Notable Arguments Against Christianity

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 1.1: The Old Testament prophet Hosea foretells that the Messiah will be brought back to Egypt

Matthew 2:15: "And was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 'out of Egypt I have called my son'"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 1.1: Hosea 11:1: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt"

Counter Argument: The verse is clearly talking about Israel being brought out of Egypt, not Jesus (often the Lord talks about Israel as his son) and not someone being brought back to Egypt either as Matthew writes

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 1.2: The Old Testament prophet Hosea foretells that the Messiah will be brought back to Egypt

Matthew 2:15: "And was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 'out of Egypt I have called my son'"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 1.2: Counter Argument: Matthew (intentionally) leaves out the underlined part of the verse, thus taking the verse out of context in order to fit it into the life of Jesus

Hosea 11:1: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 2.1: The Old Testament prophet Zechariah foretells that the Messiah will have wounds in his hands and will be wounded in the house of his friends, in other words, Zechariah foretells of the Crucifixion

Zechariah 13:6: "What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 2.1: Zechariah 13:3: "And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begot him shall say unto him, 'thou shall not live, for thou speakest lies in the name of the lord'..."

Counter Argument: Just 3 verses before, Zechariah is writing about false prophets/prophecy, writing about how anyone who foretells prophecy after it (the messianic age) has come to pass is a false prophet for the prophecies have already come true because it is the messianic age and thus they are telling lies and if doing so in the name of the lord, shall be put to death

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 2.2: The Old Testament prophet Zechariah foretells that the Messiah will have wounds in his hands and will be wounded in the house of his friends, in other words, Zechariah foretells of the Crucifixion

Zechariah 13:6: "What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 2.2: Zechariah 13:3: "And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begot him shall say unto him, 'thou shall not live, for thou speakest lies in the name of the lord'..."

Counter Argument: Just 3 verses before, Zechariah is writing about false prophets/prophecy, thus those who argue that Zechariah 13:6 foretells the Crucifixion are taking the verse out of context in order to fit it into the life of Jesus

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 3.1: The Old Testament Psalm 22 foretells of the Crucifixion of Jesus

Psalm 22:16 (Psalm 22:17 but in the King James Bible): "For dogs have encompassed me; the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet."

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 3: Psalm 22:17 (Psalm 22:16 but in the Massoretic Text/Jewish Bible): "For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evildoers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet."

Counter Argument: The difference between the two texts is a (purposeful) mistranslation of the Hebrew word כארי, which means like a lion, and not pierced; purposefully mistranslated in order to fit it into the crucifixion of Jesus

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 3.2: The Old Testament Psalm 22 foretells of the Crucifixion of Jesus

Psalm 22:16 (Psalm 22:17 but in the King James Bible): "For dogs have encompassed me; the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet."

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 4.1: Psalm 22:17 (Psalm 22:16 but in the Massoretic Text/Jewish Bible): "For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evildoers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet."

Counter Argument: Not only is כארי mistranslated in this instance, but it is NOT mistranslated and/or is translated correctly in every other place in the New Testament for which it is mentioned:

King James Psalm 22:13 (Massoretic Text Psalm 22:14): "They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion"

Massoretic Text Psalm 22:14 (King James Psalm 22:13): "

"They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 3.3: The Old Testament Psalm 22 foretells of the Crucifixion of Jesus

Psalm 22:16 (Psalm 22:17 but in the King James Bible): "For dogs have encompassed me; the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet."

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 4.2: Psalm 22:17 (Psalm 22:16 but in the Massoretic Text/Jewish Bible): "For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evildoers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet."

Counter Argument: Not only is כארי mistranslated in this instance, but it is NOT mistranslated and/or is translated correctly in every other place in the New Testament for which it is mentioned:

King James Psalm 22:21 (Massoretic Text Psalm 22:22): "Save me from the lion's mouth; for thou hast heard me from horns of the wild oxen"

Massoretic Text Psalm 22:22 (King James Psalm 22:21): "Save me from the lion's mouth; for thou hast heard me from horns of the wild oxen"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 3.4: The Old Testament Psalm 22 foretells of the Crucifixion of Jesus

Psalm 22:16 (Psalm 22:17 but in the King James Bible): "For dogs have encompassed me; the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet."

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 4.3: Psalm 22:17 (Psalm 22:16 but in the Massoretic Text/Jewish Bible): "For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evildoers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet."

Counter Argument: Not only is כארי mistranslated in this instance, but it is NOT mistranslated and/or is translated correctly in every other place in the New Testament for which it is mentioned:

Isaiah 38:13, King James Bible: "I reckoned till morning, that as a lion, so will he break all my bones; from day even to night wilt thou make an end of me."

Isaiah 38:13, Massoretic Text: "I have considered until morning, like a lion, so he breaks all my bones from day until night You make an end of me."

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 4.1: The Old Testament foretells of the Messiah being a Nazarene

Matthew 2:23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, 'he shall be called a Nazarene.'"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 5: Counter Argument: Matthew is quoting this out of nowhere, this line doesn't exist in the Old Testament, it is made up out of thin air, nowhere in the Old Testament is there a verse representing this, it is completely made up- even if there is a verse that might be like it that is used to represent it

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 4.2: The Old Testament foretells of the Messiah being a Nazarene

Matthew 2:23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, 'he shall be called a Nazarene.'"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 6: Counter Argument: If one looks up Nazarene in the Hebrew in a concordance such as Strong's concordance, the first time it will appear is in Matthew 2:23, it never appears beforehand

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 5.1: The Old Testament prophet Isaiah foretells of the messiah being born out of the womb of a virgin

Matthew 1:22-23: "Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel', which translated means, 'God is with us.'"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 7.1: Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel."

Counter Argument: The difference between the two texts is a (purposeful) mistranslation of the word העלמה, which means young woman and NOT virgin, which was purposefully mistranslated in order to fit it into the life of Mary

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 5.2: The Old Testament prophet Isaiah foretells of the messiah being born out of the womb of a virgin

Matthew 1:22-23: "Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel', which translated means, 'God is with us.'"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 7.2: Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel."

Counter Argument: Not only is העלמה mistranslated in this instance, but it is NOT mistranslated and/or is translated correctly in Christian translations of Isaiah 7:14, for example, in the Revised Standard Version: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and will call him Immanuel."

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 5.3: The Old Testament prophet Isaiah foretells of the messiah being born out of the womb of a virgin

Matthew 1:22-23: "Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel', which translated means, 'God is with us.'"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 8.1: Isaiah 7:6-16: "'Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.' So said the Lord God, 'Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass.' And the Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, 'Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths or in the heights above.' And Ahaz said, 'I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.' And he said, 'Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?' Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned."

Counter Argument: From this excerpt, one can observe that the sign Isaiah gives to Ahaz is one which Ahaz will see so that Ahaz will know when the two kingdoms which surround his kingdom (Judah) will be finished, so it doesn't make any sense that it could be talking about Jesus because that is 700 years from that point and Ahaz will be dead and buried by then having never seen the sign

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 5.4: The Old Testament prophet Isaiah foretells of the messiah being born out of the womb of a virgin

Matthew 1:22-23: "Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel', which translated means, 'God is with us.'"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 8.2: Isaiah 7:6-16: "'Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.' So said the Lord God, 'Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass.' And the Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, 'Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths or in the heights above.' And Ahaz said, 'I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.' And he said, 'Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?' Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned."

Counter Argument: From this excerpt, one can observe that the sign Isaiah gives to Ahaz is one which Ahaz will see so that Ahaz will know when the two kingdoms which surround his kingdom (Judah) will be finished, so it can only make sense if talking about something that happened during the life of Ahaz, and the prophecy is in fact fulfilled during his life when in II Kings 16:5: "Rezin [...] and Pekah [...] could not wage war with him", which Isaiah foretells will happen in 7:16

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 5.5: The Old Testament prophet Isaiah foretells of the messiah being born out of the womb of a virgin

Matthew 1:22-23: "Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel', which translated means, 'God is with us.'"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 8.3: Isaiah 7:6-16: "'Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.' So said the Lord God, 'Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass.' And the Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, 'Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths or in the heights above.' And Ahaz said, 'I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.' And he said, 'Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?' Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned."

Counter Argument: From this excerpt, one can observe that the sign Isaiah gives to Ahaz is one which Ahaz will see so that Ahaz will know when the two kingdoms which surround his kingdom (Judah) will be finished, so it can only make sense if talking about something that happened during the life of Ahaz, and the prophecy is in fact fulfilled during his life when in Isaiah 8:18: "Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel, from the Lord of Hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion" is in fact talking about what he foretells in Isaiah 7:14

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 5.6: The Old Testament prophet Isaiah foretells of the messiah being born out of the womb of a virgin

Matthew 1:22-23: "Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel', which translated means, 'God is with us.'"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 9: Counter Argument: העלמה means "the young woman" because of the ה, but even if it were translated as "the virgin", Matthew changes the article as well, writing "a virgin", purposefully mistranslating the article because he can't leave the "the" there because it would make no sense because if this prophecy is spoken by Isaiah to Ahaz, Ahaz would have no idea who the woman Mary is since she doesn't come around for another 700 years, so by changing the article it makes more sense (even though it is still taken out of context) that the prophecy tells of a woman, since Ahaz doesn't know who this woman is

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 5.7: The Old Testament prophet Isaiah foretells of the messiah being born out of the womb of a virgin

Matthew 1:22-23: "Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel', which translated means, 'God is with us.'"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 10: Counter Argument: וקראת means "she will call" but Matthew purposefully mistranslates וקראת to mean "they will call" because this makes more sense if it is an anonymous person saying that Jesus will be called Immanuel and not a specific person such as Mary saying that Jesus will be called Immanuel because nowhere in the New Testament does the name "Immanuel" appear and therefore there is no way Mary could've ever said "Immanuel" since Mary is only spoken of in the New Testament

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 5.8: The Old Testament prophet Isaiah foretells of the messiah being born out of the womb of a virgin

Matthew 1:22-23: "Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel', which translated means, 'God is with us.'"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 11: Counter Argument: Because Mary never calls Jesus Immanuel, then, if translated correctly for "she will call", it must be referring to someone other than Mary calling someone other than Jesus Immanuel

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 6: Isaiah really means virgin when he writes young woman because he was a righteous man and didn't want to come out and say it

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 12: Counter Argument: The word for virgin, בתולה, appears 120 times throughout the Bible, while the word for young woman, העלמה, appears only 7 times throughout the Bible, and because a large portion of these occur in the prophets, who were righteous

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 7.1: The Rabbis who translated העלמה into the Greek in the Septuagint, translated it into "Parthenos" (Greek-English transliteration of the word) which is the same word Matthew uses, which means "virgin", so really העלמה means "virgin" in the instance it which it is used because it is a special case for the word העלמה meaning "virgin"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 13: Counter Argument #1: "Parthenos" can mean "virgin" but can also mean "young woman" or "damsel", such as in this instance:

Genesis 34:2-4 (King James translation): "And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel and spake kindly unto the damsel. And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife."

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 7.2: The Rabbis who translated העלמה into the Greek in the Septuagint, translated it into "parthenos" (Greek-English transliteration of the word) which is the same word Matthew uses, which means "virgin", so really העלמה means "virgin" in the instance it which it is used because it is a special case for the word העלמה meaning "virgin"

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 14: Counter Argument #2: The Rabbis only contributed to the part of the Septuagint that deals with the 5 Books of Torah or the "Law of Moses", the Rabbis did not write any of the books after, rather the "G'niza of the Church' wrote the remaining books into the Septuagint and even the 5 Books of Torah are edited today compared to how they were first written in the Septuagint, this is observable if one takes a look at how different the Greek is in the Torah part of the Septuagint where it is more of an intellectually-styled Greek and in the prophets part of the Septuagint where it is more of a common-man-styled Greek

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Argument 8: If Isaiah 7:14 is referring to a "young woman" rather than a "virgin", implying that she was a normal "young woman" who slept with her husband and conceived a baby named Jesus, then it can't possibly be a sign let alone a miracle because that happens a million times a day, it could only be a sign/miracle if she conceived of Jesus as a virgin rather than as a young woman

How Missionaries Paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures Counter Argument 15: Counter Argument: If you can't see it, it's not a sign; a sign may not be miraculous, but it is certainly something you can see and a virgin birth, by definition, cannot be a sign, it can be a miracle, but it cannot be a sign because you can't see someone's virginity

Sin & Atonement Argument 1.1: Jews today don't have a sacrifice any longer to atone for their sins, don't have innocent blood being shed for them as it commands us to do so in order to atone, it can't possibly be coincidence that right after Jesus's crucifixion, right after Jesus shed blood for us, the second temple was destroyed and thus the sacrificial ritual atonement was given up, there was no longer a need for an animal sacrificial system, something or someone must have died innocently for you, and this someone is Jesus for in John 14 "Jesus is the only conduit to Salvation. Nobody can get to God except through him" (paraphrased)

You need to blood to gain atonement, and you don't have blood without Jesus

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 1: Counter Argument: Sacrifice is in fact the least significant method of gaining atonement

Psalm 40:6: "Sacrifice and offerings You did not desire; but my ears you have opened for me. Burnt offerings and sin offerings you have not required."

Here, through King David (emphasized because of his purposeful sin of cohabiting with Bathsheba and then his experiencing of atonement without bloodshed by confessing with a true heart to God and God forgiving him, through Nathan), God is clearly more interested in the atonement of sins through prayer rather than through sacrifice, he even uses the words desired and required

Sin & Atonement Argument 1.2: Jews today don't have a sacrifice any longer to atone for their sins, don't have innocent blood being shed for them as it commands us to do so in order to atone, it can't possibly be coincidence that right after Jesus's crucifixion, right after Jesus shed blood for us, the second temple was destroyed and thus the sacrificial ritual atonement was given up, there was no longer a need for an animal sacrificial system, something or someone must have died innocently for you, and this someone is Jesus

Hebrews 10:5: "...sacrifice and offering thou does not desire, but a body you have prepared for me."

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 2: Counter Argument: The text cited is actually a purposeful mistranslation (in order to fit it into the life of Jesus) of אזנים כריתּ לי which in English means, "my ears you have opened for me", NOT "a body you have prepared for me"

Psalm 40:7: "Sacrifice and offerings You did not desire; but my ears you have opened for me. Burnt offerings and sin offerings you have not required."

Here, through King David (emphasized because of his purposeful sin of cohabiting with Bathsheba and then his experiencing of atonement without bloodshed by confessing with a true heart to God and God forgiving him, through Nathan), God is clearly more interested in the atonement of sins through prayer rather than through sacrifice, and because there are other places by which God justifies atonement by other means, this is a poor attempt to show that God justifies atonement now only through the means of the shedding of the blood of Jesus

Sin & Atonement Argument 1.3: Jews today don't have a sacrifice any longer to atone for their sins, don't have innocent blood being shed for them as it commands us to do so in order to atone, it can't possibly be coincidence that right after Jesus's crucifixion, right after Jesus shed blood for us, the second temple was destroyed and thus the sacrificial ritual atonement was given up, there was no longer a need for an animal sacrificial system, something or someone must have died innocently for you, and this someone is Jesus

Hebrews 9:22: "...And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood there is no atonement."

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 3: Counter Argument: The text cited is actually twisting around the words/using reverse psychology (in order to fit it into the life of Jesus) which one understands better by looking at the verse in context: one cannot eat blood because blood can only have one function which is to make atonement, you can't use blood for any other purpose (Deuteronomy 12: When you slaughter an animal, you must cover the blood that comes out with dirt in order to make it unusable), HOWEVER that does NOT (necessarily) mean you can't use things other than blood (such as Repentance and Charity) to make atonement {in the same way that a screwdriver serves the sole purpose of screwing a nail but a nail can be unscrewed by means other than a screwdriver such as one's finger}

Leviticus 17:10-11: "It is the blood that atones for a life"

The verse implies that "it is the blood that atones for a life", but it is also the act of repentance or charity that atones for a life as well

Sin & Atonement Argument 2.1: Leviticus is all about atonement and animal sacrifice, there is so much in the book about the shedding of blood for sin, it can't possibly be that one can just do away so easily with all of it

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 4: Counter Argument: Although the book of Leviticus deals much with sacrifice, there is only one sacrifice that deals with sin, or "Sin Sacrifice", which deals only with accidental sins (either in the form of ignorance or carelessness) because in committing a purposeful sin, an animal sacrifice doesn't work

Leviticus 4:1-2: "The Lord said to Moses, 'Say to the Israelites: 'When anyone sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commandments'...'"

Sin & Atonement Argument 2.2: Leviticus is all about atonement and animal sacrifice, there is so much in the book about the shedding of blood for sin, it can't possibly be that one can just do away so easily with all of it

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 5.1: Counter Argument: Although the book of Leviticus deals much with sacrifice, there is only one sacrifice that deals with sin, or "Sin Sacrifice", and deals only with accidental sins (either in the form of ignorance or carelessness) because in committing a purposeful sin, an animal sacrifice doesn't work

The "Sin Sacrifice" only works on people who have committed accidental sins because the whole purpose of sacrificing an animal to the Lord was and still is to remind the person of how important it is to know the law in the first place: it is almost guaranteed that a person with a true heart (to clarify that their sin was done without intention) would find it very difficult and painful to go through with such a process of killing an innocent animal and putting it on altar for no other reason than as a gift to the Lord and thus the whole experience teaches them to be more weary and to never make the same mistake ever again of breaking a law without knowing it, it was a teaching tool made so that people wouldn't forget

Sin & Atonement Argument 2.3: Leviticus is all about atonement and animal sacrifice, there is so much in the book about the shedding of blood for sin, it can't possibly be that one can just do away so easily with all of it

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 5.2: Counter Argument: Although the book of Leviticus deals much with sacrifice, there is only one sacrifice that deals with sin, or "Sin Sacrifice", and deals only with accidental sins (either in the form of ignorance or carelessness) because in committing a purposeful sin, an animal sacrifice doesn't work

The "Sin Sacrifice" cannot work on people who have committed purposeful sins because they wouldn't learn anything from killing an animal and placing it on the altar, they wouldn't feel any pain or find it difficult to do such a task and even if they did, it wouldn't strike as close to home with them as with someone who committed the sin on accident because they committed the sin for another purpose altogether, it was a teaching tool made so that people wouldn't forget

Sin & Atonement Argument 2.4: Leviticus is all about atonement and animal sacrifice, there is so much in the book about the shedding of blood for sin, it can't possibly be that one can just do away so easily with all of it

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 6: Counter Argument: In most occasions, when Jews in Leviticus brought sacrifices, they did so not because they have sinned, but because they felt whole with God and wanted to give thanksgiving to God, with special sacrifices for special holidays at special times, all of which are specified throughout the book of Leviticus

For example, the "Passover Sacrifice" described in Exodus 12:1-23 involves the sacrifice of a lamb and marking its blood upon the doorposts of homes so that the angel of death would pass over such homes, and is a sacrifice that was continually performed as a sign of thanksgiving to God for saving the firstborn on the night the angel of the death passed over in Egypt

Sin & Atonement Argument 3.1: Jews today don't have a sacrifice any longer to atone for their sins, don't have innocent blood being shed for them as it commands us to do so in order to atone, it can't possibly be coincidence that right after Jesus's crucifixion, right after Jesus shed blood for us, the second temple was destroyed and thus the sacrificial ritual atonement was given up, there was no longer a need for an animal sacrificial system, something or someone must have died innocently for you, and this someone is Jesus for in John 14 "Jesus is the only conduit to Salvation. Nobody can get to God except through him" (paraphrased)

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 7.1: Counter Argument: There are other methods described in the Old Testament which we can use to gain atonement, one of which is Repentance, thus God can forgive one's sin through prayer (if one doesn't have the money to give to charity or an animal to sacrifice)

Samuel 2, 12:13: "So David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." And Nathan said to David, "The Lord has already forgiven your sin, you shall not die."

Because of his purposeful sin of cohabiting with Bathsheba, here David experiences atonement without bloodshed by repentance, by confessing with a true heart to God and God forgiving him, through Nathan

Sin & Atonement Argument 3.2: Jews today don't have a sacrifice any longer to atone for their sins, don't have innocent blood being shed for them as it commands us to do so in order to atone, it can't possibly be coincidence that right after Jesus's crucifixion, right after Jesus shed blood for us, the second temple was destroyed and thus the sacrificial ritual atonement was given up, there was no longer a need for an animal sacrificial system, something or someone must have died innocently for you, and this someone is Jesus for in John 14 "Jesus is the only conduit to Salvation. Nobody can get to God except through him" (paraphrased)

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 7.2: Counter Argument: There are other methods described in the Old Testament which we can use to gain atonement, one of which is Repentance, thus God can forgive one's sin through prayer (if one doesn't have the money to give to charity or an animal to sacrifice)

Psalms 51:16-19: "Rescue me from blood guilt - O God, God of my salvation. My Lord, open my lips, that may mouth may declare Your praise. For You desire no offering, else I would give it, a burnt-offering You do not favor. The offerings of God are a broken spirit, a heart broken and crushed O God, You will not despite."

Because of his purposeful sin of cohabiting with Bathsheba, here David experiences atonement without bloodshed by repentance, by confessing with a spirit and heart "broken and crushed"

Sin & Atonement Argument 3.3: Jews today don't have a sacrifice any longer to atone for their sins, don't have innocent blood being shed for them as it commands us to do so in order to atone, it can't possibly be coincidence that right after Jesus's crucifixion, right after Jesus shed blood for us, the second temple was destroyed and thus the sacrificial ritual atonement was given up, there was no longer a need for an animal sacrificial system, something or someone must have died innocently for you, and this someone is Jesus for in John 14 "Jesus is the only conduit to Salvation. Nobody can get to God except through him" (paraphrased)

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 7.3: Counter Argument: There are other methods described in the Old Testament which we can use to gain atonement, one of which is Repentance, thus God can forgive one's sin through prayer (if one doesn't have the money to give to charity or an animal to sacrifice)

Hosea 14:2-3: "Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity. Take with you words and return to the Lord. Say: You shall forgive all in iniquity and teach us the good way, and let us render for bulls the offering of our lips."

One can use prayers to replace the sacrificial system

Sin & Atonement Argument 3.4: Jews today don't have a sacrifice any longer to atone for their sins, don't have innocent blood being shed for them as it commands us to do so in order to atone, it can't possibly be coincidence that right after Jesus's crucifixion, right after Jesus shed blood for us, the second temple was destroyed and thus the sacrificial ritual atonement was given up, there was no longer a need for an animal sacrificial system, something or someone must have died innocently for you, and this someone is Jesus for in John 14 "Jesus is the only conduit to Salvation. Nobody can get to God except through him" (paraphrased)

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 7.4: Counter Argument: There are other methods described in the Old Testament which we can use to gain atonement, one of which is Repentance, thus God can forgive one's sin through prayer (if one doesn't have the money to give to charity or an animal to sacrifice)

Kings I 8:46-50: "[...] And You shall hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven, in Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause. And forgive Your people for what they have sinned against You, and all their transgressions that they have transgressed against You [...]"

These verses are more significant about what they don't say than what they do say, they say nothing about King Solomon knowing that all of this was pointing to the future, that Jesus would be coming at the end of days...

Sin & Atonement Argument 3.5: Jews today don't have a sacrifice any longer to atone for their sins, don't have innocent blood being shed for them as it commands us to do so in order to atone, it can't possibly be coincidence that right after Jesus's crucifixion, right after Jesus shed blood for us, the second temple was destroyed and thus the sacrificial ritual atonement was given up, there was no longer a need for an animal sacrificial system, something or someone must have died innocently for you, and this someone is Jesus for in John 14 "Jesus is the only conduit to Salvation. Nobody can get to God except through him [Jesus]" (paraphrased)

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 8.1: Counter Argument: There are other methods described in the Old Testament which we can use to gain atonement, one of which is Charity (if one doesn't have an animal to sacrifice)

Proverbs 10:2: "Treasures of wickedness will not avail, but charity will save from death"

Sin & Atonement Argument 3.6: Jews today don't have a sacrifice any longer to atone for their sins, don't have innocent blood being shed for them as it commands us to do so in order to atone, it can't possibly be coincidence that right after Jesus's crucifixion, right after Jesus shed blood for us, the second temple was destroyed and thus the sacrificial ritual atonement was given up, there was no longer a need for an animal sacrificial system, something or someone must have died innocently for you, and this someone is Jesus for in John 14 "Jesus is the only conduit to Salvation. Nobody can get to God except through him [Jesus]" (paraphrased)

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 8.2: Counter Argument: There are other methods described in the Old Testament which we can use to gain atonement, one of which is Charity (if one doesn't have an animal to sacrifice)

Hosea 6:6: "For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

Sin & Atonement Argument 3.7: Jews today don't have a sacrifice any longer to atone for their sins, don't have innocent blood being shed for them as it commands us to do so in order to atone, it can't possibly be coincidence that right after Jesus's crucifixion, right after Jesus shed blood for us, the second temple was destroyed and thus the sacrificial ritual atonement was given up, there was no longer a need for an animal sacrificial system, something or someone must have died innocently for you, and this someone is Jesus for in John 14 "Jesus is the only conduit to Salvation. Nobody can get to God except through him [Jesus]" (paraphrased)

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 8.3: Counter Argument: There are other methods described in the Old Testament which we can use to gain atonement, one of which is Charity (if one doesn't have an animal to sacrifice)

Proverbs 21:3: "Performing charity and justice is preferred by God to a sacrifice"

Sin & Atonement Argument 4.1: You still need sacrifices for sins done unintentionally today and animal sacrifices are banned, so then you are throwing out all of Leviticus altogether

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 9: Counter-Argument: As a matter of fact, we are "throwing it out" in a sense, for now, but at the end of days (messianic times) the "Sin Sacrifice" will return, as it says in Hosea 3:4-5

Hosea 3:4-5: "For the children of Israel shall abide in many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim. Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days."

The "many days without a sacrifice" is the situation we are currently in right now

Sin & Atonement Argument 4.2: You still need sacrifices for sins done unintentionally today and animal sacrifices are banned, so then you are throwing out all of Leviticus altogether

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 10: Counter Argument: Although we are "throwing out" the book of Leviticus in a sense, for now, in the end of days (messianic times) the "Sin Sacrifice" will return, as it says in Hosea 3:4-5, and Hosea later mentions what we will do now while we are waiting for messianic times, while we are waiting for the return of the animal sacrifice

Hosea 14:2-3: "Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity. Take with you words and return to the Lord. Say: You shall forgive all in iniquity and teach us the good way, and let us render for bulls the offering of our lips."

You can use prayers to replace the sacrificial system

Sin & Atonement Argument 5: Hosea 14 does NOT show that prayers can be used to replace the sacrificial system

Hosea 14:2-3 (NIV): "Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity. Take with you words and return to the Lord. Say: You shall forgive all in iniquity and teach us the good way, that we may offer the fruit of our lips."

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 11: Counter-Argument: Hosea 14 DOES show that prayers can be used to replace the sacrificial system: the text is purposefully mistranslated, not to fit into the life of Jesus, but to take what doesn't fit into the life of Jesus and remove it; it is more of a purposeful misinterpretation than mistranslation because although the former can technically mean the same thing as the latter, in context it makes no sense in relation to what Hosea is talking about

Hosea 14:2-3: "Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity. Take with you words and return to the Lord. Say: You shall forgive all in iniquity and teach us the good way, and let us render for bulls the offering of our lips."

Sin & Atonement Argument 6: Vicarious Atonement: Jesus, the most innocent, dies an extreme death, one of the most painful, a crucifixion for the atonement of others, and there is Jewish scripture that can be used to support this: someone HAS to PAY for YOUR sins, and Jesus is that person

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 12: Counter-Argument: No matter what Jewish scripture one uses to attempt to propose that it was the Jewish faith first that instituted the idea of Vicarious Atonement, none of it compares to what Ezekiel had said about there NOT being Vicarious Atonement ANYWHERE in Jewish scripture

Ezekiel 18:1-4, 19-23: "But you ask: Why did the son not bear the sin of the father? [...] The soul that sins, it shall die! The son shall not bear for the sin of the father, nor the father bear for the sin of the son. The righteousness of righteous person shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked person shall be upon him. As for the wicked man, if he should turn away from all his sins which he did, and safeguard all My decrees, and do justice and righteousness; he shall surely live. He will not die. All his transgressions which he committed will not be remembered against him. [...] Do I desire at all the death of the wicked man - the words of my Lord, God - is it not rather his return from his ways, that he might live?"

The innocent will live because of their innocence, their devotion to God, and the wicked will die as a result of their sins, nobody is dying for anybody; indicates repentance: God is not interested in punishing the wicked IF they repent

Sin & Atonement Argument 7.1: At the end of days, when Jesus returns, since Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins, there will be no need for an animal sacrifice when he returns

Romans 6:10: "The death he died, he died to sin once for all..."

Hebrews 10:18: "And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin."

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 13.1: Counter-Argument: Throughout the Jewish scriptures, it is clear that, at the end of the days, animal sacrifices will return, so if all these prophets are talking about how animal sacrifices are returning, then there is no point in animal sacrifices if Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, yet Jesus wasn't the ultimate sacrifice because animal sacrifices are coming back

Zechariah 14:21: "Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the Lord Almighty, and all who come sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them..."

There is sacrifice because animal sacrifices return at the end of days, there would be no need for sacrifice if Jesus sacrificed our sins for us

Sin & Atonement Argument 7.2: At the end of days, when Jesus returns, since Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins, there will be no need for an animal sacrifice when he returns

Romans 6:10: "The death he died, he died to sin once for all..."

Hebrews 10:18: "And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin."

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 13.2: Counter-Argument: Throughout the Jewish scriptures, it is clear that, at the end of the days, animal sacrifices will return, so if all these prophets are talking about how animal sacrifices are returning, then there is no point in animal sacrifices if Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, yet Jesus wasn't the ultimate sacrifice because animal sacrifices are coming back

Ezekiel 43:22-27: (talking about the Third Temple) "On the second day you are to offer a male goat without defect for a sin offering, and the altar is to be purified as it was purified with the bull. When you have finished purifying it, you are to offer a young bull and a ram from the flock, both without defect. You are to offer them before the Lord, and the priests are to sprinkle salt on them and sacrifice them as a burnt offering to the Lord..."

Sin & Atonement Argument 8: The Jews are suffering consistent persecution throughout history because Jews reject the Lord in the sense that they reject Jesus

Sin & Atonement Counter Argument 14: The Jews are suffering persecution throughout history because when gentiles rejected the Lord and sinned, they (always) sinned by persecuting the Jews, thus the Jews suffer as a result of the gentiles sinning (this is much more apparent if the messiah isn't Jesus because then the reason of their persecution becomes unclear to gentiles unless they take into consideration that they (the gentiles) were also rejecting the Lord, not in the sense that they were rejecting Jesus, but that they were killing in the name of Jesus and thus rejecting the Lord)

Isaiah 53 Argument 1.1: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant"

Isaiah 52:13: "Behold, My servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 1.1: "My servant" is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because concluding that it is Jesus is taking "My servant" out of context, and putting "My servant" into context means looking at the Chapters of Isaiah surrounding Chapter 53 that clearly show that "My servant" is Israel, and not Jesus, so then it makes no sense that Isaiah, who has been writing about "My servant" as Israel would suddenly switch "My servant" to mean Jesus (and then suddenly switch back "My servant" or "she" or "he" to mean Israel), the only thing ever identified as "My servant" is Israel

Isaiah 41:8-9: "But thou, Israel, art My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend. Whom I grasped from the ends of the earth, and from it nobles I called you, and I said to you, "You are My servant", I chose you and I did not despise you."

Jacob is another name used throughout the Old Testament to refer to Israel, since the 12 Tribes of Israel are descended from the 12 Sons of Jacob

Isaiah 53 Argument 1.2: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant"

Isaiah 52:13: "Behold, My servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 1.2: "My servant" is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because concluding that it is Jesus is taking "My servant" out of context, and putting "My servant" into context means looking at the Chapters of Isaiah surrounding Chapter 53 that clearly show that "My servant" is Israel, and not Jesus, so then it makes no sense that Isaiah, who has been writing about "My servant" as Israel would suddenly switch "My servant" to mean Jesus (and then suddenly switch back "My servant" or "she" or "he" to mean Israel), the only thing ever identified as "My servant" is Israel

Isaiah 44:1-2: "Yet hear now, O Jacob My Servant and Israel, whom I have chosen. So said the Lord your Maker, and He who formed you from the womb shall aid you. Fear not, My servant Jacob, and Jeshurun whom I have chosen."

This verse comes even closer to Isaiah 53 than Isaiah 41; Jacob is another name used throughout the Old Testament to refer to Israel, since the 12 Tribes of Israel are descended from the 12 Sons of Jacob, and Jeshurun is another name used at times in the Old Testament to refer to Israel, since it comes from the Hebrew word for "straight"

Isaiah 53 Argument 1.3: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant"

Isaiah 52:13: "Behold, My servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 1.3: "My servant" is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because concluding that it is Jesus is taking "My servant" out of context, and putting "My servant" into context means looking at the Chapters of Isaiah surrounding Chapter 53 that clearly show that "My servant" is Israel, and not Jesus, so then it makes no sense that Isaiah, who has been writing about "My servant" as Israel would suddenly switch "My servant" to mean Jesus (and then suddenly switch back "My servant" or "she" or "he" to mean Israel), the only thing ever identified as "My servant" is Israel

Isaiah 44:21: "Remember these, O Jacob and Israel, for thou art My servant, I have formed thee, thou art My servant, O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of Me."

This verse comes even closer to Isaiah 53 than Isaiah 44:1-2; Jacob is another name used throughout the Old Testament to refer to Israel, since the 12 Tribes of Israel are descended from the 12 Sons of Jacob; and not only does this reinforce the contextualization of Isaiah 53 as describing Israel, but it says God will never forget Israel, His servant, meaning that His servant isn't going to change in the future to mean Jesus

Isaiah 53 Argument 1.4: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant"

Isaiah 52:13: "Behold, My servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 1.4: "My servant" is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because concluding that it is Jesus is taking "My servant" out of context, and putting "My servant" into context means looking at the Chapters of Isaiah surrounding Chapter 53 that clearly show that "My servant" is Israel, and not Jesus, so then it makes no sense that Isaiah, who has been writing about "My servant" as Israel would suddenly switch "My servant" to mean Jesus (and then suddenly switch back "My servant" or "she" or "he" to mean Israel), the only thing ever identified as "My servant" is Israel

Isaiah 45:4: "For the sake of My servant Jacob, and Israel My chosen one, and I called to you by your name..."

This verse comes even closer to Isaiah 53 than Isaiah 44:21; Jacob is another name used throughout the Old Testament to refer to Israel, since the 12 Tribes of Israel are descended from the 12 Sons of Jacob

Isaiah 53 Argument 1.5: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant"

Isaiah 52:13: "Behold, My servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 1.5: "My servant" is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because concluding that it is Jesus is taking "My servant" out of context, and putting "My servant" into context means looking at the Chapters of Isaiah surrounding Chapter 53 that clearly show that "My servant" is Israel, and not Jesus, so then it makes no sense that Isaiah, who has been writing about "My servant" as Israel would suddenly switch "My servant" to mean Jesus (and then suddenly switch back "My servant" or "she" or "he" to mean Israel), the only thing ever identified as "My servant" is Israel

Isaiah 48:20: "Leave Babylon, fle from the Chalideans; with a voice of singing declare, tell this, publicize it to the end of the earth; say, "The Lord has redeemed His servant Jacob."

This verse comes even closer to Isaiah 53 than Isaiah 45:4; Jacob is another name used throughout the Old Testament to refer to Israel, since the 12 Tribes of Israel are descended from the 12 Sons of Jacob

Isaiah 53 Argument 1.6: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant"

Isaiah 52:13: "Behold, My servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 1.6: "My servant" is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because concluding that it is Jesus is taking "My servant" out of context, and putting "My servant" into context means looking at the Chapters of Isaiah surrounding Chapter 53 that clearly show that "My servant" is Israel, and not Jesus, so then it makes no sense that Isaiah, who has been writing about "My servant" as Israel would suddenly switch "My servant" to mean Jesus (and then suddenly switch back "My servant" or "she" or "he" to mean Israel), the only thing ever identified as "My servant" is Israel

Isaiah 49:3: "And said to me, thou art My servant, O Israel in whom I will be glorified!"

This verse comes even closer to Isaiah 53 than Isaiah 48:20, here he specifically mentions Israel as His servant and doesn't use the placeholder "Jacob"

Isaiah 53 Argument 1.7: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant"

Isaiah 52:13: "Behold, My servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 2.1: "My servant" is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because not only in the surrounding chapters of Isaiah does "My servant" refer to Israel, but throughout the Old Testament, and again, the only thing ever identified as "My servant" (in this kind of context) is Israel

Psalms 136:22: "Even a heritage unto Israel His servant; for his mercy endures forever."

Isaiah 53 Argument 1.8: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant"

Isaiah 52:13: "Behold, My servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 2.2: "My servant" is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because not only in the surrounding chapters of Isaiah does "My servant" refer to Israel, but throughout the Old Testament, and again, the only thing ever identified as "My servant" (in this kind of context) is Israel

Jeremiah 30:10: "Therefore fear not, O My servant Jacob, says the Lord...."

Isaiah 53 Argument 2.1: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant" and can NOT be talking about Israel as God's servant because Israel means the people Israel, plural, a whole group, an entire nation; while in Isaiah 53 it is used in the singular, grammatically it can and must only be referring to one person, and thus that person must be Jesus

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 3.1: When writing the part that is Isaiah 53 (and the parts that surround Isaiah 53 in order to keep Isaiah 53 in context), Isaiah is constantly moving from the singular to the plural and back to the singular again, Israel is referred to in the singular just as often in the plural to remind those who read the Old Testament that Israel has a singular destiny, and thus is referred to in the singular as much as the plural, throughout the book of Isaiah

Isaiah 43:10: "Ye are my witnesses saith the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen: that you know and believe Me, and understand that I am He: before Me there was no god formed, neither shall there be after Me."

In the first phrase, there is a shift from the plural to the singular

Isaiah 53 Argument 2.2: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant" and can NOT be talking about Israel as God's servant because Israel means the people Israel, plural, a whole group, an entire nation; while in Isaiah 53 it is used in the singular, grammatically it can and must only be referring to one person, and thus that person must be Jesus

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 3.2: When writing the part that is Isaiah 53 (and the parts that surround Isaiah 53 in order to keep Isaiah 53 in context), Isaiah is constantly moving from the singular to the plural and back to the singular again, Israel is referred to in the singular just as often in the plural to remind those who read the Old Testament that Israel has a singular destiny, and thus is referred to in the singular as much as the plural, such as right before Isaiah 53

Isaiah 52:1-2: "Awaken, awaken put on your strength, O Zion; put on the garments of your beauty, Jerusalem the Holy City, for no longer shall the uncircumcised [Christians] or the unclean [Muslims] continue to enter you. [...] O Jerusalem; free yourself of the bands of your neck, O captive daughter of Zion."

Here, just in the singular

Isaiah 53 Argument 2.3: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant" and can NOT be talking about Israel as God's servant because Israel means the people Israel, plural, a whole group, an entire nation; while in Isaiah 53 it is used in the singular, grammatically it can and must only be referring to one person, and thus that person must be Jesus

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 3.3: When writing the part that is Isaiah 53 (and the parts that surround Isaiah 53 in order to keep Isaiah 53 in context), Isaiah is constantly moving from the singular to the plural and back to the singular again, Israel is referred to in the singular just as often in the plural to remind those who read the Old Testament that Israel has a singular destiny, and thus is referred to in the singular as much as the plural, such as right after Isaiah 53

Isaiah 54:1: "'Sing you barren woman who has not born; burst out into song and jubilate, you who have not experienced birth pangs, for the children of the desolate one are more than the children of the married woman', says the Lord."

Here, just in the singular, but now the person Israel is described as is not God's son, but God's wife, because a person can have one of two kinds of relationships with God: one where they are born into the relationship is a so-called son of Judaism ("My son"), and another where they choose the relationship as a so-called spouse of Judaism ("My wife")

Isaiah 53 Argument 2.4: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant" and can NOT be talking about Israel as God's servant because Israel means the people Israel, plural, a whole group, an entire nation; while in Isaiah 53 it is used in the singular, grammatically it can and must only be referring to one person, and thus that person must be Jesus

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 3.4: When writing the part that is Isaiah 53 (and the parts that surround Isaiah 53 in order to keep Isaiah 53 in context), Isaiah is constantly shifting between the singular and the plural, Israel is referred to in the singular just as often in the plural to remind those who read the Old Testament that Israel has a singular destiny, and thus is referred to in the singular as much as the plural, even outside of the Book of Isaiah

Hosea 11:1-2, 5: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and I called My son out of Egypt. The more they called them, the more they went from them; they sacrificed unto the Baalim, and offered to graven images. He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return."

Here, shifts from the singular (a child, him, son) to the plural (they, them), then back to the singular (he, his), then back to plural (they)

Isaiah 53 Argument 2.5: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant" and can NOT be talking about Israel as God's servant because Israel means the people Israel, plural, a whole group, an entire nation; while in Isaiah 53 it is used in the singular, grammatically it can and must only be referring to one person, and thus that person must be Jesus

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 3.5: When writing the part that is Isaiah 53 (and the parts that surround Isaiah 53 in order to keep Isaiah 53 in context), Isaiah is constantly shifting between the singular and the plural, Israel is referred to in the singular just as often in the plural to remind those who read the Old Testament that Israel has a singular destiny, and thus is referred to in the singular as much as the plural, even outside of the Book of Isaiah

Exodus 4:22: "...thus saith the Lord, Israel is My son, My first born."

Here, just in the singular, refers to Israel as God's son, how can Israel and Jesus both be God's son? Nowhere does it say that God has multiple sons, so then Israel must be God's son, not Jesus, Israel is referred to as God's "son" in the same way that one can have a relationship with God where they are born into the relationship and is a so-called son of Judaism ("My son")

Isaiah 53 Argument 2.6: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant" and can NOT be talking about Israel as God's servant because Israel means the people Israel, plural, a whole group, an entire nation; while in Isaiah 53 it is used in the singular, grammatically it can and must only be referring to one person, and thus that person must be Jesus

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 3.6: When writing the part that is Isaiah 53 (and the parts that surround Isaiah 53 in order to keep Isaiah 53 in context), Isaiah is constantly shifting between the singular and the plural, Israel is referred to in the singular just as often in the plural to remind those who read the Old Testament that Israel has a singular destiny, and thus is referred to in the singular as much as the plural, even outside of the Book of Isaiah

Deuteronomy 32:10: "He found him in a desert land, and in the waste, a howling wilderness; He compassed him about, He cared for him, He kept him as the apple of His eye."

Here, just in the singular

Isaiah 53 Argument 2.7/3.1: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant" and can NOT be talking about Israel as God's servant because Israel means the people Israel, plural, a whole group, an entire nation; while in Isaiah 53 it is used in the singular, grammatically it can and must only be referring to one person, and thus that person must be Jesus/Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:1: "Who hath believed our (referring to the kings of gentile nations at the end of days) report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?"

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 3.7/4.1: When writing the part that is Isaiah 53 (and the parts that surround Isaiah 53 in order to keep Isaiah 53 in context), Isaiah is constantly shifting between the singular and the plural, Israel is referred to in the singular just as often in the plural to remind those who read the Old Testament that Israel has a singular destiny, and thus is referred to in the singular as much as the plural, such as right before Isaiah 53

Isaiah 52:10-12: "The Lord hath made bare His Holy Arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God! Turn away, turn away, get out of there, touch no unclean one; get out of its midst, purify yourselves, you who bear the Lord's vessels. For not with haste shall you go forth and not in a flurry of flight shall you go, for the Lord goes before you, and your rear guard is the God of Israel."

Here Isaiah is talking about Israel, in the singular, who is oppressed, and God is going to save them at the end of days in the eyes of all the nations of the world, so it doesn't make sense that right after it Isaiah is talking about Jesus

Isaiah 53 Argument 2.8/3.2: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus as God's servant, since Isaiah writes "My servant" and can NOT be talking about Israel as God's servant because Israel means the people Israel, plural, a whole group, an entire nation; while in Isaiah 53 it is used in the singular, grammatically it can and must only be referring to one person, and thus that person must be Jesus/Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:1: "Who hath believed our (referring to the kings of gentile nations at the end of days) report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?"

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 3.8/4.2: When writing the part that is Isaiah 53 (and the parts that surround Isaiah 53 in order to keep Isaiah 53 in context), Isaiah is constantly shifting between the singular and the plural, Israel is referred to in the singular just as often in the plural to remind those who read the Old Testament that Israel has a singular destiny, and thus is referred to in the singular as much as the plural, such as right after Isaiah 53

Isaiah 54:7-10: "'For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you. With a little wrath did I hide my countenance for a moment from you, and with everlasting kindness will I have compassion on you,' said your redeemer, the Lord. 'For this is to Me as the waters of Noah, as I swore that the waters of Noah shall never again pass over the earth, so I have sworn neither to be wroth with you nor to rebuke you. For the mountains shall depart and the hills totter, but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace totter', says the Lord, Who has compassion on you."

Here Isaiah is talking about Israel, in the singular, who has suffered, but God has not forsaken them forever and will return to them, in the singular, and bring salvation back to the Jews, so it doesn't make sense that right before it Isaiah is talking about Jesus

Isaiah 53 Argument 4: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:2: "And he [the servant] came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance that we should have desired him."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 5: He ["My servant"] is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because throughout the Old Testament, this kind of language seen in Isaiah 53:2 describes Israel

Hosea 14:6-7: "I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon. His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon."

Isaiah 53 Argument 5.1: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:3: "Despised and forsaken by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness: and as one who hides face from us; despised, and we esteemed him not."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 6.1: Him ["My servant"] is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because concluding that this kind of language, the action of "being despised" is Jesus "being despised" is taking "My servant ... being despised" out of context, and putting "My servant ... being despised" into context means looking at the Chapters of Isaiah surrounding Chapter 53 that clearly show that "My servant ... being despised" is Israel, and not Jesus, so then it makes no sense that Isaiah, who has been writing about "My servant ... being despised" as Israel would suddenly switch "My servant ... being despised" to mean Jesus (and then suddenly switch back "My servant" or "she" or "he" to mean Israel), the only thing ever identified as "My servant ... being despised" is Israel, such as before Isaiah 53

Isaiah 49:7-8: "For so said the Lord, the redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, about him who is despised of men [...] In a time of favor I answered you, and on a day of salvation I helped you; and I will watch you, and I will make you for a people of a covenant, to establish a land, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages."

Isaiah 53 Argument 5.2: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:3: "Despised and forsaken by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness: and as one who hides face from us; despised, and we esteemed him not."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 6.2: Him ["My servant"] is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because concluding that this kind of language, the action of "being forsaken" is Jesus "being forsaken" is taking "My servant ... being forsaken" out of context, and putting "My servant ... being forsaken" into context means looking at the Chapters of Isaiah surrounding Chapter 53 that clearly show that "My servant ... being forsaken" is Israel, and not Jesus, so then it makes no sense that Isaiah, who has been writing about "My servant ... being forsaken" as Israel would suddenly switch "My servant ... being forsaken" to mean Jesus (and then suddenly switch back "My servant" or "she" or "he" to mean Israel),, the only thing ever identified as "My servant ... being forsaken" is Israel, such as before Isaiah 53

Isaiah 49:13-15: "Sing, O heavens, and rejoice, O earth, and mountains burst out in song, for the Lord has consoled His people, and He shall have mercy on His afflicted. But Zion said, 'The Lord has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten me.' Shall a woman forget her suckling child, from having mercy on the child of her womb? These too shall forget, but I will not forget you."

Here, the singular is Zion

Isaiah 53 Argument 5.3: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:3: "Despised and forsaken by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness: and as one who hides face from us; despised, and we esteemed him not."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 6.3: Him ["My servant"] is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because concluding that this kind of language, the action of "being forsaken" is Jesus "being forsaken" is taking "My servant ... being forsaken" out of context, and putting "My servant ... being forsaken" into context means looking at the Chapters of Isaiah surrounding Chapter 53 that clearly show that "My servant ... being forsaken" is Israel, and not Jesus, so then it makes no sense that Isaiah, who has been writing about "My servant ... being forsaken" as Israel would suddenly switch "My servant ... being forsaken" to mean Jesus (and then suddenly switch back "My servant" or "she" or "he" to mean Israel), the only thing ever identified as "My servant ... being forsaken" is Israel, such as after Isaiah 53

Isaiah 54:6-7: "For, like a wife who is forsaken and afflicted in spirit has the Lord called you, and a wife of one's youth who was rejected, said your God. For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you."

Wife of course is referring to Israel in the same way it is referring to Israel in Isaiah 54:1, this being 5 verses after Isaiah 54:1

Isaiah 53 Argument 5.4: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:3: "Despised and forsaken by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness: and as one who hides face from us; despised, and we esteemed him not."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 6.4: Him ["My servant"] is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because concluding that this kind of language, the action of "being forsaken/despised" is Jesus "being forsaken/despised" is taking "My servant ... being forsaken" out of context, and putting "My servant ... being forsaken/despised" into context means looking at the Chapters of Isaiah surrounding Chapter 53 that clearly show that "My servant ... being forsaken/despised" is Israel, and not Jesus, so then it makes no sense that Isaiah, who has been writing about "My servant ... being forsaken/despised" as Israel would suddenly switch "My servant ... being forsaken/despised" to mean Jesus (and then suddenly switch back "My servant" or "she" or "he" to mean Israel), the only thing ever identified as "My servant ... being forsaken/despised" is Israel, such as after Isaiah 53

Isaiah 60:14-15: "The sons of them that afflicted you shall come bending unto you; and all they that despised you shall bow themselves down at the soles of your feet; and they shall call you, the city of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel. Whereas you have been forsaken and despised, with no passerby, I will make you an everlasting pride, the joy of every generation."

Isaiah 53 Argument 5.5: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:3: "Despised and forsaken by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness: and as one who hides face from us; despised, and we esteemed him not."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 6.4: Him ["My servant"] is actually referring not to Jesus, but to Israel because throughout the Old Testament, this kind of language, the action of "being despised" seen in Isaiah 53:3 describes Israel

Obadiah 1:2: "Behold I have made you small among the nations; you are very despised."

Clearly, "among the nations" refers to Israel since Israel is a nation

Isaiah 53 Argument 6: Israel suffered for her own sins, it can't be that Israel suffered from the sins of the world, Israel suffered in its exile as a result of its own sins

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 6: No, Israel suffered for the sins of the world

Isaiah 40:2: "Speak to the heart of Jerusalem and call to her, for she has become full from her host, for her iniquity has been appeased, for she has taken from the hand of the Lord double for all her sins."

In other words, double meaning one count for her own sins, and another count for the sins of the world

Isaiah 53 Argument 7: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:4-5: (King James) "Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains - he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wounds we are healed."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 7: "are" is a purposeful mistranslation (in order to fit it into the life of Jesus) of "were": "ובחברתּו נרפא לנו" includes "were" not "are", which is changed because it wouldn't make any sense if Jesus only healed us at the time but not now so they change it (in order to fit it into the life of Jesus)

Isaiah 53:4-5: (Massoretic) "... with his wounds we were healed."

Isaiah 53 Argument 8: The Messiah is to suffer; Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus, not only as God's servant, but that God's servant will suffer for the sins of all, that Jesus will die on the cross for our sins and suffer for us

Isaiah 53:6: "We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his own way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 8: Israel is to suffer! Not the Messiah! Throughout the Old Testament, it explains that it is Israel who suffers, but not the Messiah; "His" is referring not to Jesus, but to Israel, it is Israel who will pray for the sins of gentile nations, to whom "we" is referring as well as

Jeremiah 29:7: "And seek the peace of the city where I have exiled you and pray for it to the Lord, for in its peace you shall have peace."

Isaiah 53 Argument 9.1: The Messiah is to suffer; Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus, not only as God's servant, but that God's servant will suffer for the sins of all, that Jesus will die on the cross for our sins and suffer for us

Isaiah 53:7: "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a sheep that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 9.1: It is Israel, not Jesus, that is oppressed and afflicted; and it says this throughout the Old Testament

Psalms 18:28: "For you will save the afflicted nation, and you will bring down haughty looks."

Isaiah 53 Argument 9.2: The Messiah is to suffer; Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15) foretells the role of Jesus, not only as God's servant, but that God's servant will suffer for the sins of all, that Jesus will die on the cross for our sins and suffer for us

Isaiah 53:7: "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a sheep that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 9.2: It is Israel, not Jesus, that is oppressed and afflicted; and it says this throughout the Old Testament

Psalms 44:12, 14-15, 22: "You have delivered us like sheep for the slaughter, and among the gentiles you have scattered us. You made us a disgrace to our neighbors, the mockery and scorn of those around us. You made us a byword among the nations to shake their heads. Because for Your sake we are killed all day long, we are considered as sheep for the slaughter.

Isaiah 53 Argument 10.1: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:8 (King James): "He was taken from prison and from judgement: and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgressions of my people was he stricken."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 10.1: Like Isaiah does throughout the book such as in Isaiah 43:11, especially right before in Isaiah 52:1 and right after in Isaiah 54:1, Isaiah switches from the singular to the plural and/or vice versa, in this case in Isaiah 53:8 he goes from the singular, "he", to the plural "them", here "he" is Israel (as Isaiah has established, this is whom Isaiah is referring to)

Isaiah 53:8: "From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them (la'mo).

If this were meant to be 'him" and translated as such, then the Hebrew word here would be "lo" for him, but the Hebrew word here is "la'mo" for them - one can talk about a nation in the singular, but one can NOT talk about one person (Jesus) in the plural, so the King James bible intentionally mistranslates "la'mo" here to mean "he" even though it means "them" in order to compensate for such a disparity - ALTHOUGH ISAIAH DOES REFER TO ISRAEL IN THE SINGULAR, ISAIAH NEVER REFERS TO A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IN THE PLURAL, ALWAYS THE NATION OF ISRAEL

This can be proven comparing an Interlinear Bible (Kohllinger) and the NIV translation on its sideline, where la'mo says write under the line "to them" yet on the sideline it says "for he was stricken"

Isaiah 53 Argument 10.2 (Response to Counter Argument 10.1): Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:8 (King James): "He was taken from prison and from judgement: and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgressions of my people was he stricken."

But the Rabbis changed "lo" to "la'mo" after they read the narrative of Jesus in order to make it fit the Jewish narrative

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 10.2: If it's the case that the Rabbis changed it, then the word "la'mo" should not be translated as "them" anywhere else in the King James Version of the Book of Isaiah, and yet it is translated as so in every other version as "them" rather than "he"

Isaiah 48:21 (King James): "And they thirsted not when he led them through the deserts: He caused waters to flow out of the rock for them (la'mo): He clave the rock also, and the waters gushed out."

Isaiah 53 Argument 10.3 (Response to Counter Argument 10.2): Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

But even if the Rabbis had NOT changed "lo" to "la'mo" after they read the narrative of Jesus in order to make it fit the Jewish narrative since the King James Bible translates "lo" to "la'mo" everywhere else, the King James Bible still translates it as such in Genesis 9:26

Genesis 9:26 (King James): "And He said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant"

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 10.2: Genesis 9:26, this "la'mo" is taken out of context to be used as the only other translation ever that corresponds with the mistranslation in Isaiah 53:8

It is because it is in Genesis 9 that Ham disrespects his father Noah and it says in Genesis 9 that Ham has showed such disrespect that his descendants, the Canaanites, will always be in servitude to the descendants of Shem because here it is talking about the Canaanites or Canaan - a whole nation, in other words the nation that comes from Ham will serve the nation that comes from Shem, and thus Ham is Shem's servant, Ham is the servant, the servant is singular

Isaiah 53 Argument 11.1: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:9 (King James): "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 11.1: "... his kinds of deaths" (B'motav - plural) is mistranslated as "... his death" (B'moto) - singular) in order to fit it into the life of Jesus

Isaiah 53:9: "And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of deaths, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth."

The King James Bible has to mistranslate "deaths" (B'motav) to "death" (B'moto) in order to make it fit the life of Jesus, since Jesus died only one death, he didn't die once and then again, it changes the word from its plural to its singular but this time, unlike what Isaiah does where he changed between the two when referring to a person, here the change between the two is referring to death or ways to die of which it doesn't make any sense to change between the singular and plural in this case

Isaiah 53 Argument 11.2: (Response to Counter Argument 11.1): Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

But even if this is a purposeful mistranslation, and it is true that it is in the deaths of the wealthy and not the depth of one individual and it is true that the verse is as it is below, it can't be that Israel never has lied (had "deceit in its mouth"), all humans lie at one point - there's no way this can be talking about the people Israel because the people Israel have lied before

Isaiah 53:9: "And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of deaths, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 11.2: The whole book up to this point, especially the most recent chapters, has been talking about the "righteous remnant of Israel", in other words it has established Israel's position as righteous among sinning gentile nations and describing the glorification of Israel that will take place during the Messianic Age and such language is being used to describe the quality of the people Israel during messianic times

Zephaniah 3:13: "The remnant of Israel shall neither commit injustice nor speak lies; neither shall deceitful speech found in their mouth, for they shall graze and lie down, with no one to cause them to shudder."

This is the same kind of language used in Isaiah 53:9 and Isaiah 52:1-2 and is referring to Israel in the future, it is referring to prophecy - the quality Israel will have that gentile nations will NOT have - there not being dishonest

Isaiah 53 Argument 12.1: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:10 (King James): "And the Lord wished to crush him, he made him ill, when his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 12.1: God is speaking in Isaiah 53:10, not the kings of gentile nations as has been the speaker since Isaiah 53:1 - to "him", the servant, which is still Israel as Isaiah has been writing, and it says that if the servant or him or the people Israel makes restitution for their souls, then they will see their seed (children) grow and will live a long life (shall prolong his days)

Isaiah 53:10: "And the Lord wished to crush him, he made him ill, if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

God cannot be a servant to himself - that doesn't make sense, so the King James intentionally mistranslates "if" to "when" in order to make it so that it doesn't sound like a deal (if you do this, then I will do this...) but a promise (when this happens, this will happen...)

Isaiah 53 Argument 12.2: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:10 (King James): "And the Lord wished to crush him, he made him ill, when his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 12.2: God is speaking in Isaiah 53:10, not the kings of gentile nations as has been the speaker since Isaiah 53:1 - to "him", the servant, which is still Israel as Isaiah has been writing, and it says that if the servant or him or the people Israel makes restitution for their souls, then they will see their seed (children) grow and will live a long life (shall prolong his days)

Isaiah 53:10: "And the Lord wished to crush him, he made him ill, if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

Even as a promise though, this doesn't make any sense - firstly: God cannot be subservient to himself

Isaiah 53 Argument 12.3: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:10 (King James): "And the Lord wished to crush him, he made him ill, when his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 12.3: God is speaking in Isaiah 53:10, not the kings of gentile nations as has been the speaker since Isaiah 53:1 - to "him", the servant, which is still Israel as Isaiah has been writing, and it says that if the servant or him or the people Israel makes restitution for their souls, then they will see their seed (children) grow and will live a long life (shall prolong his days)

Isaiah 53:10: "And the Lord wished to crush him, he made him ill, if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

Even as a promise though, this doesn't make any sense -

secondly: Even if God was promising things to Jesus, that doesn't make any sense - God is promising a long life to Jesus, and Jesus didn't even live half as long as David who was promised a long life (Jesus lived 35 years, David lived 70 years)

Isaiah 53 Argument 12.4: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:10 (King James): "And the Lord wished to crush him, he made him ill, when his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 12.4: God is speaking in Isaiah 53:10, not the kings of gentile nations as has been the speaker since Isaiah 53:1 - to "him", the servant, which is still Israel as Isaiah has been writing, and it says that if the servant or him or the people Israel makes restitution for their souls, then they will see their seed (children) grow and will live a long life (shall prolong his days)

Isaiah 53:10: "And the Lord wished to crush him, he made him ill, if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

Even as a promise though, this doesn't make any sense -

thirdly: Even if God was promising a long spiritual life to Jesus, that doesn't make any sense because Jesus is God and God is eternal, so one can't promise to give someone something someone already has

Isaiah 53 Argument 12.5: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:10 (King James): "And the Lord wished to crush him, he made him ill, when his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 12.5: God is speaking in Isaiah 53:10, not the kings of gentile nations as has been the speaker since Isaiah 53:1 - to "him", the servant, which is still Israel as Isaiah has been writing, and it says that if the servant or him or the people Israel makes restitution for their souls, then they will see their seed (children) grow and will live a long life (shall prolong his days)

Isaiah 53:10: "And the Lord wished to crush him, he made him ill, if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

Even as a promise though, this doesn't make any sense -

fourthly: Even if God was promising things to Jesus, that doesn't make any sense - God is promising that his Servant will have children who will have a long life yet Jesus had no children

Isaiah 53 Argument 12.6 (Response to Counter Argument 12.5): Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

But Jesus's children aren't physical children, they are his metaphorical or spiritual children: his "body of believers"

Isaiah 53:10 (King James): "And the Lord wished to crush him, he made him ill, when his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

Isaiah 53 Argument Counter Argument 12.6: Although throughout the Old Testament, followers of God and normal human beings are referred to as children ("Ben"/"Ben'im"), the Hebrew word "Zerah" refers only to physical children, which is the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 53:10, so it can NOT be referring to Jesus's spiritual children, it doesn't make sense linguistically

Isaiah 45:19: "Not in secret did I speak, in a land of darkness; I did not say to the seed ("L'Zerah") of Jacob, seek me in vain..."

Isaiah 53 Argument 12.7 (Response to Counter Argument 12.5): Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

But Jesus's children aren't physical children, they are his metaphorical or spiritual children: his "body of believers"

Isaiah 53:10 (King James): "And the Lord wished to crush him, he made him ill, when his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

Isaiah 53 Argument Counter Argument 12.7: Although throughout the Old Testament, followers of God and normal human beings are referred to as children ("Ben"/"Ben'im"), the Hebrew word "Zerah" refers only to physical children, which is the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 53:10, so it can NOT be referring to Jesus's spiritual children, it doesn't make sense linguistically

Genesis 15:2-4: "And Abram said, 'My Lord, God, what can You give to me seeing that I am childless, and the son ("Ben") of my house is the Damascene Eliezer?' Then Abram said, 'See to me You have given no seed ("Zerah"); and see, the son ("Ben") of my house is my heir.'

This is the moment in the Abraham story when Abram recognizes that when God says to Abraham that he will make Abraham's people a great nation, Abraham believes God is referring to his "spiritual" son Eliezer and not his "physical" son Isaac (who hasn't been born yet at the time of this story) and the word that Abraham speaks to come to this realization of not having a physical son is "Zerah", NOT "Ben" - which is the word Abraham speaks to refer to his "spiritual" son Eliezer

It goes on to describe how God tells him that he is speaking of his physical son Isaac, whom will come from within Abraham's own bowels

Isaiah 53 Argument 12.8 (Response to Counter Argument 12.5): Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

But Jesus's children aren't physical children, they are his metaphorical or spiritual children: his "body of believers"

Isaiah 53:10 (King James): "And the Lord wished to crush him, he made him ill, when his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

Isaiah 53 Argument Counter Argument 12.8: Although throughout the Old Testament, followers of God and normal human beings are referred to as children ("Ben"/"Ben'im"), the Hebrew word "Zerah" refers only to physical children, which is the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 53:10, so it can NOT be referring to Jesus's spiritual children, it doesn't make sense linguistically

Deuteronomy 30:19: "I call heaven and earth as witnesses! Before you I have placed life and death, the blessing and the curse. You must choose life, so that you and your seed ("Zerah") will survive."

Here, God is talking about the people Israel as physical children ("Zerah"), not just as spiritual children since the spirit will always survive and not die - it is the physical human being who will die and who must survive by choosing life

Isaiah 53 Argument 13.1: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:11: "From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 13.1: The servant can NOT be Jesus because it is Jesus's blood that vindicates the just for many and bears the iniquities of all, not Jesus's knowledge (Jesus's brain wasn't crucified!) - it is the people Israel, who with their knowledge (Torah) will vindicate the just for many (by going around teaching it), and whom will bear the sins of the world since Israel pays double - for their own sins and the sins of the world (Isaiah 40:2) and by whom will be the righteous remnant who will shine its light on all the nations during the messianic age

Isaiah 53 Argument 13.2: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:11: "From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 13.2: It is solely the responsibility of the Jews to bring about knowledge to the world (to the "many")

Isaiah 61:6-9: "And you shall be called 'The Priests of the Lord', 'Servants of our God' shall be said of you; the possessions of the nations you shall eat, and with their glory you shall succeed (them). Instead of your shame, which was two fold, and your disgrace, which they shall inherit two fold; they shall have everlasting joy."

This explains why the Jews are to bear the weight of the sins of non-Jews and shows why the Servant of God is to bring about knowledge to "vindicate the just for many" since it has always been the people Israel to do this, to be the "Priests of the Lord" and the "Servants of God"

Isaiah 53 Argument 13.3: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:11: "From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 13.3: It is solely the responsibility of the Jews to bring about knowledge to the world (to the "many")

Isaiah 42:6: "I am the Lord; I called you with righteousness and I will strengthen your hand; and I formed you, and I make you for a people's covenant, for a light to the nations."

And that light is Torah, that which the people Israel are instructed to teach to the rest of their would to bear the weight of their sin:

Proverbs 6:23: "For a commandment is a candle, and the Torah is light"

So when Israel sins, the world comes down, and when the world comes down, they persecute the Jewish people - it isn't so much natural disasters kill Jews as it is gentiles whom Jews don't give light to in the first place

Isaiah 53 Argument 14: Isaiah 53 (and 52:13-15), as a whole, foretells the coming of the Messiah, foretells that the messiah is a single individual who suffered for our sins, that the messiah is in fact Jesus

Isaiah 53:12: "Therefore, I will allot him a portion in public, and with the strong he shall share plunder, because he poured out his soul to death, and with transgressors he was counted; and he bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors."

Isaiah 53 Counter Argument 14: This is referring to Israel, not Jesus, as it says in similar language throughout the Old Testament

Ezekiel 34:29: "And I shall establish for them a plantation of renown, and they shall no more be gathered in by famine in the land, and they shall no more bear the shame of the nations."

Ma'Shiach doesn't equal Messiah (Fact 1)

The person who is going to come at the end of days from the House of David is referred to many times throughout the Old Testament BUT was NEVER called the Messiah in ancient times, but rather a "King" or an "anointed one" - all the kings were anointed, all the priests were anointed, the Hebrew word Ma'Shiach as used in Leviticus is referring to the leaders of the people Israel being the "anointed" ones

Habakkuk 3:18

The Rabbis used the language of the bible, not the contemporary language of 20th Century Jew or Gentile, when the bible refers to the Ma'Shiach - it is not talking about who we today refer to as the Messiah as we restrain it and give it a non-biblical meaning, but rather

Isaiah 2: "... he shall rebuke many nations" - (our) Messiah is not going to do this!

Missionaries take the "Ma'Shiach" of the Bible as the Messiah as we see it today - even though the two are different according to above

Trinity Argument 1.1: The Messiah is Jesus, Jesus was both man and God, and this is prophesized in the Old Testament

Trinity Counter Argument 1.1: The Old Testament makes it clear that the Messiah is not God, but is a human being, for it cannot be that God fears God since it is man, not God, that fears God

Isaiah 11:2-3: "And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and heroism, a spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord. And he shall be animated with the fear of the Lord."

Isaiah throughout speaks about the Messianic age, and here he is specifically explaining the characteristics of the Messiah - Jesus cannot be both the Lord and the Messiah, for the Messiah is to fear the Lord, it doesn't make sense to say that Jesus, the Lord, fears himself; God cannot fear himself; in other words: the Messiah cannot fear God if he is God

Trinity Argument 1.2: The Messiah is Jesus, Jesus was both man and God, and this is prophesized in the Old Testament

Trinity Counter Argument 1.2: The Old Testament makes it clear that the Messiah is not God, but is a human being, for it cannot be that God fears God since it is man, not God, that fears God

Numbers 23:19: And thus declared the Lord, "God is not a man that He should lie, nor a mortal that He should change His mind."

This verse characterizes God as not being a man and that God hasn't changed his mind about how humans are to be saved

Trinity Argument 2.1: The Trinity, along with the belief in the the Father and the Son both being God and are both coequal, coeternal, and so forth; is not an invention of Tertullian, but a fulfillment of religious belief as prophesized by the Old Testament

Trinity Counter Argument 2.1: The Old Testament makes it clear that the Messiah is not God, but is a human being, for it is God alone who created the universe

Isaiah 43:10-11: "'You are My witnesses', declares the Lord, 'and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.'"

In other words, the only person who saves or forgives is God, the God that came before the time of Jesus, since there will be nobody after God

Trinity Argument 2.2: The Trinity, along with the belief in the the Father and the Son both being God and are both coequal, coeternal, and so forth; is not an invention of Tertullian, but a fulfillment of religious belief as prophesized by the Old Testament

Trinity Counter Argument 2.2: The Old Testament makes it clear that the Messiah is not God, but is a human being, for it is God alone who created the universe

Isaiah 44:24: "So said the Lord, your Redeemer, the One Who formed you from the womb, "I am the Lord Who makes everything, Who stretched from the heavens alone, Who spread out the earth by Myself."

Trinity Argument 2.4: The Trinity, along with the belief in the the Father and the Son both being God and are both coequal, coeternal, and so forth; is not an invention of Tertullian, but a fulfillment of religious belief as prophesized by the Old Testament

Trinity Counter Argument 2.4: The Old Testament makes it clear that the Messiah is not God, but is a human being, for it is God alone who created the universe

I Kings 8:60: "So that all the nations of the earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other."

Trinity Argument 2.3: The Trinity, along with the belief in the the Father and the Son both being God and are both coequal, coeternal, and so forth; is not an invention of Tertullian, but a fulfillment of religious belief as prophesized by the Old Testament

Trinity Counter Argument 2.3: The Old Testament makes it clear that the Messiah is not God, but is a human being, for it is God alone who created the universe

Isaiah 46:9: "Remember the first things of old, that I am God and there is no other; I am God and there is none like Me."

Trinity Argument 3: The Trinity, along with the belief in the the Father and the Son both being God and are both coequal, coeternal, and so forth; is not an invention of Tertullian, but a fulfillment of religious belief as prophesized by the Old Testament

Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One."

In this context, "Echad" (one) doesn't mean "alone" but rather means one as in "a compound unity", in other words Echad here refers to one as a collective, rather than singular noun since it is used this way throughout the Bible

Genesis 1:5: "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day".

Here, the word "Echad" (one) is used to refer to one day, but is a "compound unity" since it describes multiple things (evening and morning) making up one thing (one day), so it really means a "compound unity" when one brings numerous things together and together they become one, not just "alone" and thus this is fulfilled in the New Testament by the doctrine of the Holy Trinity

Trinity Counter Argument 3: "Echad" operates the same way the English word "one" does, it can be used to describe a unity of things as being one (such as in Genesis 1:5) or one thing all by itself (Ecclesiastes 4:8) - however Trinitarians tend to disregard verses in the Old Testament that show that "Echad" means "alone" and not a "compound unity" such as Ecclesiastes 4:8 - one only need to look at the context of the use of "Echad" to recognize whether or not it is referring to a compound unity or one thing alone and all by itself

Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One."

Although it is possible that "Echad" here is used to refer to a "compound unity" since "Echad" operates the same way "one" does in the English language - it is clear that, if one recognizes the context of this verse - there aren't any collective nouns around this verse

Trinity Argument 4: The Trinity, along with the belief in the the Father and the Son both being God and are both coequal, coeternal, and so forth; is not an invention of Tertullian, but a fulfillment of religious belief as prophesized by the Old Testament

Trinity Counter Argument 4: Throughout Jewish scripture, God is referred to more so as being alone and there being no other than Him than just being alone, suggesting that the Old Testament anticipated the idea of Jesus and his being characterized as God and made sure to do away with it - the Jewish scriptures describe as God as there being no other than He far more often that describing God as one

Exodus 20:1-3: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods besides me."

Here, it is referring to God not as one, but as there being no other gods other than Him, there is Him alone and there is nobody else

Trinity Argument 5.1: The Trinity is fulfillment of religious belief as prophesized by the Old Testament and God can be in fact thought of as a plurality

Genesis 1:26-27: "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...' So God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him..."

Trinity Counter Argument 5.1: Not only do famous Trinitarian Christian scholars agree that this is not talking about a plurality (GJ Wenham, Charles C. Ryrie, Jerry Falwell), but rather it is mentioning God speaking on behalf of a certain group of beings the same way a president speaks on behalf of his people, although the pronouns "us" and "we" are being used, only God is speaking; the same way "us" and "we" are used when a president gives a speech - this phenomenon is referred to as a "majestic plurality" (this is the term these Christian scholars use to clarify what Genesis 1:26 is talking about), and all this can be recognized by finding more clear parts of Old Testament scripture that clarify this rather vague verse, that describe who God is speaking behalf on

Isaiah 6:1-2, 8: "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim; each one had six wings... Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?"

It isn't just that this verse elaborates on the meaning of the more vague Genesis 1:26-27, but that the same language - the same pronouns - are used to describe that God is speaking on behalf of other beings, the Seraphim (angels); and all Christians agree that angels are not a part of God

Trinity Argument 5.2: The Trinity is fulfillment of religious belief as prophesized by the Old Testament and God can be in fact thought of as a plurality

Genesis 1:26-27: "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...' So God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him..."

Trinity Counter Argument 5.2: Not only do famous Trinitarian Christian scholars agree that this is not talking about a plurality (GJ Wenham, Charles C. Ryrie, Jerry Falwell), but rather it is mentioning God speaking on behalf of a certain group of beings the same way a president speaks on behalf of his people, although the pronouns "us" and "we" are being used, only God is speaking; the same way "us" and "we" are used when a president gives a speech - this phenomenon is referred to as a "majestic plurality" (this is the term these Christian scholars use to clarify what Genesis 1:26 is talking about), and all this can be recognized by finding more clear parts of Old Testament scripture that clarify this rather vague verse, that describe who God is speaking behalf on

Jeremiah 22:26: "But which of them has stood in the council of the Lord to see or to hear His word?"

Clearly, recognizing the context of this verse, God is speaking on behalf of his "council" in Genesis 1:26-27, God's "Seraphim" (angels)

Trinity Argument 5.3: The Trinity is fulfillment of religious belief as prophesized by the Old Testament and God can be in fact thought of as a plurality

Genesis 1:26-27: "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...' So God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him..."

Trinity Counter Argument 5.3: Not only do famous Trinitarian Christian scholars agree that this is not talking about a plurality (GJ Wenham, Charles C. Ryrie, Jerry Falwell), but rather it is mentioning God speaking on behalf of a certain group of beings the same way a president speaks on behalf of his people, although the pronouns "us" and "we" are being used, only God is speaking; the same way "us" and "we" are used when a president gives a speech - this phenomenon is referred to as a "majestic plurality" (this is the term these Christian scholars use to clarify what Genesis 1:26 is talking about), and all this can be recognized by finding more clear parts of Old Testament scripture that clarify this rather vague verse, that describe who God is speaking behalf on

Job 15:8: "Do you listen in on God's council? Do you limit wisdom to yourself?"

Clearly, recognizing the context of this verse, God is speaking on behalf of his "council" in Genesis 1:26-27. God's "Seraphim" (angels)

Trinity Argument 6.1: Jesus, the Messiah, is also God

Trinity Counter Argument 6.1: Even in New Testament scripture, there is no evidence that Jesus is God: the concept of the Trinity does not exist in the New Testament, it is a later invention (by Tertullian) - there are in fact, however, places in scripture where Jesus rejects the idea that he is God and criticized those who believed he was

Mark 10:17-18: "As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. 'Good teacher', he asked, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?' 'Why do you call me good?', Jesus answered. 'No one is good except God alone.' You know the commandments: 'do not murder...' 'Teacher', he (the man) declared, 'all these I have kept since I was a boy.'"

If Jesus is God, Jesus clearly recognizes here that he is distinct from God and that he is not as good as God and thus is separate from God; it doesn't make sense that the Holy Spirit is God because the Holy Spirit is not accounted for in this verse - only the Son, and only the Father