Who buried with whom? Isaiah 53:9

[ThomasDGW]

To me, it doesn’t make sense to focus on one or two verses, we have to look at the whole picture.

We know that most of Isaiah is written in poetic Hebrew, so not all of it will be that easy to understand.

But we can see other references throughout the Hebrew bible that might relate and remember, there are no chapter breaks.

Here are a few for instance –
Isaiah 49 speaks of Israel as “him” who is despised of men, abhorred of nations, one who is afflicted/poor and oppressed.
Isaiah 52 says they were oppressed, 54 says afflicted and oppressed, 56 speaks of Israel as “him”, 60 says afflicted and despised, forsaken and hated.
Jeremiah 11 talks of being a docile lamb that is led to the slaughter, 30 of being hurt and wounded, 50 of Israel as “him” and “his” and being oppressed.
Nehemiah 3 talks about Israel being oppressed.
Psalm 25 talks of Israel as “his”, 44 like a sheep to be eaten, sheep for the slaughter.
Hosea speaks of Israel as “him”
Zephaniah 3 about the remnant of Israel that shall do no iniquity nor speak lies or deceit.

The servant was wounded from the transgressions of others, not died for.
The servant will justify others with knowledge, just as it is mentioned many times throughout the Hebrew bible.
The servant will acknowledge his guilt.
The servant is referred to in the plural.

Isaiah 53 does not mention any spilling or need of blood, a need to believe in a messiah, that the servant is G-d or the son of G-d, or a second coming.

So who does this poetic servant seem to be pointing to?

Of course, we have to look at the whole picture, but when we are discussing the whole picture, we have to discuss one aspect at a time. The objections given by counter-missionaries are given one at a time in their writings or videos, and any coherent response also has to be one at a time.

This thread has been a response to one of those objections. It is not an appropriate defense to what I said to reply that this is just one of the issues, then draw attention to 11 other objections.  Answer this one first. Then I will be happy to move on to one of the others. In such a procedure, we will find out which, if any, objections have a solid base.

Imagine you are accused of theft, and the prosecution brings in 20 witnesses that supposedly can prove that you are guilty. They give their testimony in rapid succession, with no chance for you to cross examine them. Then you do a lot of study and learn that one of the supposed witnesses was in France when the theft you are accused of occurred in Atlanta. You present this information to the judge, and he dismisses you with, "Well, what does that matter? There are 19 other witnesses."

That is what you are doing to me.