitic charge supposedly utter by Jesus is to be honest, a red herring, even in it's context it doesn't suggest Anti Semiticism. Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12 together both teach the divinity of the Messiah, but Psalm 45:7, can probably be discussed in a forum or even on a page on the blog here.

"III. 16. Page 133
Brown pontificates “we do best to take the scriptures in their most obvious basic sense, allowing the Bible to dictate our theology, rather than imposing our own theology on the word of God.” This remonstration is directed to the Jewish commentators who understand that a man cannot be God and interpret the Bible accordingly. Is Brown not aware that this is not “our own theology” but is firmly rooted in the words of the Bible? Furthermore, in volume two, Brown reinterprets every scriptural passage that explicitly declares the efficacy of repentance to cleanse from sin, in a manner that fits his own theology. It seems that “imposing our own theology on the word of God” is OK for Christians, but not for Jews. "

Brown's whole point regarding repentance is that IN AND OF ITSELF, it is isn't enough to atone, much the same with offering a sacrifice devoid of repentance isn't enough. Every person on the planet can be guilty of projecting their own bias into the Bible and we both, Rabbinic Jews, Messianic Jews and Christians need to step back and think carefully what the scriptures were saying. But it does come back to who is right.

"III. 11. Page 61
Here Brown quotes Origen’s reply to those who argues that Isaiah 53 is a reference to Israel. His argument focuses on verse 8 where the servant is smitten for the sins of “my people”. It is safe to assume that the phrase “my people” is a reference to Israel, so the servant must be someone else. It seems that Origen, like Brown cannot understand that the servant is the righteous remnant. Thus the righteous remnant is smitten for the sins of Israel. In Isaiah 51:12-16 we see clearly how the prophet speaks to the righteous remnant and commissions them to declare to Israel – “you are My nation”.

Another point to consider here is the fact that Brown is contradicting himself. Here he insists that the speakers of this passage must be the people of Israel. Yet when he speaks of the healing brought about through the servant’s suffering, Brown speaks of “a sinning world” (page 52). We challenge Brown to identify the speaker of the passage. Is it specifically Israel, or is it the world at large?

When we focus on the “healing” that Jesus brought to Israel, we see the crusades, the inquisition, and the holocaust. None of these would have occurred had Jesus not been born.

Even when we focus on the nations that put their faith in Jesus, it is hard to find the “healing” that he brought them. The guilt of 2000 years of a deep hatred of God’s firstborn son (Israel) was brought upon the European people through Jesus and his followers. Had Jesus not been born, Europe would have been spared from this scourge. When one steps back and looks at the full scope of history, it becomes clear that Jesus did NOT bring healing to the world or to the Jewish people."

Or has Blumenthal considered the possiblity of the Messiah suffering on behalf of the rightous remnant? Now in my paper to Erano on Isaiah 53 I have said the following:

"Let's look at Isaiah 53:1
"53 Who has believed our message
    and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
In this first passage, It is referring to the present time of Isaiah, his report being dismissed, as was also the case with Jesus when the Pharisees in John 12. It is referring to the messages of Messiah and Isaiah being rejected by the people. There is actually first century evidence that Isaiah 53 is referring to the Messiah, although the interpretation differs from Christian one tremendously."

I acknowledge that in the historical context that Israel is the one suffering, however this acknowledgement on my part would not refute the Messianic application. Considering the way the Rabbis had said it referred to the Messiah and that the NT applies such to Christ. However, there are obvious differences in our interpretations which I won't get into this paper. Now, as for those who have had a deep hatred for Israel, God's firstborn son, Were they acting in accordance with Jesus' teaching? The answer is NO.
In fact there is a saying outside the Bible that goes like this this:

"How odd of God to choose the Jews"
and also
"But not so odd, as those who choose, A Jewish God, but spurn the Jews".

Anti-Semitism is foreign to the New Testament and I hope to provide an article in the future on the subject of Anti-Semitism if the Lord Wills.

The healing brought to the world by Jesus' death was the forgiveness of sins of those who would believe on him. Obviously those who killed in the name of Jesus were certainly NOT of his flock.

"III. 17. Page 143-145
Brown is in his lecturing mode again. Here he lectures the Jewish commentators for failing to take note of the priestly role of the Messiah. Brown argues that the scriptures speak of the Messiah and the priest as one person and he upbraids the Rabbis for failing to take note of this. The two scriptural references that Brown provides for his theory are Psalm 110 and Zechariah 6. As it relates to Psalm 110 the Rabbis had no problem acknowledging that this spoke of the Messiah as Brown himself points out on the previous page (142). So Brown’s accusation is simply false. The Rabbis did acknowledge that the Messiah is in some sense a priest. When it comes to the second reference (Zechariah 6) Brown tells us that the Rabbis interpreted the passage as a reference to two separate Messianic figures, a king and a priest. Brown then ridicules this interpretation and informs us that the only correct interpretation is that there is one figure that is both priestly and royal. What Brown fails to tell his readers is that the text in Zechariah explicitly makes reference to “the two of them”- obviously talking about two separate individuals.
My question to Dr. Brown is: Why do the Christian commentators fail to take note of the plurality of the redeemers mentioned explicitly several times in scripture (Obadiah 1:21, Micha 5:4, Zechariah 2:3, 4:14)?"

I have looked at the two texts in Zechariah and I have made note of the two angels mentioned. I speak on Zechariah 3 referring to the angel of the Lord that Christians believe is Jesus but Zechariah 2 which I haven't mentioned and have looked at again, though he is spoken as "the" rather than "a", I am inclined to think that is a different angel from the one mentioned, though he does deliver a message like the other one. However, the angel in chapter 2 who leaves doesn't have the authority to forgive sins like the one found in Zechariah 3.

You can read on the subject of the angel forgiving sins here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/more-on-angel-of-lord.html

Obadiah 1:21 speaks of a group of deliverers that is certain, But I don't see any connection to the Messianic era as such, forgive me Mr Blumenthal if I misunderstood your point. But still, interesting point raised by Blumenthal nonetheless. Granted that Zechariah 6 speaks of 2 anointed ones, it is possible that Christ would carry the functions of those anointed ones.

There is one objection that caught my eye regarding Matthew which I want to address here:

" IV. 7. Objection 5.18
In this objection Brown focuses on Matthew’s fantastic story of many dead people rising from their graves on the occasion of Jesus’ crucifixion and alleged resurrection. Brown addresses those who do not believe this account and responds by pointing to miracles recorded in the Jewish Scriptures and other sacred writings. Brown argues that no miracle is too difficult for an omnipotent God. The only question is: is if Matthew is a trustworthy reporter or not.
As we pointed out in the previous section, there is no reason to believe that Matthew was a trustworthy person. Furthermore, the fact that the other gospel writers said nothing of this extraordinary occurrence should raise some questions even for a Christian. But I think that there is a deeper question that Matthew’s account brings to light.
The entire faith of Christianity (I should say: post-crucifixion Christianity) is built upon the alleged resurrection of Jesus. The claim of Jesus’ resurrection is pointed to as a unique and unparalleled occurrence in the history of mankind. But according to Matthew, a resurrection is no big deal. Matthew claims that many people were resurrected. How then does Matthew know which of these resurrections was the central event and which served as backdrops? It is only the human interpretation of the events that separates one resurrection from the other. Matthew’s incredible account devaluates the resurrection claim. According to Matthew, the resurrection of the dead is not the unique occurrence that the Christian apologists assert it to be."

On that last point, Blumenthal doesn't realise that those who were resurrected were not given glorified bodies at the time. Jesus however has been risen with a GLORIFIED BODY, that is why his resurrection is singled out as central to the Christian faith. Also, The other gospels only record what is relevant to the point that they are trying to make, hence why they don't record the virgin birth either. John is the only one who records the I AM statements of Jesus, and doesn't even record the parables of Jesus either. Does that mean those parables and I AM statements are false because Matthew, Mark and Luke don't record them? No.

"IV. 13. Page 205
Brown quotes Jesus as saying: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets”.
What the historical Jesus said or meant is not the subject of this discussion. What interests us here is the Jesus that lives in the minds and hearts of Christians. Perhaps the historical Jesus intended that his followers remain loyal to the Law. It is also entirely possible that the first several generations of his Jewish followers were indeed obedient to the Law. But the fact remains that over the centuries, Jews who joined Jesus gave up their observance of the Law of Moses. So the historical Jesus may not have meant to abolish the Law, but the Jesus of Christianity certainly did.
On the basis of Jesus’ statement quoted above, Brown comes to the conclusion (page 206) that: “any interpretation of his (Jesus’) words that effectively abolishes the Torah must be rejected”.
My question to Brown is: how do you measure or define the concept: “effectively abolish the Torah”? Is non-observance not enough? Do YOU advocate that Jews observe the Mosaic Law?"

Again, If we read the NT as a whole, even Acts 15 shows Gentiles need not keep the Torah. What Paul condemned in his letters especially Galatians was the observance of the Law to try and justify oneself before God. A Jewish person is allowed to observe Torah if he believes it honors the Messiah and some Jews may probably choose not to keep certain ordinances. But this doesn't mean the Torah is done away with, More like fulfilled in him, considering Christ is described as the telos or fulfillment of the Torah.

"IV. 14. Page 207
Brown argues that Jesus presents himself – as the sole authoritative interpreter of the Jewish Scriptures.
One question that this strange statement brings to mind is: Who is the authoritative interpreter of Jesus’ words and teachings? On whose authority should we accept this interpretation of his words?
Another question that comes to mind is: who was interpreting the Torah before Jesus arrived on the scene? By what authority were these people interpreting the Torah? And who took this authority away from the Judges of Israel authorized by the Law of Moses as interpreters? And if this is not an effective abolishment of the Law then what is? Imagine if one were to present themselves up as the sole interpreter of the Constitution of the United States, ignoring the Supreme Court. Would this not be an effective abolishment of the Constitution?"

The Pharisees where the ones who interpreted the Torah, but the judges were NOT given the authority to interpret the scriptures, they were only allowed to tackle legal disputes which Deuteronomy 17:8-13 deals with. Jesus was disgusted with the Pharisee's interpretation of the Torah considering the Manmade tradtions they added to the Torah itself.

Blumenthal asks who should be the ultimate interpreter of Jesus words, Well, the apostles were the ultimate interpreters of Jesus words, INCLUDING Paul, which I pointed out in the following papers was a true apostle of Jesus:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-on-acts.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_30.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_31.html

"IV. 21. Page 214
Brown condemns the decision of the rabbis to discontinue the capital punishments dictated by the Bible once crime became rampant. It is interesting to note that the spiritual reasoning behind this decision is echoed in the Christian Scriptures (John 8:7). In that case, I am sure that Brown is bowled over by the depth of the spiritual insight “revealed” by Jesus, but when the rabbis say the same thing, Brown sees a misapplication of Scripture.
There are two fundamental differences between the statement of Jesus and the position of the rabbis. First of all, Jesus had no authority as a judge of God’s Law. The community of Eternal Israel does not recognize Jesus as any authority for the Law that was entrusted to them (Deuteronomy 33:4). The rabbis on the other hand were and are the judges recognized by the chosen people to arbitrate and to apply God’s Law.
The second difference between the position of the rabbis and that of Jesus, relates to their attitude towards the Law of Moses. The Christian Scriptures make a point of presenting the Law of Moses as simplistic and inadequate (Matthew 5:21). Jesus is portrayed as the one who presents the sophisticated and refined Law. The rabbis on the other hand highlighted the perfection of God’s Law. They were careful to demonstrate how their spiritual insight was drawn from the Scriptures, and that all they were doing was to apply God’s perfect Law as was their responsibility."

In John 8:7, Jesus was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, They were not keeping the laws about stoning adulterers, because they only brought the woman to him, not both offenders. Even Deuteronomy 22 makes this point:

"Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel."

If Jesus went to stone the adulteress, he would of been guilty of violating the Law. I don't get where Blumenthal makes the point about the scriptures seeing the Mosaic Law as inadequate. The TANAKH as a whole would condemn thought crime but have no punishment for it. Jesus was pointing out "You may not do these things, but by even thinking or considering doing them means you are that". If I have hatred towards my fellow man, I am murderer or if I lusted after someone and thought "I am going to get into bed with them", they are adulterous. This doesn't mean sex is wrong, but that sexual sin is not evil in action only, but by continued thoughts about them too.

I may continue if the Lord Wills responding to more objections raised by the Rabbi in the future.

Answering Judaism.

Response to Uri Yosef on Isaiah 53 4

I know I have been writing more than one article responding to Uri, but some of his points I do need to get into depth, especially with the number of NT verses that I need to address.
He brings up Romans 5:18-19 and John 10:14-18:

"The first of the two New Testament cross-referenced passages to this verse, 
John 10:14-18, alludes to (the divine) Jesus claiming equality with the Father 
and carrying out his ordained mission by laying down his life and being 
satisfied, and how he will be satisfied as the shepherd. The second passage, 
Romans 5:18-19, conveys the message that mankind, which became infected 
with sin by what Adam had done, is justified through the work of Jesus. 
These references reflect the Christian mistranslation and misinterpretation of 
this verse, which are not consistent with the Hebrew text and its context. 

In addition to the fact that the servant cannot be an individual, and contrary to 
Christian theology, this verse explains how the people will be vindicated by 
the servant's knowledge and not through his suffering, shed blood, and death."

Paul was quoting from the Septiugant, as did many of the NT writers. Even if one believes that Israel is the suffering servant, which in the historical context is possible, but this doesn't refute the Messianic application given by not only Christians, but also by the Rabbis, despite the difference in interpretation we have. The question is, what knowledge did the Messiah have? and who did he give it to? The knowledge that can be spoken of here is having our sins washed away by the blood of the Messiah, as well as the knowledge of God been taken to the Gentile nations.

" The various New Testament cross-references again reflect Christian 
misinterpretations of the Hebrew text, some of which have already 
demonstrated that certain verses cannot apply to Jesus. 

The Hebrew word ללָשָׁ (shaLAL), booty, which appears in this verse, is used 
throughout the Hebrew Bible exclusively to describe the spoils of war in a 
literal sense, i.e., taking possession of material goods that belong to others. 
Attempting to apply the phrase "… and with the mighty he shall share booty …" to 
Jesus raises some poignant questions: Did Jesus ever fight in any war? 
Whom did he defeat? What were his spoils? With, or of, whom will Jesus be 
sharing the spoils of war? 

Lastly, since Jesus was allegedly sacrificed and gave up his human body, 
how then could he intercede for anyone? After his crucifixion, was he not up  in heaven as “one with the Father”? Should not he himself be the one to forgive?"

The texts in particular were Matthew 26:38-39 and 42, Mark 15:28, Luke 22:37, 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Philippians 2:9-11.

In the last point which is very easy, Jesus died and he was resurrected, thus he can intercede for us, and is still doing so to this day. There isn't a problem here. Jesus does have the authority to forgive sins, but how is this an objection to Isaiah 53 I do not understand, simply because I am unfamiliar with this point.

John Fausset-Brown in his commentary speaks on the subject of spoils in his commentary which can be read here: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/isaiah/isaiah-53.html:

"12. divide--as a conqueror dividing the spoil after a victory ( Psalms 2:8 , Luke 11:22 ). 
him--for Him. 
with . . . great--HENGSTENBERG translates, "I will give Him the mighty for a portion"; so the Septuagint. But the parallel clause, "with the strong," favors English Version. His triumphs shall be not merely among the few and weak, but among the many and mighty. 

spoil . . . strong--( Colossians 2:15 ; compare Proverbs 16:19 ). "With the great; with the mighty," may mean, as a great and mighty hero. 
poured out . . . soul--that is, His life, which was considered as residing in the blood ( Leviticus 17:11 , Romans 3:25 ). 

numbered with, &c.--not that He was a transgressor, but He was treated as such, when crucified with thieves ( 15:28 , Luke 22:37 ). 

made intercession, &c.--This office He began on the cross ( Luke 23:34 ), and now continues in heaven ( Isaiah 59:16 , Hebrews 9:24 , 1 John 2:1 ). Understand because before "He was 
numbered . . . He bare . . . made intercession." His meritorious death and intercession are the cause of His ultimate triumph. MAURER, for the parallelism, translates, "He was put on the same footing with the transgressors." But English Version agrees better with the Hebrew, and with the sense and fact as to Christ. MAURER'S translation would make a tautology after "He was numbered with the transgressors"; parallelism does not need so servile a repetition. "He made intercession for," &c. answers to the parallel. "He was numbered with," &c. as effect answers to cause, His intercession for sinners being the effect flowing from His having been numbered with them."

Now let us move on.
"According to the accounts in the Gospels, the disciples never anticipated a dying 
Messiah. Peter acknowledges that Jesus was the Messiah: 

Matthew 16:16(KJV) – And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of 
the living God. 

Yet, when Jesus informs his disciples that he will be going to Jerusalem where he 
will be killed (Matthew 16:21), this is Peter's response: 

Matthew 16:22(KJV) – Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from 
thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 

Peter did not appear to have had the expectation that Jesus, as the Messiah, was 
to fulfill "Isaiah 53". In fact, Jesus taught his disciples about what is to happen to 
him: 

Mark 9:31(KJV) – For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is 
delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall 
rise the third day. 

The following account in the New Testament describes their reaction: 
Mark 9:32(KJV) – But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him. 

These accounts leave no doubt that the disciples did not expect Jesus to fulfill 
“Isaiah 53” according to the common Christian interpretation of it as the scenario for 
his suffering, crucifixion, and resurrection. Rather, it appears that the common 
Christian interpretation of "Isaiah 53" is a later invention by the Church."

Incorrect, The apostles may of been ignorant of Isaiah 53 speaking of Christ before his mission was complete but just because they were ignorant, that doesn't mean they are automatically wrong. Furthermore, when Christ rose from the dead, he opened their minds to understand the scriptures which can be found in Luke 24:44-48 of the NT. I have written a brief article on this issue of the context of that passage which can be found here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/luke-2444-48-forgery.html
I hope I have addressed the points adequately. Thanks for reading.
Answering Judaism.

Response to Uri Yosef on Isaiah 53 3

Here we are moving on to Isaiah 53:10 in this article responding to Uri Yosef. Let us continue.

"In cross-referencing this verse and John 1:29, the New Testament points 
specifically at the phrase "… when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin …" 
as it appears in common Christian translations. However, it was already 
demonstrated that the correct (Jewish) context differs significantly from the 
context being implied by Christian translations. Consequently, there is no 
need to further comment on this reference at John 1:29."

The reference in John 1:29 speaks of the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world. This point I would need to look into before further comments.

""… And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill …": According to the New 
Testament, the only one who was to be crushed by God is Satan, not Jesus 
(Romans 16:20). Of what sickness did Jesus suffer? Why would God want 
to crush Jesus and make him ill? If he was crushed and sick, then how, 
according to the Christian interpretation of this verse, could Jesus be a 
perfect and unblemished sacrificial offering? "

Verses 5-6 of Isaiah 53 already tell us why the servant was crushed. I am not sure what the argument is for Satan being crushed. Jesus wasn't crushed for his own iniquities, but ours *. Furthermore, Regarding the subject of Jesus being a perfect unblemished lamb, that is already covered in my first response to Yosef which can be found here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/response-to-uri-yosef-on-isaiah-53.html

Also, John doesn't have the Passover Lamb in mind, At least I have never had that hint at all from reading the text if my memory serves me well. Paul is the one who describes Jesus as the passover lamb which can be found in the article above.

If you want to describe sin as disease or illness, then that is one way Jesus fulfils this part of Isaiah 53:10, not that he became sin, but rather a sin offering and took the wrath of God on our behalf.

""... if his soul would acknowledge guilt …": How could a "sinless" Jesus 
acknowledge any guilt? According to the Christian interpretation, this phrase 
speaks of Jesus offering himself as a guilt offering, [שׁםָאָ (aSHAM) in the 
Hebrew text of the verse], one that is supposed to effect atonement for a 
limited class of intentional sins. Yet, the New Testament, pointing at the 
Paschal Lamb (Exodus 12), also refers to Jesus as "the Lamb of God, which 
taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). So, notwithstanding the fact that 
the Paschal Lamb did not serve to atone for any sins, how could Jesus be 
both at once? After all, each of these two sacrificial offerings had a different 
purpose."

If I recall, isn't an asham a guilt offering? Not to mention the servant isn't guilty, he is rightous. Regarding the note about the Passover Lamb, that's typology again. Plus, Why would God bother crushing the servant if he was already rightous? He is obedient in the context.

The New Testament points to Jesus being the Passover Lamb that has been slain, and Jesus was slain at Passover. Even if though the Exodus story doesn't mention repentance, that isn't what Paul is conveying when he alludes to the Passover. In other words, Just as the blood was used to cover the doorpost and cause the angel of death to Passover the Israelites, so the blood of Christ which we are washed in, causes God's wrath to Passover us. Paul does mention putting away the old leaven (evil and sin), but his point, again, the blood on the door post and the blood of Jesus acting as a protective covering from God's wrath.
I have heard this argument from Michael Skobac and other people regarding this issue of the Passover Lamb and frankly, neither take typology into consideration. But the subject of typologies need a seperate article altogether.

"This phrase "… when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin …" cannot apply 
to Jesus even according to the Christian rendition. Did Jesus offer his soul 
(spirit), or did he offer his body (flesh)? If this was the purpose for God 
coming to earth in the flesh, why is it necessary to have here the conditional 
"when" (or, "if" in some Christian renditions)? Was there a chance that Jesus 
would not offer himself? As was already noted earlier, Jesus was not 
necessarily a willing party to this sacrifice (Matthew 26:39, 27:46; Mark 14:36, 15:34; Luke 22:42, 23:46; John 19:30; Hebrews 5:7). It appears that Jesus 
died against his will, so that he really offered nothing at all."

In those contexts of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, he is praying for The Father's will to be done. It is not him being unwilling. Jesus only fear was spiritual death, seperation from his Father for a time due to paying the penalty of sin. He was willing to go through with it since it was the Father's will and Hebrews 5:7 has nothing to do with the subject of Jesus being "unwilling" to go to the cross. It simply speaks of his life as a whole that God heard him because he was continually obedient to him. Also, His obedience was to prepare him for his priestly ministry as Jamieson-Fausset-Brown states:

"8. Though He WAS (so it ought to be translated: a positive admitted fact: not a mere supposition as were would imply) God's divine Son (whence, even in His agony, He so lovingly and often cried, Father, Mt 26:39), yet He learned His (so the Greek) obedience, not from His Sonship, but from His sufferings. As the Son, He was always obedient to the Father's will; but the special obedience needed to qualify Him as our High Priest, He learned experimentally in practical suffering. Compare Php 2:6-8, "equal with God, but … took upon Him the form of a servant, and became obedient unto death," &c. He was obedient already before His passion, but He stooped to a still more humiliating and trying form of obedience then. The Greek adage is, "Pathemata mathemata," "sufferings, disciplinings." Praying and obeying, as in Christ's case, ought to go hand in hand."

Now onto the next point.

""… he shall have descendants [or, he shall see progeny] …": It was previously 
established that the use in the Hebrew Bible of idiomatic expressions such as 
“seeing seed” always refers to physical seed, whether it is plant, animal, or 
human seed. According to the New Testament and other Christian sources, 
Jesus never fathered any children, so it is evident that he did not enjoy the 
promise of this reward. "

Zerah doesn't necessarily mean physical seed in every context it is used. It can refer to metaphorical or spiritual seed. This can be found in Isaiah 57:3-4 and possibly Psalm 22:31, that's the first argument. You can make the argument obviously that one can be the offspring of a sorceress and offspring of adulterers, but does falsehood have a seed? Maybe a discussion page on the blog should be in order to discuss the word Zerah.

Here are the contexts of Isaiah 57:3 and Psalm 22:31
"Isaiah 57:1 The righteous perish,
    and no one takes it to heart;
the devout are taken away,
    and no one understands
that the righteous are taken away
    to be spared from evil.
2 Those who walk uprightly
    enter into peace;
    they find rest as they lie in death.
3 “But you—come here, you children of a sorceress,
    you offspring of adulterers and prostitutes!
4 Who are you mocking?
    At whom do you sneer
    and stick out your tongue?
Are you not a brood of rebels,
    the offspring of liars?"
"Psalm 22:27 All the ends of the earth
    will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
    will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the Lord
    and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
    all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
    those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
    future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness,
    declaring to a people yet unborn:
    He has done it!"

Also, considering Isaiah called the people a brood of vipers, Does that mean that he literally called them actual snakes or descendants of snakes? No of course not.

Second, If Zerah refers to spiritual seed, another way Jesus fulfills this in a second argument. In 1 Corithians 15:45-49, we read the following:

"If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man."

Jesus is referred to as the second man or Last Adam and in that sense has spiritual descendants by virtue of the fact he is the father of a new humanity, a race redeemed by his blood. Also, If you want to say that Zera means physical, I may grant that, but feel free to check this article out while you are at it: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/seed-of-isaiah-5310.html

""… he shall prolong his days …" It was also previously established that the use 
in the Hebrew Bible of the idiomatic expression “[to] prolong days” refers 
exclusively to extending a person's mortal lifetime on earth. One of the 
psalms speaks of what such a mortal lifetime might be: 
Psalms 90:10 - The days of our years among them are seventy years, and if with 
might, eighty years; and their proudest success is but toil and pain, for it passes 
quickly and we fly away. 
It is 70-80 years! Yet, the New Testament contains the following account: 
Luke 3:23(KJV) - And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being 
(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 
Accordingly, Jesus started his ministry around the age of 30, and he was 
crucified some three years later, so that he was in his early thirties when he 
died, which hardly qualifies as having prolonged days, even according to 
Biblical standards. 

The Hebrew Bible teaches that the above two rewards – children and a long 
life, the two greatest rewards God gives to mankind here on earth – come at 
the same time: 
Isaiah 65:20-23 – (20) There shall no longer be from there a youth or an old man 
who will not fill his days, for the youth who is one hundred years old shall die, and 
the sinner who is one hundred years old shall be cursed. (21) And they shall build 
houses and inhabit them, and they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. (22) 
They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat, for 
like the days of the tree are the days of My people, and My elect shall outlive their 
handiwork. (23) They shall not toil in vain, neither shall they bear for terror, for they 
are seed blessed by the Lord, and their offspring shall be with them. [See also Job 
5:25-26.] 
Clearly, Jesus enjoyed neither of these rewards during his lifetime. "

By his resurrection, Jesus had his days prolonged eternally when he had died and rose again. His days were prolonged by his resurrection. The servant himself dies in the passage and it is a consistent reading of the text, considering he had been crushed. That is something to take into account. The zerah or seed thing has more or less been covered.

""… and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand ...": According to accounts in the New 
Testament, Jesus was well aware of the purpose of his mission, both on 
earth and destiny in heaven: 
Matthew 16:21(KJV) - From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, 
how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and 
chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 
John 6:38(KJV) – For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the 
will of him that sent me. 

John 8:14(KJV) – Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of 
myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye 
cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
Why would Jesus, who is God manifest in the flesh according to most 
Christians, need to be promised by God a reward for doing God's will, and 
that he will be successful? What was the purpose of his being sent to earth if 
not to be successful? Would not an omniscient God know in advance that his 
incarnate divine "son" will fulfill all that was supposed to be done? Why would 
a heaven-bound being have to be promised earthly rewards such as a long 
life and children? Perhaps this verse shows that God's servant could not 
possibly be divine. "

Or it simply indicates that Jesus is not the Father in heaven which in this context is rightly pointed out.  I am not sure what the point is of the objection about the omniscient God not knowing whether his son was going to successful. If Christ is successful, Hallelujah. Christ being divine would not be negated by Isaiah 53:10.

I'll look at Isaiah 53:11 in another article.

Answering Judaism.

* 18th of April 2015. I have no idea why I put "Satan wasn't crushed for our iniquities, but for his own" so I changed this particular point.

Response to Uri Yosef on Isaiah 53 2

This second article is taking look at some NT texts and the other Isaiah 53 texts I didn't cover in a previous article, and I hope to cover them here. Let's take a look.

Mr Yosef raised this point with respect to 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[30]; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Psalms 49:7-9."

I want to take a look at these texts and examine them quickly.
Exodus 32:31-33, Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18 are easy to address. They do not refer to vicarious atonement. The latter two simply point out that we are responsible to God for our own sins. I touch upon Exodus briefly in my response to Eli Cohen: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html

Although not mentioned in my article, Jeremiah 31:29 follows the same principle, as does Ezekiel 18:4.
As for Psalm 49, let's read it.
Psalm 49:1 Hear this, all you peoples;
    listen, all who live in this world,
2 both low and high,
    rich and poor alike:
3 My mouth will speak words of wisdom;
    the meditation of my heart will give you understanding.
4 I will turn my ear to a proverb;
    with the harp I will expound my riddle:
5 Why should I fear when evil days come,
    when wicked deceivers surround me—
6 those who trust in their wealth
    and boast of their great riches?
7 No one can redeem the life of another
    or give to God a ransom for them—
8 the ransom for a life is costly,
    no payment is ever enough—
9 so that they should live on forever
    and not see decay.
10 For all can see that the wise die,
    that the foolish and the senseless also perish,
    leaving their wealth to others.
11 Their tombs will remain their houses[b] forever,
    their dwellings for endless generations,
    though they had[c] named lands after themselves.

The subject of the ransom here in the initial context is in referrence to wealth, rather than dealing with the subject of vicarious atonement, However if it were to do with a man ransoming another by his death, the Psalm would not pose a problem. 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.

Now I want to spent this next part looking at Isaiah 53:9, but I want to look at the New Testament questions in the article in particular. Let's go.
"There are two cross-referenced passages in the New Testament that point to 
portions of this verse. The first, Matthew 27:57-60, describes a wealthy man, 
Joseph of Arimathaea, who placed the body of Jesus in his own grave, which 
was most likely located in an exclusive section where the deceased rich 
people were entombed. Yet, just a few verses earlier Jesus is described as 
having died among the wicked: 
Matthew 27:38(KJV) – Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the 
right hand, and another on the left. [See also Mark 15:27.] 
So, aside from the problem created by the fact that the servant is a group, not 
an individual, it appears that the circumstances described in the New 
Testament were reversed from those stated in the literal sense of the verse in 
the Hebrew Bible. "

Arnold Fructhenbaum has suggested the following regarding this subject of Jesus and the grave:

"In verse 9, the burial of the Servant is described. After His death, those who executed Him assigned a criminal's grave for Him along with other criminals. A criminal is what they considered Him to be, and that is the way He was executed. Yet He would be buried in a rich man's tomb! This is true poetic justice since, in actuality, the Servant had done nothing wrong nor was there anything wrong in His character. The fulfillment of this is found in all four Gospels (Mat. 27:57-60; Mk. 15:42-46; Lk. 23:50-54; Jn. 19:38-42)."

As for the subject of Isaiah 53 containing a group, on a side note, it can be argued that the Messiah can suffer on behalf of the rightous remnant.

"The second reference, 1Peter 2:22, points to the last two phrases in the 
verse, alleging that Jesus committed no violence and did not speak a lie. 
The accounts in the New Testament belie these claims. 

Did Jesus engage in any activities that could be described as violent? Noting 
that violence, whether or not it is justified, is still violence, consider the 
following account in New Testament: 
John 2:15(KJV) – So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple 
area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and 
overturned their tables. [See also Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45.] 
If this account is true, Jesus committed acts of violence when he attacked the 
merchants, dispersed their coins, and overturned the furniture in the Temple. 

Would the following be words of a peaceful and non-violent person? 
Matthew 10:34-36(KJV) – (34) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I 
came not to send peace, but a sword. (35) For I am come to set a man at variance 
against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law 
against her mother in law. (36) And a man's foes shall be they of his own 
household. [See also Luke 12:51-53.] 
Luke 19:27(KJV) – But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign 
over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

In the actual context of Luke 12:49-53, Jesus is speaking about a metaphorical sword of division within families that will occur if someone chooses to follow him. he says the same thing in Matthew 10:34 but expands on it and is saying in essence if you don't love me more than your family, don't follow me because by doing so you will have opposition.

Here is what he says:
"34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."

Also, I hardly think that casting people out with whips is remotely a violent act, considering no one was hurt. Jesus only used the whip to send them out of the temple and cleanse it. If he stood by and let the house get defiled and do nothing about it, then he would of sinned.
"Jesus appears to be coming not to bring peace but strife to humanity, and  orders to have his foes brought before him and slain. 
The New Testament describes other examples of behavior by Jesus which 
can be characterized as violent acts. For example, Jesus caused the 
drowning death of a herd of swine by having demons possess them (Matthew 8:32, Mark 5:13, Luke 8:33); and he destroyed a fig tree for not bearing fruit 
out of season (Matthew 21:18-21, Mark 11:13-14)."
I am not sure how these would classify as violent acts, they are miracles being performed.

"Concerning deceit in the servant's mouth, did Jesus ever speak a lie or 
deceive someone? The New Testament includes accounts which testify to 
the fact that Jesus was guilty of lying and deceiving: 

Matthew 16:27-28(KJV) – (27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his 
Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 
(28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of 
death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. 
Are any of those whom Jesus allegedly addressed with these words still alive 
today awaiting his (second) coming? After all, Jesus (the Son of man) has 
not yet returned to establish his kingdom. Similarly, Jesus did not speak the 
truth when he assured his disciples that the end of the world order and his 
own triumphant return to judge all men would occur before the generation 
then living had passed away: 

Matthew 24:34(KJV) – Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all 
these things be fulfilled. [See also Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32.] 

In fact, in the era following the alleged resurrection of Jesus, the author of the 
Book of Revelation, the last book in the New Testament, still quotes him as 
promising to return in the near future and reward all his followers: 

Revelation 22:7,12,20(KJV) – (7) Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth 
the sayings of the prophecy of this book. 
(12) And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man 
according as his work shall be. 
(20) He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, 
come, Lord Jesus. 
What does “quickly” mean? After nearly two millennia beyond the days when 
those words were allegedly spoken, Jesus has still not returned. "

Generation can be understood as this nation or people or group will not pass away rather than refering to the generation he was in. It could simply mean the Jews will not pass away. Also, When it says Behold I am coming quickly, it doesn't mean he will return immediately, it means his return will be quick, that is all it means.
"Are there any followers of Jesus alive today who can safely drink poison, and 
heal the sick without medical knowledge? 

Then there is the following promise by Jesus: 
John 14:12-14(KJV) – (12) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the 
works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because 
I go unto my Father. (13) And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, 
that the Father may be glorified in the Son. (14) If ye shall ask any thing in my 
name, I will do it.
Does someone know of any Christians who have had all of their wishes 
granted? Why are not all Christians healthy, wealthy, and in charge of the 
world? This passage is reminiscent of the story about the genie inside a 
bottle who grants an endless number of wishes to its owner."

Jesus is claiming in this context that he is able to grant our requests and we will be answered no matter where we are. However, the catch is we need to pray in God's will in order for our prayers to be answered, which is mentioned in 1 John. Jesus is not saying he'll grant EVERY request on the planet, that would be unhealthy if he did.

As for the subject of poison being consumed. Sam Shamoun has written a good response on this issue. I will underline his keypoints:
"If the Christian backs down from the challenge this is then taken to mean that the Christian speaker lacks true faith in Christ.
The Muslim is guilty of misinterpreting Jesus' meaning in this passage since a sound rule of exegesis is to interpret scripture in light of scripture. Once this is done, we discover the true meaning of Jesus' words:
"The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 'If you are the Son of God,' he said, 'throw yourself down from here. For it is written: "He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone."' Jesus answered, 'It says: "Do not put the Lord your God to the test."'" Luke 4:9-12
In light of this passage, Jesus was not telling his followers to go around picking up snakes or drinking poison. Christ's point was that no matter what the enemy tries to do in thwarting the efforts of the believers, he will never succeed. This is based solely on the promises of Christ that his authority rests upon all true believers to accomplish his will in our lives:
"'The seventy-two returned with joy and said, 'Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.' He replied, 'I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.'" Luke 10:17-20"

I am not accusing Uri of doing what some of the Muslims are doing, I am simply pointing out that Jesus was not lying regarding the snake issue. That's my point.

"The New Testament contains other examples of deceitful behavior by Jesus: 
He deceived his disciples by promising a hundredfold of material possessions in 
this life to those who left everything in order to follow him (Mark 10:28-30), which 
has not happened!"
He is promising them wealth in heaven, not earthly wealth. That is essentially what Jesus is saying in the context. In exchange also, the disciples will have each other and those who will believe Jesus message to be their new family because their old ones may revile them because of their faith.
"He claims to have spoken openly to everyone when he was questioned by the 
Jewish authorities (John 18:19-21). Yet, several accounts describe instances when 
Jesus demanded secrecy of those to whom he spoke (Matthew 16:20; Mark 8:30; 
Luke 9:21)."

Jesus in the context of John 18:19-21 is certainly not lying in that context. This is why and Gill's exposition says the following:

"Jesus answered him,.... Not to the first of these questions, concerning his disciples; not because they had all now forsaken him, and one was denying him; nor because he would not betray them; nor because he would suffer alone; but because if his doctrine was good; it could not be blameworthy to have disciples, and to teach them: and the charge of sedition, blasphemy, and idolatry, they wanted to fasten on him, would sufficiently appear to be groundless by the doctrine he preached; and as to that he answers not directly what he taught, but declares the manner in which he delivered it, and which was such, that they that heard him could not be strangers to it. 
I spake openly to the world; with all plainness, freedom, and boldness, without any reserve or ambiguity; and that not to a few persons only, to his own particular disciples, but to all the people of the Jews, who crowded in great numbers to hear him; insomuch that it was said by his enemies, that the world was gone after him. 
I ever taught in the synagogue; the Arabic, "the synagogues"; the places of public worship in all parts of the nation, where the Jews met to pray, and read, and hear the word: 
and in the temple; at Jerusalem, whenever he was in that city; 
whither the Jews always resort; for prayer, and to offer sacrifice, and particularly at the three grand festivals of the year, the passover, Pentecost, and feast of tabernacles, when all the males from all parts appeared before the Lord. Accordingly, the Alexandrian copy, and some others, read, "whither all the Jews resort"; and so read the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions. "
The next point that is raised by Uri is the following on his article.

"And in secret have I said nothing; not but that our Lord taught in other places than what are here mentioned, as on mountains, in deserts, by the sea shore, and in private houses, yet generally to great multitudes; and though he sometimes conversed alone, and in secret with his disciples, yet what he taught them was either an explanation of what he had said in public, or was perfectly agreeable to it."
"He admonished his disciples not to divulge the fact that he was the Messiah. 
He demanded of the devils he exorcised to keep his deeds a secret (Mark 1:34, 
3:11-12; Luke 4:41)"

For a reason, it was not time to reveal himself as the Messiah in those contexts. The time had not yet come to pass for him to do so. No deception at all.

"Of those who he healed, he demanded that they not tell he cured them (Matthew 
8:3-4, 12:15-16; Mark 1:44, 5:43, 7:36; Luke 5:14, 8:56). 
Do these actions describe works of an upright person? Quite to the contrary, 
they testify that Jesus acted violently and deceptively. "

Here are some commentaries that deal with this subject.

Pulpit Commentary:
"Verse 4. - And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; i.e. of those who were not present (Bengel). The command may have been given 
(1) to save the man from temptation to self-importance; or 
(2) to prevent any rumour of the miracle coming to the ears of the recognized authorities, and thus prejudicing them in their verdict upon his case; or, and more probably, 
(3) for the Lord's sake, for this seems to be the reason for the command in all the other occasions when it is given (Matthew 9:30; Matthew 12:16; Matthew 17:9; Mark 5:43; Mark 7:36; Mark 8:26; cf. Mark 1:34; Mark 3:12). The Lord did not desire to be thronged with multitudes who came only to see his miracles; he would work in quiet (cf. the quotation from Isaiah in Matthew 12:18-21). But go thy way, show thyself to the priest. The latter clause belongs verbally to Leviticus 13:49, but the thought is that of Leviticus 14:2, sqq. Without the official verdict, the man could not be restored to communal privileges (so also Luke 17:14)."

And on Matthew 12:16:
"Verse 16. - And charged them that they should not make him known. Publicity as such was rather hindering to his work than otherwise. Only those who had no spiritual affinity with him (John 7:3-5), or at most but little (Matthew 9:31), desired him to have it. "

Also Luke 5:14:
"Verse 14. - And he charged him to tell no man. We find this desire of Jesus to check publicity after he had worked one of his great works, especially in the earlier part of his ministry. Chrysostom attributes this to the Master's regard for the one who had been healed, desiring that his gratitude to God for the mercy vouchsafed to him should not be frittered away in words, in idle talk with curious persons. It is, however, more likely that the Master wished to stem rather than to fan the tide of popularity which such mighty works would be sure to excite among the people. What he determined to check was a false and mistaken desire among the people to make him king. "

Here is Jamieson-Fausset-Brown's Bible Commentary. This is what he says regarding Mark 5:43:
"43. And he charged them straitly—strictly.
that no man should know it—The only reason we can assign for this is His desire not to let the public feeling regarding Him come too precipitately to a crisis.
and commanded that something should be given her to eat—in token of perfect restoration. "

Lastly Gill's Exposition on the Entire Bible where he says:
" And her parents were astonished,.... At the miracle that was wrought, to see their child restored to life; to see her arise, walk, and eat, being in perfect health and strength, and no disorder attending her; 
but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done. The Ethiopic version reads, "what he had done, nor any thing that was done" not that the thing itself could be concealed, but the way and manner in which, and the means by which it was done, and the circumstances of it; how that by taking her by the hand, and commanding her to arise, she forthwith arose, and walked and ate: Christ's meaning is, that he would not have them take any pains to publish this affair, or to make it more known than was necessary; not to acquaint any person with the particulars of it, but keep them as private as they could: his reasons for this; see Gill on Mark 5:43."

Hopefully this covers the points that have been raised. I shall continue my response if the Lord wills in another article

Answering Judaism.

Response to Uri Yosef on Isaiah 53

Although I have responded to a false prophet by the name of Maestro M. Erano Evangelista on Isaiah 53, it will be worth writing an article on this subject of Isaiah 53 again, this time on the subject of Isaiah 53.
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 
42:1-4). 

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 
immensely popular: 

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 
time. 
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[30]; 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 
the cross: 
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 
four Gospels: 

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.

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.

Answering Judaism.

Edit: 16th of September 2017. The link to my response to Shadid has been removed because the references to Rabbinic Commentators had been removed 3 years ago.