goldenroad

What do you want me to say, that your arguments are undeniable and I will stop being a Christian now? No, as with most discussions between atheists and Christians you think you're right because you think your evidence is undeniable and I think I'm right because I think my evidence is undeniable and so we have achieved nothing. The atheist will always find an explanation that discredits the existence of God but isn't logically true. If you look at Isaiah 53 from an atheist view you have already decided that prophecy is impossible and thus there must be some (illogical) hidden meaning. If you look at the passage from a Christian viewpoint then you have accepted that the supernatural is possible and thus how the scripture fits our accounts of Jesus doesn't seem accidental.

TheBear

edit

halfarock

This whole issue can be cleared up rather easily. Just show us your god. Since you or any of the other millions of deceived haven't and moat likely can't makes everything else you say rather meaningless.

You say there is a god and I don't see one. I say there is no god and you don't see one. We must be in agreement - there is no god to see.

TheBear

Forget about atheists for the moment. Jews and their religion, [which Christianity used as a springboard and validation point to get their own thing going], reject that Jesus was the prophesied son of God, from present time, to time well before the Jesus stories started circulating ~ some 60 to 100 after the storyline allegedly occurred. Paul's writings did not come until over 20 years after the storyline of Jesus' death, and he never really talked about the life of Jesus.

What can I say? You seem to be trying to dismiss the whole thing out of hand as some sort of cheap, atheistic strategy or tactic. I am saying you are wrong to dismiss so quickly. Why do the Jewish people, theists, after all these thousands of years of religious devotion and study, reject your Jesus as the fulfillment of prophesy?

show_no_mercy

...

Thor Q. Mada

And only one small problem: the gospels were written with fullfilling the profecies in mind. ;-)

Coleslaw

No. What we want you to realize is that your arguments are refutable and therefore not convincing to people on this board, and they will remain unconvincing no matter how often you disappear for a few months, come back, and present the arguments again as if they haven't been seen here before.

If you look at it from a Jewish viewpoint you decide that it isn't prophecy, even if you believe prophecy and the supernatural are possible and that other verses of the OT are prophecy, and that there is an obvious, not at all hidden meaning.

You seem to keep forgetting that Isaiah was not written by or for Christians.

Jack the Bodiless

I haven't checked all of those yet, but you're certainly not helping your cause by highlighting Matthew's lie regarding Jeremiah 31:15.

It refers to the Babylonian Captivity, and is not a "prophecy" at all.

Jack the Bodiless

Furthermore:
This has been mentioned already, but let's be quite clear on this:

You're saying that Jesus DID have kids, as the "Suffering Servant" did?

Presumably you're also saying that Jesus had a long life, and that he was diseased (as the Hebrew of Isaiah 53 says)?

Jack the Bodiless

OK, addressing the rest of these now:

Zech. 9:9 "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass". This was apparently written into the story of Jesus specifically to make Jesus "fulfil the prophecy". And even if he actually did this, HE could have been deliberately acting to "fulfil the prophecy".

Micah 5:2 "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting". This actually refers to the tribe of Bethlehem. But you're assuming that Jesus actually WAS born in Bethlehem: which doesn't seem likely. John didn't seem to think so, Luke came unstuck when he tried to use the census of Quirinius as a plot device to move Jesus to Bethlehem, and only Matthew (the least reliable gospel author) unequivocally places Jesus in Bethlehem (but includes numerous historical falsehoods in his account).

Psalm 16:10 "For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption". ...Huh? If this is a reference to the resurrection, wouldn't it be a good idea to prove that Jesus was resurrected first? And the verse could be applied to many people anyhow (Enoch, Elijah, or even those "non-rotting" Catholic saints).

Isaiah 42:1-9 The "Suffering Servant", already commented on.