My reply to R.L. Solberg on Jesus and Isaiah 53

 R.L. Solberg is a Christian apologist and attempts at his blog to respond to Jewish objections to the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, here.

I posted a reply as follows, which is crossposted here, given my experience of Christian apologists deleting my polite and scholarly challenges

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Barry Jones

June 16, 2021 8:37 pm

The NAU of Isaiah 53 translates the Hebrew words “zerah” and “tseetsa” as “offspring” and in the immediate context of each, only “biological” offspring is meant. You are thus forced to argue that the meaning of zerah in Isaiah 53:10 is an exception to the rule.

What would be unreasonable in the skeptic who says “offspring” in Isaiah 53:10 means only naturalistic biological offspring, so because Jesus didn’t have any naturalistic biological children, he is not the suffering servant of Isaiah 53?

How do you know the canonical gospel authors weren’t simply creating fictions about Jesus to make him sound more like the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 than he really was? Of course you will tout the historical reliability of the gospels, but I would provide scholarly resistance to that conclusion every step of the way. The question is not whether YOU can be reasonable to see Jesus as the Isaiah 53 servant but whether skeptics can be reasonable to deny this allegation.

---------------------------------

I could have thrown many other reasonable objections at him:

Isaiah 53:10 says if the servant offers himself as a guilt offering, he will prolong his days.  Christians will blindly insist that because Jesus died for our sins as a guilt-offering, God raised him to immortal life.  But because there is no record of any Jew in the 1st century or before thinking that the messiah would have to die and come back to life, its pretty safe to assume that Isaiah's originally intended recipients would have understood "prolong his days" to take the normal sense of "delay the day of his death".

Worse, if it is not unreasonable for a person to refuse to get drawn into the reasons why the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with the 9th Circuit on whether the 2nd Amendment created a right to private gun ownership, simply because it seems to be an unresolvable quarrel of fatally ambiguous words, then the fact that Christians and Jews have been disagreeing on Isaiah 53 for 2,000 years would similarly make reasonable the unbeliever or skeptic who considered such a debate too convoluted to justify an expectation that any amount of study would be capable of yielding conclusions of any degree of reasonable certainty.  And the disagreements about the meaning of Isaiah 53's words would also constitute the "word-wrangling" which apostle Paul forbade in 2nd Timothy 2:14.

 

Sorry, Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes: Isaiah 7:14 is not a prediction about Jesus

This is my reply to the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as found in Geisler & Rhodes, "Conviction Without Compromise" (Harvest House Publishers, 2008).

(Triablogue published its own defense of the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, and my reply to that is here)

Geisler and Rhodes argue:



See here.

First, none of this matters: Paul says the resurrection of Jesus is the Achilles' Heel of Christianity:

 12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. (1 Cor. 15:12-19 NAU)

I have extensively rebutted the arguments of Licona, Habermas and W.C. Craig for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.  So under Paul's logic, keeping Jesus in the ground after death would override whatever benefit you thought you could obtain by "proving" that Isaiah 7:14 was a prediction of Jesus.

Apologists will say Isaiah's ability to predict Jesus 700 years in advance still proves god's existence so atheism is still wrong.  But even supposing atheism to be wrong, Paul warns that Christians would be false witnesses of God if Jesus didn't rise from the dead.  If the atheist rebuttal to the resurrection arguments are solid, there is a corresponding rise in the likelihood that any "god" that is still there, will be more pissed off at the Christians for false witness, than he would be at those who simply deny his basic existence.  See Deut. 13.  If Galatians 1:8-9 is true, then apparently MISrepresenting God is far worse than simply refusing to believe he exists.  What the apologist never bothers with is why the alleged wrongness of atheism should be of any concern.  Being wrong cannot be a rational basis for concern to correct oneself, unless the wrong can be shown to increase the  probability that one will endure disaster.

Second, the late Geisler's promoters admit elsewhere that fulfillment of this prophecy "may be" two-fold (i.e., double-fulfillment, the last desperate exegetical acrobatic left to the fundie when you prove the immediate context isn't talking about Jesus). See here.

Third, Evangelical Christian scholars disagree about what is happening in Isaiah 7:14, which would hardly be the case if the "predictive" view espoused by Geisler and Rhodes, supra, was the only "reasonable" one. Apparently, some genuine Christian scholars don't think we should read the bible as if it was yesterday's headline in the New York Times. They are fearful that there are subtleties that will be easily missed by the childish fundamentalist method. The Christian scholars who see Isaiah 7:14 as not predictive, but merely typological are found contrasted with the fundamentalist views in David L. Turner's Matthew, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Baker Academic, 2008), pp. 69-73.

The apologists at "Triablogue" offer a bit more about this tendency among Christian scholars to doubt whether Isaiah 7:14 refers to the virgin conception of Jesus:

Wegner states, "There is little doubt that Isa. 7:14 and its reuse in Matt. 1:23 is one of the most difficult problems for modern scholars."⁶⁷ This stems from a growing amount of evangelicals who question whether Isaiah 7:14 prophesies about a virgin birth. To be clear, these scholars acknowledges that Jesus was certainly born of a virgin as Matthew states (1:23). However, did Isaiah intend for that idea originally? Is there any movement from Old Testament to New Testament in this case?

See here.  Christian scholars who are "evangelical" and thus have a higher view of the bible than "liberals" therefore have strong predisposition to just blindly insist that Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 is correct.  So when "evangelical" Christian scholars become disenchanted with this fundamentalist view, its probably because they sense serious scholarly reasons for doing so, not because they are being used by Satan as wolves among the sheep...or any other scare-analogy to keep the blindly ignorant fearful of God's wrath upon heretics.

How probable is it that the simple-minded fundamentalist "read-the-bible-like-a-newspaper" interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is the only "reasonable" one?

No student of the Old Testament need apologize for a treatment of Isaiah 7:14 in relation to the doctrine of the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. From earliest times to the present the discussions which have centered about this theme have been both interesting, varied, and at times even heated. Lindblom characterizes Isaiah 7:14 as “the endlessly discussed passage of the Immanuel sign.” Rawlinson maintains: “Few prophecies have been the subject of so much controversy, or called forth such a variety of exegesis, as this prophecy of Immanuel. Rosenmueller gives a list of twenty-eight authors who have written dissertations on it, and himself adds a twenty-ninth. Yet the subject is far from being exhausted.” Barnes emphasizes the obscurity of the passage: “Who this virgin was, and what is the precise meaning of this prediction, has given, perhaps, more perplexity to commentators than almost any other portion of the Bible.” Again, he insists, “Perhaps there is no prophecy in the Old Testament on which more has been written, and which has produced more perplexity among commentators than this. And after all, it still remains, in many respects, very obscure.” Skinner seeks in a general way to pinpoint the source of the difficulties. He states: “Probably no single passage of the Old Testament has been so variously interpreted or has given rise to so much controversy as the prophecy contained in these verses.

Charles Lee Feinberg, The Virgin Birth in the Old Testament and Isaiah 7:14,

BSac—V119 #475—Jul 62—251

One Evangelical Christian scholar, J.D.W. Watts, explains Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 as the result of taking OT passages out of context, a disaster-prone hermeneutic that nevertheless enjoyed wide popularity in 1st century Judaism:

A second factor facilitated the use of Isa 7:14 in Matthew. A hermeneutical method was in general use which allowed verses to be separated from their contexts. Verses or individual words were understood to have esoteric meanings whose significance could be revealed to an inspired teacher or writer. Thus the entire Scripture was viewed as a prophecy intended to interpret the moment in which the reader lived. Verses were abstracted from both the historical and literary setting in which they originally appeared. They were then identified with an event or a doctrine which was altogether extraneous to the original context or intention. This kind of interpretation presumes a view of inspiration and of history in which God moves in all ages mysteriously to plant his secrets so that later ages may put the puzzle together and thus reveal his purposes and the direction of his intention....This kind of interpretation is subject to the criticism that it ignores the rightful demands of contextual and historical exegesis which call for a meaning related to the end of the Syro-Ephraimite War in terms of v 16.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 24: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 1-33. 

Word Biblical Commentary (pp.103-104). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

So, just in case you might have thought that Isaiah 7:14 causes any atheist bible critic to lose any sleep at night, think again.  Your own Christian evangelical scholars refuse to push that verse as much as the fundies do when in fact by being "evangelical" and "Christian" those scholars know they stand much to gain by pretending that this verse is straight up predictive prophecy.  Seems reasonable to infer that the scholars are aware there's a hell of lot more complexity going on here than what we get with Geisler's "read the bible like a newspaper" crap.

Fourth, Giesler admits in his "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics" (Baker Books, 1999)

"Single Reference to a Natural Birth. Liberal scholars and some conservatives view Isaiah
7:14 as having reference only to the natural conception and birth of the son of the prophetess." (entry for "Virgin Birth in Isaiah 7:14").

We would not expect any "conservative" bible scholars to limit Isaiah 7:14 to an unknown boy born naturally in 700 b.c., unless what the text really means is far less clear than Geisler pretends.

Fifth, the "sign" is not the fact that the woman who conceives is a "virgin". The "sign" is the timing between when the boy learns to distinguish good and evil, and the fall of the two other kingdoms which Ahaz feared. This is clear from the immediate context, for which the following quote is longer than normal:

3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the fuller's field,
4 and say to him, 'Take care and be calm, have no fear and do not be fainthearted because of these two stubs of smoldering firebrands, on account of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.
5 'Because Aram, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, has planned evil against you, saying,
6 "Let us go up against Judah and terrorize it, and make for ourselves a breach in its walls and set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it,"
7 thus says the Lord GOD: "It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.
8 "For the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is Rezin (now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people),
9 and the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you will not believe, you surely shall not last."'"
10 Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!"
13 Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?
14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.
17 "The LORD will bring on you, on your people, and on your father's house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria."
18 In that day the LORD will whistle for the fly that is in the remotest part of the rivers of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. (Isa. 7:3-18 NAU)

As is clear from the preceding context, the subject is King Ahaz's fear of other kingdoms, so we would only expect that the "sign" for him would consist of something to do with his safety or the defeat of those other kingdoms. "Look at that woman over there, her hymen is still intact, but she is pregnant anyway, what a miracle!" wouldn't fit the context as part of the "sign".

Sixth, the context makes clear that the words of encouragement are for Ahaz to find relief in. He lived in 700 b.c. He could hardly find relief in a prediction that some virgin would get pregnant 700 years after he died. That would be like some dipshit saying "don't worry about the gang-members plotting to kill you next year, because 700 years from now a woman will get pregnant from god in a way that doesn't rupture her hymen..." (!?). Evangelical Christian scholars agree:

14–16 The “sign” is revealed anyway. A young woman who is apparently present or contemporary, but not yet married (i.e., a virgin) will in due course bear a child and call his name Immanuel meaning God-(is)-With-Us. By the time the child is old enough to make decisions, the land of the two opposing kings will be devastated. The sign is simple. It has to do with a period by which time the present crisis will no longer be acute or relevant. This is parallel to the statement in v 8b but indicates a much shorter period. The shorter period accords with history. Tiglath-Pileser’s reactions to Rezin and the son of Remaliah came in 733 b.c. when he reduced most of Israel to the status of an Assyrian province.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 24: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 1-33. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 97). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Seventh, the conception/birth of Jesus have precisely nothing to do with the fall of the two kingdoms Isaiah predicts in 7:16.

Eighth, there is no historical evidence that the Jews, expectant as they were of a coming messiah, ever thought Isaiah 7:14 was a prediction of any such messiah.

Giesler and Rhodes continue:




The argument is that the woman is described as still having her hymen intact, despite the fact that she is pregnant, hence, a conception-miracle that could only have been caused by God.  There are numerous powerful objections:

a)  Once again, the born child in question must have something to do with giving King Ahaz relief from his fear of other kingdoms.  Telling him to take courage because a virgin will give birth to a son 700 years later doesn't exactly make "sense".  You don't change this contextual constraint by pointing out that almah in Hebrew always means woman with hymen intact.

b) The context does not support the premise that the "sign" is the pregnant woman still being a virgin, rather, again, the "sign" is the timing of the child's learning good/evil, and the fall of the other kingdoms Ahaz feared.  You don't change this contextual constraint by pointing out that almah in Hebrew always means woman with hymen intact.

c) According to the NRS, Isaiah uses the present tense (i.e., the young woman IS pregnant), which translation, if accurate, is a rather forceful proof that the child in question would be born in 700 b.c. and thus could not possibly be Jesus.  This is probably why die-hard fundamentalists blindly insist in "double-fulfillment" (i.e., when they cannot overcome the contextual constraints that show the child in question cannot possibly be Jesus, they suddenly discover that there can be a "primary" fulfillment and a "secondary" fulfillment...but such double-fulfillment fancy runs contrary to the standard rule of context, which says the subject IS about what the context says.

d) "But what is the precise meaning of ’almah? There are numerous scholars who are noncommittal as to whether the term signifies a virgin or a married woman. Rogers states his position clearly: “First of all, it must be said that the Hebrew word almah may mean ‘virgin,’ but does not necessarily mean anything more than a young woman of marriageable age. Had the prophet intended specifically and precisely to say ‘virgin,’ he must have used the word bethulah, though even then there would be a faint shade of uncertainty.” From BSac—V119 #475—Jul 62—255, supra.

e) "If one looks to Isaiah 7 and reads this passage in its context, he will see that the prophet was not primarily speaking of the birth of Christ…There is really no way that one can make this prophecy apply exclusively to the birth of Christ without totally disregarding the context of Isaiah 7…Nothing in the context of Isaiah 7 would demand a virgin birth."  Biblical Interpretation, Principles and Practice: Studies in Honor of Jack Pearl Lewis. Kearly, Myers, Hadley, editors, Baker Books, third printing, 1987, p. 279

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

Joel 1:8 doesn't say the girl is married.

 6 For a nation has invaded my land, Mighty and without number; Its teeth are the teeth of a lion, And it has the fangs of a lioness.
 7 It has made my vine a waste And my fig tree splinters. It has stripped them bare and cast them away; Their branches have become white.
 8 Wail like a virgin girded with sackcloth For the bridegroom of her youth.
 9 The grain offering and the drink offering are cut off From the house of the LORD. The priests mourn, The ministers of the LORD. (Joel 1:6-9 NAU)

The NET and NIV reflect this subtlety, thus proving such understanding is not "unreasonable":

NET  Joel 1:8 Wail like a young virgin clothed in sackcloth, lamenting the death of her husband-to-be.

NIV  Joel 1:8 Mourn like a virgin in sackcloth grieving for the betrothed of her youth.

Geisler and Rhodes  continue:

"The upshot of all of this is the conclusion that there is no defensible linguistic logic for suggesting the meaning “virgin” for the Hebrew almâ. Exegetical methods lead us to the meaning “youth” or adolescent.” It is only hermeneutical considerations, or should we say theological considerations, that would demand that the issue be pushed further than linguistic analysis could support."

John H. Walton, Isa 7:14: What’s In A Name? JETS 30/3 (September 1987) 293

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

But I don't believe the NT is inspired by God, since there is no way to "show" such a thing except by demanding that the historical happenstance that ended up giving us a NT was something guided by "god", which is not going to sound persuasive to anybody except those who already believe.

I also have no reason to think Matthew himself was inspired by God since nothing in the book now bearing his name indicates he claimed any such thing.  When your witness refuses to admit something that you need to help your argument, that means you lose.  What else are you going to say about Matthew that you don't know the first fucking thing about?  That he liked pizza more than cake?  he didn't say shit about that either, but don't let a lack of factual detail prevent your brain from conjuring up whatever you need to make you feel better.

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

Doesn't matter if the woman in question was a virgin at the time of the statement, saying she would conceive a child isn't the same as saying she would conceive a child without sexual union.   Especially if Isaiah is speaking prophetically, he could just as easily be referring to the fact that a woman who is now a virgin, will in the future conceive a child.  That doesn't necessarily mean her hymen will remain intact during conception.

And this interpretation violates the rule of context, since as demonstrated earlier, the idea that Isaiah might think King Ahaz could take comfort in the "fact" that a miraculous birth would occur 700 years after he dies, is just stupid, but set forth aggressively by apologists anyway in their inerrant quest to messianic prophecy while not being too forthright about what it means to let the immediate context determine meaning.

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

No, Isaiah in chapter 8 explains what he means by Immanuel, and it isn't a child born 700 years into the future, and the "god with us" ironically means that Ahaz shall not see political deliverance but only defeat and battle, because he rejected the message of Isaiah, whom the Lord was with:

5 Again the LORD spoke to me further, saying,
 6 "Inasmuch as these people have rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah And rejoice in Rezin and the son of Remaliah;
 7 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates, Even the king of Assyria and all his glory; And it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks.
 8 "Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. 9 "Be broken, O peoples, and be shattered; And give ear, all remote places of the earth. Gird yourselves, yet be shattered; Gird yourselves, yet be shattered.
 10 "Devise a plan, but it will be thwarted; State a proposal, but it will not stand, For God is with us." 11 For thus the LORD spoke to me with mighty power and instructed me not to walk in the way of this people, saying, (Isa. 8:5-11 NAU)

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

That's just stupidity gone to seed:   The natural interpretation is that the speaker now wants all other Jews to hear his message, not merely Ahaz.  So all that is implied is an expansion of the message to other contemporaries of Ahaz.  The burden is on the apologist to show that "house of David" is meant to elicit the attention of future Jews, and despite Isaiah's ability to speak about future people, he indicates no such thing here.

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

The extraordinary nature of the sign is simply Isaiah's alleged ability to predict that before the boy in question learns to distinguish good from evil, the land of the two kings Ahaz feared would be abandoned.  Once again, there is no contextual justification for pretending that the pregnancy of the virgin was itself the "sign".  The sign had to be relevant to Ahaz.  Jesus being born to the virgin Mary 700 years after Ahaz and all his generation died off wold hardly qualify, except in the eyes of desperate apologists who will abandon the constraints of context anytime they feel the interests of apologetics would be served in doing so.

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

No, as explained above, Isaiah 8 shows that the "Immanual" refers to God being with those who are on Isaiah's side of the debate, a contextual clue that forces the child who is called by this name, to be a boy born in the days of Isaiah.  There is no fucking way any apologist is going to apply the events in Isaiah 8:8 to Jesus' day, except by the wild esoteric bullshit that favors mysticism over well-settled principles of interpretation.

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

Irrelevant, we've shown that applying Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus is to take Isaiah 7 out of context.

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

What do you mean the same verse cannot refer to opposing things?  I'm not an inerrantist, I don't automatically assume an ancient religious author was consistent in everything he said, especially in the case of Isaiah where it is likely there were at least 3 different authors and what we now have also went through textual modification for centuries before it came to us. 1QIsa only gets you back to about 100  b.c., when in fact Isaiah himself lived 600 years earlier.  Then you are going to tell me 500 years of textual darkness means nothing?

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

Jesus was never called "Immanuel" in the NT, and the fact that the angel of the Lord can speak as god without being god means in OT Judaism there was a doctrine that suffered from cognitive dissonance...the person doing the speaking wasn't himself god, but it was still appropriate to react toward him as if he was.

 11 The angel of the LORD said to her further, "Behold, you are with child, And you will bear a son; And you shall call his name Ishmael, Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
 12 "He will be a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone's hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers."
 13 Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "You are a God who sees"; for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" (Gen. 16:11-13 NAU)
 11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
 12 He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (Gen. 22:11-12 NAU) 

 2 The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.
 3 So Moses said, "I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up."
 4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am."
 5 Then He said, "Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground."
 6 He said also, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. (Exod. 3:2-6 NAU) 

 19 The angel of God, who had been going before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them. (Exod. 14:19 NAU) 

20 "Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.
 21 "Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him.
 (Exod. 23:20-21 NAU) 

 31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed all the way to the ground.
 32 The angel of the LORD said to him, "Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out as an adversary, because your way was contrary to me. (Num. 22:31-32 NAU) 

 1 Now the angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, 'I will never break My covenant with you, (Jdg. 2:1 NAU) 

 12 The angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him, "The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior."
 13 Then Gideon said to him, "O my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us about, saying, 'Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?' But now the LORD has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian."
 14 The LORD looked at him and said, "Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have I not sent you?" (Jdg. 6:12-14 NAU) 

Better is Judges 6, where seeing the angel of the Lord face to face is considered equally as deadly as seeing the Lord face to face:
 21 Then the angel of the LORD put out the end of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened bread; and fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread. Then the angel of the LORD vanished from his sight.
 22 When Gideon saw that he was the angel of the LORD, he said, "Alas, O Lord GOD! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face."
 23 The LORD said to him, "Peace to you, do not fear; you shall not die." (Jdg. 6:21-23 NAU) 

 9 In all their affliction He was afflicted, And the angel of His presence saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old. (Isa. 63:9 NAU) 

 6 And the angel of the LORD admonished Joshua, saying,
 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'If you will walk in My ways and if you will perform My service, then you will also govern My house and also have charge of My courts, and I will grant you free access among these who are standing here. (Zech. 3:6-7 NAU)

The issue is not "can Christians be reasonable to view Isaiah 7:14 as a prediction of Jesus?".

The issue is "can a person be reasonable to deny that Isaiah 7:14 is a prediction of Jesus?"

Yes, obviously.

Reply to Logician_Bones on the problem of evil

One of James Patrick Holding's followers, some Christian using the name "Logician_Bones", tried to "explain" in a comment why evil is "necessary" and yet humans are still accountable to avoid what's logically necessary....and yet maintain a straight face all at the same time.  See here.  I reply in point by point fashion:

Logician_Bones18 hours ago (edited)
​@PristineKat It's the Problem of Evil argument which I've debunked, so here goes. The bad premise is implied 'underneath' "God made us who we are yes?" that he did so arbitrarily -- in reality, God had to work within logical necessity.

Well first, your attempt to explain evil is making use of an incoherent concept called "god".  This being cannot be empirically detected, but you pretend that inferring his existence indirectly makes his existence as obvious as cars or trees. Try again.

It's been shown (by analyses besides my own, but mine is definitive and fairly simple as a disproof) that allowing evil for a time was logically necessary.

Which means your god, who bitches at people for sinning, thus bitches at them for doing what was logically necessary, i.e., something they could not logically avoid doing....a divine attitude completely contradictory to the common sense notion that it is crazy to "expect" people to avoid that which is logically necessary.

If America's court judges and juries believed like your god, they'd have no moral basis for holding guilty criminals accountable.  If not even God can get around the logical necessity of evil, what fool would argue that less powerful human beings are "required" to do any different? 

Short answer is if we did not experience a fallen world like this for a time, we would not truly appreciate how bad evil, left to itself, is

We wouldn't need to know how bad evil itself is, if god kept us from doing it.   Our need to "appreciate" the evil of sin is simply a non-starter under the theory that God was capable of creating a sinless world.  And under your logic, your god is a deceptive asshole, because he sure does give the appearance in Genesis 3 that he never willed for Adam and Eve to disobey.  At least that's the appearance the illiterate farm hands living under Moses (the originally intended audience) would have gotten.  They did not have biblical inerrancy of systematic theology on the brain anymore than they had alegebra on the brain.  They would have understood Genesis 3 in the same simpleminded way that small children today get from "The Little Red Hen".

-- and we would always think it must not be that bad and would want to try it,

Then God could have created a sinless universe, and the risk we might find evil tempting, would never arise in the first place.  One conservative hermeneutic is to ask how the originally intended audience would have understood the story.  It's obviously stupid to assume Moses' mostly illiterate farm-hands would have had theological consistency, systematic theology or bible inerrancy on the brain as they sat listening to the story teller reciting from Genesis 3.  Those dolts would most certainly not have seen any ulterior divine motive, but would have believed God honestly wanted Adam and Eve to obey him, and that their doing so was just as unexpected to their god as a teen's involvement in murder was unexpected by their parents.

You cannot understand Genesis 3 correctly today because you read it through the rose colored bible-inerrancy glasses you've chosen to superglue to your nose with the help of a bulldozer.  But the understanding that makes Genesis 3 contradict the rest of the bible's fairy tales about its constantly evolving 'god' is more objective.

and, if God gave us freewill mentally at all, would always be angry at him for refusing to let us act as we wish.

Same answer:  if God created a sinless universe, there's be no "don't do this" command that would alert us to evil and possibly morph into our being mad at god in forbidding us to try knew things.

If yoru god was perfect before creation, he'd have been perfectly "content" without creatures to worship him...leaving him about as much rational motive to create anything,  as a person who just drank half a gallon of water has motive to take another swig.

So appeals to empathy with rape victims, murder victims, etc. are actually proving our point, and unwittingly evidencing that God had to allow this (temporarily).

Only in an evil world.  If God did what any good parent does, and prevented us stupid kids from succeeding with our stupid dangerous ideas (i.e., keeping bleach locked up), there would be no occasion for us to feel sorry for victims of evil in the first place, as such victims would never exist.

The skeptics fail to consider that their empathy (when not fake, and often it's somewhat faked just to give an excuse to be obnoxious with this argument, though many well-meaning people do honestly wonder about the argument) is not automatic. They're taking it for granted and forgetting that they got it in the first place precisely because God set things up this way.

No, empathy is part of the nature of a mammal, even if to varying degrees.  Frank Turek does a rather shitty job of trying to prove "god" is the "best explanation" for human morality.  On the contrary, an empirically undetectable something or other than people have been disagreeing on for 2,000 years, is a horrifically complex solution clearly sliced away by Occam's Razor long before any empirically based naturalistic theory would be.

If we rightly condemn a parent who constantly bitches about their kids being bad, but never does anything to physically prevent them from doing evil (i.e., negligent parenting), then we rightly condemn god, who, like the neglectful parent, constantly bitches about his kids being bad, when he is apparently even more capable of interfering with their evil plans than human parents are (coercive telepathy, Ezra 1:1).

And they are undermining it by refusing to side with the single perfect, infinite being, who actually WILL remove evil forever in heaven.

Sorry, your classical theism might be biblical, but open-theism is also biblical.  See God's regretting his own prior choice to create man in Genesis 6:6-7, then ask yourself why the literal interpretation has support from the immediate and larger context, and the "anthropomorphism" interpretation has zero contextual justification.

And you are dreaming if you think evil will be forever removed in heaven.  God approves of and commissions liars while he is in heaven (1st Kings 22:19-23), so if he is unchanging, then his approval of liars is never going to change....meaning his approval of sinners will continue existing even up in heaven.

They're actually siding WITH the very evils they pretend to oppose!

Gee, if it weren't for you, we'd never have seen this truth.

And trying to use this argument to justify arguably the greatest evil ever -- luring others into hell.

That's your god's fault, as apparently his trivializing the seriousness of sin is as easy as a wave of his magic wand (2nd Samuel 12:13), or, if he's in the mood, getting rid of a person's sin is as easy as burning their face a little bit  (Isaiah 6:6-7).  Your classical theist notion that god "must" judge sin either through Christ's cross, or by eternal shame in hell, is bullshit even by the standards of your own bible.

Notwithstanding that we do not believe hell is literal torture, it's still endless, and we think shame matters a lot.

I'm worried.  Whenever I hear Romans 1:20, I start crying in fear and horror.  I thought you said your lesbian friends would be doing that strip tease at my house?  Beer-pong!

And actually, think about how callous the skeptics must be who actually DO think the Bible teaches literal torture!

Then you must think Hank Hanegraaff, part time employer of your James Patrick Holding savior, is callous, since all through the 1990s he was saying on the Bible Answerman show that eternal conscious torment is actually an expression of god's infinite love.  But because James Patrick Holding has no more spiritual spine than a dead-alligator, I don't suppose he'll be calling Hank a "moron" anytime soon.  We tend to think more highly of just anybody who makes our life easier to live, and play down any disagreements we have with such people.  Especially if we bask in their  reflected glory.

You spiritually alive fundamentalists disagree with each other all day every day on "basic" bible doctrine, yet you "expect" spiritually dead atheists to "recognize" biblical truth?  FUCK YOU.

Think about how risky it is for them to behave like little brats on this subject in light of the danger, from their perspective, that the Bible might be true.

About as risky as getting struck by lighting while shopping for groceries.  Let's just say I you are dreaming if you think you've said anything remotely disconcerting to an atheist bible critic. You don't have the balls to debate real skeptics, that's why you gave up your ill-advised challenge to me from some months ago.  Even stupid bullies retain their survival instincts after discovering they picked on the wrong victim.

Especially the ones who will insist 'atheism doesn't absolutely deny it, it just means we haven't see the evidence yet.'

Then count me out.  Both positions are viable, but I adopt "strong" atheism.  I'm about as confident in the non-existence of Christian hell as you are confident in the non-existence of Muslim hell.  Now what you are gonna do, fundie?  Quote the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus?  LOL.

Perhaps if they had logical disproof of God, but even informed skeptics admit that is not possible.

You cannot logically disprove lots of crazy ideas, including those found in other religions.  That hardly makes you worry they might be right.  Quit demanding from others more than you demand of yourself, and you'll successfully duck the "hypocrite" label that's currently welded to your forehead.

(And I know that's definitely impossible since I've proven God.

Your god is logically contradictory, he is "unchanging" (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8) and yet he loves sinners (John 3:16) but also hates them (Psalm 5:5).  Since the thesaurus lists "hate" as an antonym for "love", we are reasonable to see a contradiction.  You cannot argue there's no contradiction, with the trifle that "hate isn't the opposite of love, only apathy is".  You also cannot logically disprove that the Christian god is really just an advanced space alien who visits the earth every few thousand years and lies to us because he gets a thrill out of watching us fight over what he meant.  But since you don't spend too much time worrying about this logical possibility, you have more in common with atheist bible skeptics than you admit.

By the way, my main route of sound support, the causality proof, also proves he HAS to be 100% good in order to be infinite, and MUST exist, ergo MUST be 100% good. So no "immoral God" argument will ever work.

Lots of dogshit to shovel away here:

a) you are just parroting Thomas Aquinas
b) most Christians think burning pre-teen prostitutes to death is objectively evil, so since it is God's command (Leviticus 21:9), under Frank Turek's logic that morals come from God, it must be the Holy Spirit who is telling most Christians that actions like those commanded in Leviticus 21:9 are objectively evil.
c) You are merely arguing divine command theory (i.e., the goodness of an act derives from nothing deeper than the mere fact that god commanded something), but even the bible says God gave evil commands (Ezekiel 20:25).
d) is is precisely this cultic obstinacy about an idol's unquestionable goodness that motivates fanatics to hurt others in the name of their god solely for subjective religious reasons, when in fact if they acted more consistent with their mammalian nature, they would be less dangerous for society.
e) you are also assuming classical theism, but classical theism bites the dust in Genesis 6:6-7.   Google Gregory Boyd, then trifle about how even Christians far more knowledgeable than you in the bible, can still go astray...then pretend that while god knows spiritually alive Christians can get biblical things wrong, he nonetheless "expects" spiritually dead people to "know better".  FUCK YOU.

And my argument against your god's goodness is airtight.  Under your stupid logic, you cannot really say that rape, kidnapping and parental cannibalism are evil, because your god not only causes such things to happen, he gets just as much thrill hurting disobedient people that way, as he gets out of granting prosperity to those who obey him (Deuteronomy 28:30, 41, 51-53, 63).

Yes, Matthew Flannagan tries to escape that biblical noise by pretending that the "context" indicates that these words are mere rhetorical hyperbole merely because not every description in that chapter is literally true.  But what Mr. Know it All fails to get is a) the rhetorical hyperbole excuse can also "explain" those passages that say god is infinitely good, and b) the presence of hyperbole doesn't imply that literal intent is entirely lacking.  If I told you I "kicked his ass", that would be rhetorical hyperbole, but it would not be merely hot air, it would only mean I described a literal reality with hyperbolic language.  If Flannagan had first thought for two seconds how the originally intended and mostly illiterate farm hands, who were the originally intended audience, would have taken Moses words when they heard Deut. 28:15-63, he might have noticed the probability that these words were meant to be taken as serious threats.  Finally, most of the threatened horrors were, in the days of Moses, realities not only in Israel's past but for most others living in the ANE.  Flannagan is a fool to think the literal interpretation is "obviously wrong".  And plenty of Christian scholars, like Bill Craig, disagree with Flannagan's "mere exaggeration" excuse to take the sting out of the divine commands to slaughter the Canaanites.  Consider shutting the fuck up before you bounce back with "anybody who disagrees with Copan and Flannagan are just morons."  Otherwise, if even the spiritually alive Bill Craig cannot detect the actual truth about the divine atrocities in the bible, how the fuck could you "expect" spiritually dead atheists to recognize it?

I show that when something is logically necessary, it cannot be the fault of the omniscient God who knew it was and allowed it.

Then you apparently haven't read those parts of the bible where God CAUSES and doesn't just "allow" evil.  Deuteronomy 28:15-63, supra.  See also 2nd Samuel 12:12.

It would be the "fault" of logical necessity itself, except that it is incoherent to speak of necessity being a "fault."

But if the evil was "logically necessary", then the humans who committed it were no more capable of avoiding it, than they are capable of creating a 4-sided triangle.

Like I said at the beginning of this post, if judges and juries believed the way you do about the logically necessary nature of evil, they would not see much difference between absolving god and absolving humans.  It isn't like humans have more ability than god to avoid logical necessities.

 The only "fault" would lie in the sinners themselves/ourselves.

how could you "fault" a sinner for doing something they couldn't avoid doing?  Oh, I forgot.  Your blind acceptance of the bible.  Like apostle Paul, you are worried less about logical consistency and more about blindly supporting biblical conclusions, regardless of the consequences.  Never mind.

So the Bible's portrayal of the relationship of God to sin is logically correct, it turns out.

Then because God can get rid of even the worst sins by simply waving his magic wand (2nd Samuel 12:13), the parts or the bible that show him constantly bitching about his kids sinning, can be safely dismissed as nothing more than rhetorical hyperbole.  Copan and Flannagan are currently sorry about opening doors they wish to god they'd never opened with their ridiculous sins of word-wrangling.

By the way, I noticed that you don't couch your logical conclusions in syllogistic form.  I'm wondering if the reason you refuse to do that is because it will make it easier for the reader to pinpoint where exactly your reasoning fails.  If your logic is so impeccable, cast it in the form of syllogistic deductions....where the proof you are wrong is narrowed to two options:  either one of your premises is wrong, or the conclusion you drew from them doesn't logically follow.

(Unsurprisingly to me since before investigating that I had already found that the Bible had unfakeable prophecies,

"unfakable" is a strong claim, you'd have to show fulfillment of the following criteria.

(1) Your interpretation of the prophecy is settled beyond reasonable doubt (i.e., the predictive words are not sufficiently vague as to reasonably accommodate a non-fulfillment interpretation).
(2) You must show beyond reasonable doubt that the the alleged prophecy's wording existed before the allegedly fulfilling event happened.  With all of the Christian scholarly disagreement about the dates of the biblical books and when the canonical form of the text was first completed, good luck.
(3) You must show beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged prophecy predated the alleged fulfillment so much as to reasonably eliminate the possibility of the prophet's prediction merely being educated guesswork.  Predicting in May 2019 that President Trump will be impeached, would mean nothing if he was later actually impeached, as any fool can currently make an educated guess that impeachment is on the table of possibilities, whose probability grows with each passing day.
(4) You must show beyond reasonable doubt that the people involved in the fulfillment did not intentionally contrive the "fulfillment".  If you claim Mary's hymen was still intact during her pregnancy with Jesus, something more than "she claimed throughout her pregnancy that she was still a virgin!" must be shown.
(5) You must show beyond reasonable doubt that the allegedly fulfilling event was a real event in space-time, not something restricted to "heaven".
(6) You must show beyond reasonable doubt that you used the grammatical-historical method of interpretation to reach your interpretation.  We have about as much patience for "midrash" and "pesher" as Moo had for Gundry.
(7) You must show beyond reasonable doubt that you arrived at your interpretation by employing the normative principles of historiography that are commonly agreed to by Christian and non-Christian historians.  You start complaining that Mike Licona's historical method makes it too easy for skeptics to attack something?  I start asking why James Patrick Holding doesn't publicly accuse Licona of being a "dumb ass" and "moron". Fair?
(my restatements and additions to Farrell Till's prophecy-fulfillment criteria, TSR, January/February 1996, p. 3).

Those criteria are fair because they reasonably guard against false interpretation.  Take your best shot.  I'm waiting.  What, Daniel 9 predicted Jesus? LOL.

that the Christ resurrection was historically verified,

Nope.  The identity and general credibility of each NT "witness", and their specific resurrection testimony, is severally impeached on the merits, using the same methods of historiography and hermeneutics that most conservative Christian scholars employ, to say nothing of how such ancient "witnesses" miserably fail the modern American court legal tests that John Warwick Montgomery unwisely aspires to.  Pick whatever witness or group of witnesses whose resurrection-testimony you think is most impervious to falsification, and let's get started.   Or come up with a face-saving excuse to decline the challenge, and just don't tell anybody that one of the other benefits you get by declining is avoiding getting shot out of the sky.

and that much in science clearly confirmed it in ways no primitive myth-maker could have guessed.)

Dream on.  Pick your best example and let's get started.

It is then usually asked, why, if it was logically necessary that we sin, we are still punished. But that question contains the necessary premise that if there are good reasons why something is not suitable to a task, then you should still use it for the task. If we test this premise we see it fails. My usual analogy is to the task of needing to dig a hole to plant a small tree, and the possible tools you have to select from are a shovel and an oven. In the analogy to keep it simple, assume the human who needs to perform the task is also the maker of the shovel and the oven. This person had good reasons to design the oven the way he did, but it doesn't mean the oven is good to use to dig a hole with when a shovel is available! (Or ever!)

But if god is infinitely holy and sovereign, he would not "need" to "dig a hole" for the tree, he could simply cause the tree to magically appear out of thin air, similar to how he magically willed the earth into existence from nothing.  Or did you never read Genesis 1:1?

Also, the mere fact that there are five-point Calvinists in the world who think your theory of human accountability is total bullshit (i.e., Steve Hays, who says everything we do conforms perfectly to god's secret will 100% o the time), makes it reasonable for the skeptic, if they so choose, to kick you and Steve to the curb and consider the whole "why does god allow evil" and "how can we be condemned if we couldn't avoid doing evil" discussions to be nothing but sophistry and illusion based on broken mirrors looking at each other from across an infinite chasm of debatable darkness.  Or maybe you are expressing your Calvinist sentiments incorrectly?

NOW what you need to argue is that the Calvinist theories of human accountability for sin are so wrong, spiritually dead atheists should be able to see why, and are thus still "accountable" to "know the truth" even more than the spiritually alive Calvinists who are apparently blind to biblical reality.  DREAM ON.

The objection then is to act all miffed that people are being compared with objects. But the Bible does this frequently, in Jesus' parables such as the one about the weeds, and in Romans 9 about "ignoble vessels" made from clay for practical use versus "noble vessels."

Then the biblical authors were just as stupid as you.  Paul actually pushed the analogy to the breaking point.  If he likes the fact that the pot never does talk back to the creator (Romans 9:20), he should also like the fact that the pots never talk, act, or have thoughts.  So under his logic, because it is foolish to think the pot would object to the creator, it's equally as foolish to expect the pot to make decisions...meaning under Paul's logic, it would be better if humans, like the pots they are, never made decisions.

Paul's predictable reply, i.e.,  that this is pushing his logic too far, would only prove what's already clear about Paul, that he made arbitrary argument, did not wish to go where his own logic led, and automatically consigned any disagreement with him to the "heretic" bin (1st Tim. 6:4)...making him nothing short of a delusional cult leader.

(The latter teaches my view explicitly.) And there is no sound reason to object this way -- only an arrogance-based one.

It's not arrogance to challenge corrupt authority that rests on fairy tales drawn from a continuously evolving theology rooted in primitive culture.

We are the creations; we should be humble enough to admit to it, even hypothetically for an honestly truth-seeking nonbeliever.

That's irrational to expect of atheists, who recognize they are not created by any god.

So what it boils down to after this is (the point tekton usually makes) that it isn't God who's leaving orphans unadopted, it's people.

Sorry, but since your god empowers pagans to kidnap children (Deut. 28:32) and then says he gets a thrill out of inflicting these ad other horrors on people (v. 63), I'm sticking with specific declarations from the bible in my attacks.

And Tekton would also be disagreeing with Calvinist Steve Hays' view that we leave orphans unadopted because God secretly wanted us to (i.e., every time somebody turns away from an orphan, it was god's will).  Now what?  Maybe unbelievers have some sort of moral obligation from God to go study the Calvinist controversy, while knowing that even if we study it for 30 years, Tekton will still call us stupid if we dare conclude Calvinism is biblical?  FUCK YOU.

  Ironically it's often (though not always) the skeptic himself. (Not that I've adopted anyone, but I didn't go around being obnoxious about it.)
 I've also read Miller's analysis of this, which might interest you too; he doesn't cover the disproof that I do, but he goes into very much detail about the logical impossibility of certain goods without certain evils and so forth that might interest you (I think it wasn't direct to the problem of evil but came up as a foundational discussion in his reasons for the atonement piece).

What a waste of time.  Of course good cannot be known without having background knowledge of evil, and evil cannot be known without having a background knowledge of good.  That's a major rebuttal to the standard Christian view of Genesis 3:  How can god 'expect' Adam and Eve, who were so innocent they didn't even know they were naked, to appreciate the seriousness of his prohibitions, anymore than a parent can 'expect' a toddler, who has never been burned before, to appreciate the seriousness of the prohibition "don't touch the stove"? We are reasonable to say the story is bullshit, and there's not enough evidence in favor of your trifles to render our reasonable dismissal unreasonable.  It's not like disagreement with Genesis 3 is equal to disagreement that cars exist. But because dogmatism necessarily invades the bible study of clueless fundamentalists, I'm sure you'll pretend the one error is equally as great as the other.

And no, the Bible can't be "rewritten" in any functionally distinct way, unless we assume atheism as a premise, which would be circular reasoning, because its moral teachings (this is including the sound deductions from everything it teaches) are the result of God's omniscience.

Have fun trying to convince anybody outside of blind fundyville that there was a time when it was "good" to burn pre-teen prostitutes to death (Leviticus 21:9). Have even more fun pretending it's "obvious" that "we shouldn't do this anymore".  Whenever the ancient Jews were able, they tried to re-institute the Mosaic theocracy (Ezra/Nehemiah).  Only naturalistic evolution would explain why the later post-exillic Jews started pretending that "god" was going to start a "new" covenant (Jeremiah 31).

That doesn't change, and cannot change. Situational responses based on heirarchical moral absolutes may change, but subjective situational ethics are NOT an option for God.

Of course they are.  If God knew what the fuck he was doing, he'd no more have to start a new covenant, than a construction contractor, who got it right the first time,  needs to tear down the house he just built and start over.  Unless the contractor knew, before starting, that he'd have to demolish the completed building and start over.  He's free to spend $100k in materials and labor just to create what he knows will need to be destroyed upon completion, but he's also crazier than a shit-house rat.

Your belief that god always knew the second covenant would be needed, is also bullshit.  The second covenant's roots are no deeper than "Jews of later times became more civilized, hated the Mosaic covenant more and more, but, not willing to say god got something wrong, pretended that god surely must have always known the Mosaic covenant was temporary."  The same Hebrew word in Exodus 12:7 that meant observation of Passover was permanently permanent (olam), is used to describe the permanency of Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16:31, with absolutely nothing in the context to even remotely suggest the latter was only meant in the sense of "temporarily permanent".  You have no trouble engaging in the sin of eisogesis, where doing so will help reconcile the OT with the NT.  Sorry, you lose.

We are not unreasonable to say the person who authored the Mosaic Theocracy intended it to be permanently permanent, and probably would have stoned Jeremiah to death, had he lived in the days of Moses, for daring to teach god wanted the Mosaic economy to end.

If you'd just specify in your apologetics writings that you are like James Patrick Holding, and you don't write to convince skeptics, but only to reassure Christians, you could save me a lot of time.

I've notified Logician Bones that this reply to him exists:

Cold Case Christianity: J. Warner Wallace's proof-texting for messianic prophecy

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity:
The Gift of Christmas Was PredictedWith the Gift of Prophecy
Posted: 21 Dec 2018 01:00 AM PST

As Christmas gift exchanges approach, the gift of Jesus is easily obscured.

 Worldly companies would be less successful if Christians stopped being such shameless consumerists.

But gifted prophets predicted the birth of the Messiah, and these prophesies, like other Old Testament prophecies, testify to the Divine nature of the Bible.

 Dream on.  I refute your attempts to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of any OT prophecy.  The problem is far more complex than your simple-minded proof-texting would indicate.

The New Testament contains two different types of prophetic declarations: the prophecies uttered by Jesus and the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. Old Testament prophets declared the coming of a Savior (a Messiah who would save the Jewish people and the entire world from their sin). Here is a brief summary of the prophecies predicting the gift of Jesus:

The Messiah Would Come from the Tribe of Judah

Jacob made this prophetic prediction around 1400 BC.

Genesis 49:10

The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

Christians believe Jesus will establish an everlasting kingdom in the future. His ancestry is traced back to Jacob’s son, Judah, in Luke 3:23-34 and in Matthew 1:1-16.

 Then you must think Jesus was a drunkard, because drunkenness is one description of the Genesis 49 future Shiloh ruler:

 8 "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Your father's sons shall bow down to you.
 9 "Judah is a lion's whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He couches, he lies down as a lion, And as a lion, who dares rouse him up?
 10 "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
 11 "He ties his foal to the vine, And his donkey's colt to the choice vine; He washes his garments in wine, And his robes in the blood of grapes.
 12 "His eyes are dull from wine, And his teeth white from milk.
 13 "Zebulun will dwell at the seashore; And he shall be a haven for ships, And his flank shall be toward Sidon. (Gen. 49:8-13 NAU)

 Evangelical Christian scholar G. J. Wenham on v. 12:

12 “His eyes are darker than wine, and his teeth are whiter than milk” seems to be a reference to the leader’s beauty (cf. 1 Sam 9:2; 16:12; cf. LXX, Vg, S, Caquot [Sem. 26 (1976) 5–32]), but it could be another reference to the abundance of wine and milk under the coming king. In this case, it would be preferable to translate the lines “His eyes are dark with wine and his teeth white with milk.” Canaan is often described as “flowing with milk and honey” (e.g., Exod 3:8, 17; Num 13:27; Deut 6:3). In an Arabic proverb, being “red with wine” is metaphorical for being very rich. And Isa 7:21–23 reflects on the erstwhile abundance of milk and vineyards. But the suggestion that his eyes will be “dark with wine” might suggest drunkenness as in Prov 23:29, which prompts the Targums to take the eyes and teeth as metaphors for the mountains and valleys of Palestine (e.g., Tg. Onq.).

Wenham, G. J. (2002). Vol. 2: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 16-50.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 479). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Jesus' beauty? Nope, Christians think other OT predictions of Jesus say he was ugly:

 2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. (Isa. 53:2 NAU)

 The abundance of wine and milk under the coming king? 
Whatever the metaphor might mean, it isn't explicit enough to intellectually obligate non-Christians to admit fulfillment in the 1st century.  Jesus probably did a lot of good, but his own family sure didn't think he was increasing the metaphorical wine and milk (Mark 3:21, they thought he was crazy and tried to put a stop to his public ministry,  the interpretation that most conservative Christian inerrantist scholars adopt).

I think the more likely interpretation of Genesis 49:10 is that the speaker in Genesis 49 meant that Judah in the future will get literally drunk very often and enjoy luxury and ease due to being wealthy, traits that fit the context well enough, but traits Jesus did not have (see Luke 9:58, Jesus was apparently homeless).

 That Genesis 49:10 is at best an ambiguity that fights against attempts to understand it with certainty, is clear from the admissions of such a bastion of fundamentalism as Keil and Delitzsch:

Some of the Rabbins supposed our Shiloh to refer to the city. This opinion has met with the approval of most of the expositors, from Teller and Eichhorn to Tuch, who regard the blessing as a vaticinium ex eventu, and deny not only its prophetic character, but for the most part its genuineness. Delitzsch has also decided in its favour, because Shiloh or Shilo is the name of a town in every other passage of the Old Testament; and in 1 Sam. 4:12, where the name is written as an accusative of direction, the words are written exactly as they are here.

Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (2002). Commentary on the Old Testament.
(Vol. 1, Page 254). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Furthermore, the originally intended audience of Genesis 49 would likely have understood "scepter" literally, that is, if it refers to a future ruler, it will be one who literally rules with a literal sceptor the way ancient Judean kings literally did. Jesus did not rule with a literal sceptor, and since other arguments prove that Jesus stayed dead consistently after the crucifixion, Genesis 49:10 is not talking about what Jesus will be like at his second coming.  And preterists are forced to admit that if Jesus made his second coming in the 1st century, then his ruling with a "sceptor" can only be limited to a typological fulfillment of this "prophecy".  

Nothing deflates the power of messianic prophecy quite like "typology".  You may as well say Nahum 2:4 was a prediction of speeding cars with headlights on.  Nobody would give a fuck.  Next?

The Messiah Will Appear After the Jews Return to Israel

Jeremiah uttered this prophecy between 626 BC and 586 BC. It was first fulfilled in Jesus’ earthly ministry and will be fulfilled again in the end times.

Thank you for clarifying that you have no interest in using messianic prophecy to convince skeptics, you are only doing this to help those who already embrace the Christian faith, to believe that it has some intellectual basis.  Clearly the easier of the two possible goals.

Jeremiah 23:3-6

‘I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number. I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing,’ declares the LORD. ‘The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.”

 First, the "gathering" of the "flock" would have been understood by Jeremiah's originally intended audience as literal, given that Jeremiah spoke while he and Israel were living under the Babylonian captivity.  So if this is about Jesus, then it is saying Jesus' coming will be attended by a literal gathering of God's flock, likely back to Israel.  That obviously didn't happen in the 1st century, and we can only guess at how many centuries need to pass without fulfillment, before you will agree that your "partial fulfillment" bullshit is nothing but desperate hot air.

Second, "they will no longer be afraid or terrified" would also be taken by the originally intended audience as signifying a literal gathering of the people upon the ending of the captivity.  Yet such comforting didn't happen when Jesus came the first time, and hasn't happened for 2,000 years.  You lose.

Third, the prophecy says "in his days Judah will be saved" and "saved" in its original context would have meant release from captivity, it would not have meant "accept Jesus into your heart and become born again".

Curiously, evangelical Christian scholar P.C. Craigie's comments say nothing about whether this passage is a prediction of Jesus:

Yahweh is about to raise up a new king, either a rightful (=legitimate) descendant of David, or a righteous one. This king will bring the covenant conditions to the people: righteousness and justice. Liberation will come and the people will dwell securely in their own land. This king will be named “Yahweh is our righteousness.”

Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 26: Word Biblical Commentary : Jeremiah 1-25.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 331). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

It is also curious that Craigie understands this prophecy to be saying the coming of the predicted ruler will cause the liberation of the people, in the sense that they will dwell securely in their own land.  Jesus did precisely nothing during his lifetime to free Israel from foreign occupation, and Israel hasn't dwelt securely in any land for 2,000 years, and any exceptions were temporary. 

Feel free to tell yourself that Jesus will fulfill the liberation prediction at his second-coming, but be sure you google "preterism" first.  Many Christians believe Jesus' second-coming occurred in the 1st century...a serious problem since, regardless, the Jews were in dispersion  for centuries afterward and have never "dwelt securely" in any landd since.  Unless you think ceaseless wars and civil unrest for 2,000 years constitutes "dwelling securely"?

That's quite sufficient to show that the passage is nowhere near so clear as to intellectually compel an objective person to see Jesus in it.  We have no doubts why many Christian scholars and apologists appeal to "partial fulfillment". They need a nice way to say "Jesus didn't correctly fulfill this prediction". 

Wallace continues:

The Messiah Would Be Born in Bethlehem

The prophet Micah predicted this between 750 BC and 686 BC.

Micah 5:2

‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.’

To be fair, there is disagreement regarding the translation of Micah 5:2. Some say the reference to ‘Bethlehem’ is simply a reference to the bloodline of King David. Other people say it is a reference to the town of Bethlehem. Jesus meets both criteria; He is a descendant of King David and He was born in Bethlehem.

 What you aren't telling the reader is that Matthew changed the wording to make it sound more like Jesus than it originally did.  Compare:

Micah 5

Matthew 2

1 "Now muster yourselves in troops, daughter of troops; They have laid siege against us; With a rod they will smite the judge of Israel on the cheek.   2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,  Too little to be among the  clans of Judah,  From you  One will go forth  for Me  to be ruler in Israel.  His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."  3 Therefore He will give them up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the remainder of His brethren Will return to the sons of Israel.

4 Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.  5 They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:  6 'AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH, ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE  LEADERS OF JUDAH; FOR OUT OF YOU  SHALL COME FORTH  A RULER  WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.'"  7 Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared.

 Micah merely says "to be a ruler in Israel", Matthew changes this in a way that conveniently makes the prophecy sound more Christian: "a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel".
 
Christian scholars agree that Matthew changed some of the wording:

This is one of the most familiar pericopes in Micah for Christians. Matthew quoted 5:1 in reference to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (Matt 2:6). However, the OT text is slightly altered in Matthew’s account. Instead of saying, “little to be among the clans of Judah,” Matthew says, “by no means least among the rulers of Judah.” Also Matthew omits “Ephrathah,” and adds, “my people” Judah.

Smith, R. L. (2002). Vol. 32: Word Biblical Commentary : Micah-Malachi.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 44). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Gleason Archer, the doomed king of bible inerrancy, surprisingly admits that Matthew changed the wording:

Commentary

Micah 5:1(2); MT 5:1a hd'Why> ypel.a;B. tAyh.li ry[ic' ht'r'p.a, ~x,l,-tybe hT'a;w>; LXX kai. su,, bhqle,em oi=koj tou/ Efraqa, ovligosto.j (very small) ei= tou/ ei=nai evn cilia,sin Iouda. MT laer'f.yIB. lveAm tAyh.li aceyE yli ^M.mi; LXX evk sou/ moi evxeleu,setai tou/ ei=nai eivj a;rconta (“from thee shall one come forth for/to me in order to become a ruler”). MT ~l'A[ ymeymi ~d,Q,mi wyt'ac'AmW; LXX kai. ai` e;xodoi auvtou/ avpV avrch/j evx h`merw/n aivw/noj. The LXX furnishes a very accurate rendering of the MT. But Mt 2:6 has an entirely independent rendering that provides some challenging deviations: (1) NT kai. su. Bhqle,em, gh/ Iou,da (instead of ht'r'p.a,). Perhaps Ephrathah was taken as an identifier as to which of the two Bethlehems was to be the Messiah's birthplace, whether that of Zebulon to the north (Josh 19:15) up near Nazareth, or the one to the south of Jerusalem. Therefore Matthew, or the advisors of King Herod, saw fit to identify it as Judah, bringing out the implication of Ephrathah, which was the name of the region in which the town was located; (2) NT ouvdamw/j evlaci,sth ei= evn toi/j h`gemo,sin; the LXX states that Bethlehem was very small to be among the 1000-family (or 1000 militiamen) towns of Judah. But Matthew understands from the next clause that if the messianic ruler himself is to come from Bethlehem, then it is—regardless of its size—to be regarded as a town of outstanding importance and glory. So he uses the negative to bring out the implication that it is after all a very important town within the tribe of Judah, despite the modest size of its population. The next change was in the term h`gemo,nej, “rulers,” instead of ~ypil'a] “thousands,” referring to a community that could number 1000 families or even 1000 men at arms. (From this it was but a step to refer to the commander of these troops as a @l,a, varo (prince of 1000), or @l,a, for short, just as the Roman centurio was derived from centurium, or a company of 100 soldiers). But to the Greek reader it may have been more helpful to use a less confusing term than cilia,dej, i.e., h`gemw,n as the commander of 1000 soldiers. While it is true that in the first century h;geww,n was often used of a procurator like Pontius Pilate, it could also refer to the commander of a cohort, for which a more technical equivalent would be cilia,rcwn. But since the term h`genw,n several times is used in the LXX for the Hebrew @WLa; (Gen 36:15; Ex 15:1; 1 Chron 1:50; Psalm 54:14), some have suggested that Matthew may have read yPl.a; as ypeWLa; or ypeLua;. This is certainly a good possibility, for it would involve no consonantal change of the received consonantal text. (E)

 Archer and Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations  in the New Testament
(© 1983 Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, BibleWorks edition © 2005)

Sorry folks, but if you have to change the prophecy's wording to make it fit the "facts", you probably shouldn't be screaming your head off about the "amazing accuracy" of biblical prophecy.  Or you should at least cease doing so when you leave church and go back out into the real world where truth actually matters. 

Wallace continues:

The Messiah Would Be Preceded By a Messenger

Isaiah predicted there would be a messenger who would precede the Messiah and proclaim His coming. Isaiah made the prophecy between 701 BC and 681 BC.

Isaiah 40:3

A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for the LORD ; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.”

Christians believe this passage foreshadowed the life of John the Baptist who played an important role in preparing the groundwork for the ministry of Jesus Christ.

 But in the original context, Isaiah 40 wasn't talking about John the Baptist, for several reasons:

1 "Comfort, O comfort My people," says your God.
 2 "Speak kindly to Jerusalem; And call out to her, that her warfare has ended, That her iniquity has been removed, That she has received of the LORD'S hand Double for all her sins."
 3 A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
 4 "Let every valley be lifted up, And every mountain and hill be made low; And let the rough ground become a plain, And the rugged terrain a broad valley;
 5 Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed, And all flesh will see it together; For the mouth of the LORD has spoken."
 6 A voice says, "Call out." Then he answered, "What shall I call out?" All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field.
 7 The grass withers, the flower fades, When the breath of the LORD blows upon it; Surely the people are grass.
 8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. (Isa. 40:1-8 NAU)

 First, "speak kindly" (v. 1) interprets "a voice is calling" (v. 2) and the two verses make clear this is Isaiah himself addressing Israel's situation there during his lifetime in 700 b.c.

Second, Isaiah is obviously talking to his contemporaries and telling THEM to clear the way for the Lord.

 Curiously, evangelical Christian scholar J. D. W. Watts doesn't even mention future fulfillment or John the Baptist when commenting on the critical verse 3, nor does he mention John the Baptist anywhere in his entire commentary on Isaiah:

Isaiah 40:3 A solo voice calls for monstrous preparation, including a highway. One might expect that this would be for pilgrims returning to Jerusalem or for those who would resettle the land. But the highway does not come to Jerusalem from the northeast or from the north (i.e., from Babylon) or even from the south (i.e., from Egypt), where the Diaspora is located. The wilderness spoken of here is in the southeast, the Arabah. And the one to travel on it is Yahweh, our God. Ezekiel had pictured Yahweh abandoning the city (Ezek 9–11). Now he is returning, using the way that was familiar from Temple traditions of Yahweh coming from Sinai or from Edom (cf. chaps. 34 and 63:1–6) through the Arabah south of the Dead Sea to approach Jerusalem from the east (cf. Comment on 10:27–32). The heart of the announcement, the reason for the messages of good news, is that Yahweh is returning to take up residence in Jerusalem again. This calls for royal preparations.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 25: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 34-66.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 80). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

You lose.

The Messiah Would Enter Jerusalem While Riding on a Donkey

Zechariah made this unusual prediction between 520 BC and 518 BC.

Zechariah 9:9

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

As recorded in Luke 19:35-37, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and presented Himself as the Messiah, the King.

 I think Wallace is being dishonest here, for while Luke 19 surely talks about Jesus riding on a donkey, Wallace surely knew that Matthew's version of the story is the one that a) contains a direct quote of this "prophecy" and b) Matthew's version is the one that has convinced many scholars that Matthew did not understand hendiatys, and misunderstood a parallel expression of one donkey, to signify two.  Compare:

Zechariah 9

Matthew 21

7 And I will remove their blood from their mouth And their detestable things from between their teeth. Then they also will be a remnant for our God, And be like a clan in Judah, And Ekron like a Jebusite.  8 But I will camp around My house because of an army, Because of him who passes by and returns; And no oppressor will pass over them anymore, For now I have seen with My eyes.  9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!   Behold, your king is coming to you;  He is just and endowed with salvation,  Humble, and mounted on a donkey,  Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.  10 I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim And the horse from Jerusalem; And the bow of war will be cut off. And He will speak peace to the nations; And His dominion will be from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth.

1 When they had approached Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples,  2 saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me.  3 "If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord has need of them,' and immediately he will send them."  4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:  5 "SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION,  'BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU,  GENTLE,  AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY,  EVEN ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF A BEAST OF BURDEN.'"  6 The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them,  7 and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats. (Matt. 21:1-7 NAU)

 First, Matthew 21:3 has Jesus telling others that he has need of "them" (i.e., BOTH the donkey and her colt).  Well wait a minute...Zech. 9:9 wasn't talking about two animals.  It was talking about one, a colt.  The verse says "mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey".  That's not two animals, but one, because of a Hebrew parallelism technique called hendiatys.  Some examples:

Hebrews 11:13 The formulation ξένοι καὶ παρεπίδημοι, “strangers and sojourners,” is a hendiadys, the expression of an idea by two nouns joined by the conjunction “and.” It is equivalent to “sojourning strangers.”

Lane, W. L. (2002). Vol. 47B: Word Biblical Commentary : Hebrews 9-13
. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 357). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

“Made well and live” (σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ) could refer to two distinct ideas (Taylor, 288). Yet since these two verbs render the Aramaic חיה, ḥayâh, some have taken them to be a hendiadys, two expressions for the same thing (Black, Approach, 71, n. 1; Klostermann, 51).

Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 296). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Luke 2:4 “house and family,” is probably a hendiadys.

Nolland, J. (2002). Vol. 35A: Word Biblical Commentary : Luke 1:1-9:20.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 104). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Furthermore, under Markan priority, Matthew probably got this story from Mark 11 which says:

1 As they approached Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, He sent two of His disciples,
 2 and said to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here.
 3 "If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' you say, 'The Lord has need of it'; and immediately he will send it back here."
 4 They went away and found a colt tied at the door, outside in the street; and they untied it.
 5 Some of the bystanders were saying to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?"
 6 They spoke to them just as Jesus had told them, and they gave them permission.
 7 They brought the colt to Jesus and put their coats on it; and He sat on it.
 8 And many spread their coats in the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields.
 9 Those who went in front and those who followed were shouting: "Hosanna! BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD;
 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; Hosanna in the highest!"
 11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and came into the temple; and after looking around at everything, He left for Bethany with the twelve, since it was already late. (Mk. 11:1-11 NAU)

 In other words, Matthew's likely source were these Markan admissions about a single colt, nothing expressed or implied about a second animal. 

Why then does Mark specify that "the Lord has need of IT" and Matthew specifies "the Lord has need of THEM"?  Most likely because the Matthean author of this part of Matthew mistakenly took Zechariah 9:9 literally, and was ignorant that the OT expression was describing one animal in two ways.  Otherwise, why would Matthew feel compelled to modify the singular to the plural, especially if he thought his Markan source was inerrant?

Sorry, but at best this "prophecy" could have been fulfilled improperly by any messianic pretender by simply obtaining a colt and riding it into Jerusalem.  You lose.  Next?

The Messiah Would Suffer and Be Rejected

Isaiah made this prediction as well, between 701 BC and 681 BC.

Isaiah 53:3

He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Some scholars claim Isaiah was referring to Israel as a nation in this passage rather than the Messiah. But, many important, historic Rabbis believed this passage was indeed about the Messiah.

 You need to look at the context first, that's more objective than simply asking how some important Rabbis
 understood it.

Rabbi Moshe Alshekh, one of the great seventeenth-century expositors from Safed, Israel, said ‘Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view.”

Ok, since you don't go to the context, I will.  The suffering servant in Isaiah is spoken of in past tense terms which is a rather confused way of predicting the future (!?). Isaiah 53:7 says the servant didn't open his mouth while his executors were slaughtering him, but Jesus obviously does plenty of talking during his execution, John 19:11, Luke 23:28, 34, 43, 46.  Also the Hebrew word for death in Isaiah 53:9 is a plural, so in your quest to show this stuff literally applies to Jesus, be sure you cite the evidence showing that he died several times.

Finally, again curiously, a Christian scholar doesn't even mention Jesus as a possible fulfillment of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, which would hardly be the case if Jesus being the fulfillment had been the least bit "clear": 

This commentary will show that “the sufferer passages” are distinct from “the servant passages” sufferer and the servant are not the same person and that the in the Vision. Israel and the Persian emperor (Cyrus or Darius) are called “the anointed” or “the servant of Yahweh” (See Excursus: Identifying the “Servant of Yahweh”). But the sufferer in 50:4–9 and the dead sufferer in chap. 53 is more likely to be a leader in Jerusalem (perhaps Zerubbabel) who has been executed before the arrival of authorities sent by Darius.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 25: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 34-66.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 227). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 later on he specifies:

53:2 He grew up like a plant before him. Pronouns without antecedents appear throughout these verses. The waw consecutive ties this verse closely to v 1. This interpretation understands most of the third person masculine pronouns to refer the “the servant” of 52:13 (Darius). The second pronoun may refer to his patron Cambyses. That is, Darius grew up in the court of Cambyses as an insignificant and unpromising person. A vine from dry ground is figurative language for one of parentage not in line for succession to the throne. No form, no beauty, no attraction imply that Darius was a most unlikely candidate to gain support for his seizure of the throne. We: the speakers are the many, the crowd, of 52:14. They are talking among themselves, not addressing the emperor.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). (id, 230)

 And later:

53:11 The heavenly perspective is accented by Yahweh’s words. The travail of his soul refers to the suffering and death of Zerubbabel. He will see; he will be satisfied. This speaks of Darius. He has a way out of his dilemma if he treats Zerubbabel’s death as atonement for the charge of rebellion. By knowing about him (Zerubbabel), he (Darius) can justify. The death of Zerubbabel provides Darius with a legal way to resolve the issue. My servant refers to Darius, who by this act proves his legitimacy as Yahweh’s servant. He vindicates Jerusalem and its people against the charges brought by the governor and neighboring peoples. He forgives their wrongs. This is presented as Yahweh’s realistic and practical solution to the problem posed in 52:14–15.

(Id, 232)

 Of course, the reader may suggest J.D.W. Watts perhaps wasn't a Christian when he wrote this commentary.  Wrong:  From logos.com:

John D.W. Watts, formerly Professor of Old Testament at Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky and Old Testament editor of the Word Biblical Commentary, well known for his scholarly contributions on the prophetic books.

 See here.

So if even Christian scholars say next to nothing about Jesus' relationship to Isaiah 53, you can hardly consider the non-Christian to be intellectually obligated to view Jesus as the fulfillment of that "prediction".

The Messiah Would Be Betrayed for 30 Pieces of Silver

Zechariah predicted the betrayal of Jesus when he wrote this prophecy between 520 BC and 518 BC.

Zechariah 11:12-13

I told them, ‘If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.’ So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’–the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

As recorded in Matthew 26:15, Judas was paid 30 silver coins for his betrayal of Jesus. Judas later tossed the money into the Temple (the house of the Lord) and the money was used to buy a potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.

 And responsible Christian scholars tell us the original OT passage wasn't talking about the future:

Although NT writers connect this passage about the thirty pieces of silver paid to the prophet for his unappreciated service as a shepherd to his people to the money Judas received for betraying Jesus, the original passage makes no reference to a future Messiah. S. R. Driver says that the evangelist (Matthew) makes the connection because he “follows the exegetical methods current among the Jews of his time” (cf. Matt 2:15, 18; Driver 259).

Although no strict messianic view should be seen in the original passage, the quality of leadership is its central theme.

Smith, R. L. (2002). Vol. 32: Word Biblical Commentary : Micah-Malachi.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 272). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Fuhr and Yates consider this prophecy fulfillment to be typological, not literal prediction:




see here.

The publisher acknowledges these scholars are Christians with a Christian purpose:

Old Testament scholars Richard Alan Fuhr, Jr. and Gary E. Yates believe that the message of the twelve Minor Prophets is relevant for the church today, and they re-introduce these important books of the Bible to contemporary Christians.  (source)

 Wallace continues:

The Messiah Would Be Silent Before His Accusers

Isaiah predicted this between 701 BC and 681 BC.

Isaiah 53:7

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

In the book of Isaiah, chapter 53, Isaiah wrote about a “servant of God”. As recorded in Matthew 27:12-14, Jesus was falsely accused but remained silent and did not protest the accusations. Jesus was crucified by the Romans a short time later.

 This is a non-starter.  Isaiah doesn't say the servant refused to protest the accusations, Isaiah says the sufferer was silent before his accusers the way a lamb is silent before the shearer, but the NT has Jesus saying much to his accusers.  Compare:

Isaiah 53

John 18

7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.

33 Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?"  34 Jesus answered, "Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?"  35 Pilate answered, "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?"  36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."  37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."

I think this is the part where mouthy apologists suddenly discover who wise Christian scholar Craig Evans was in saying that Jesus probably didn't say most of the things the gospel of John puts in his mouth.  See here.

The Messiah Would Suffer at the Crucifixion

The Psalmist, King David wrote Psalm 22 and repeatedly predicted the events on the cross that would happen centuries later. Here are a few examples:

Psalm 22:1

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?

Psalm 22:7

All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

Psalm 22:8

‘He trusts in the LORD ; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.’

Psalm 22:16

Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

Psalm 22:17

I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.

Psalm 22:18

They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Why did Jesus, while dying on the cross, say ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ Those words are actually the first line of Psalm 22, which according to Jewish tradition was written by King David about 1,000 years before Jesus was crucified. There are many parallels between the details in Psalm 22 and the manner in which Jesus died.

 First, the fact that Jesus quoted Psalm 22 shows his own effort to "fulfill" that passage, which means there is no intellectually forceful argument that divine inspiration is the only way this fulfillment could have happened.

Second, Psalm 22:16's "pierce my hands and feet", in context, is referring to the Psalmist's metaphorical complaint that his enemies are chewing him up the way an animal would piece your hands and feet by biting them.

 16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.
 17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me;
 18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.
 19 But You, O LORD, be not far off; O You my help, hasten to my assistance.
 20 Deliver my soul from the sword, My only life from the power of the dog.
 21 Save me from the lion's mouth; From the horns of the wild oxen You answer me. (Ps. 22:16-21 NAU)

Third, responsible Christian scholars translate 22:16 in a way that gets rid of the "pieced" crap that Christians need to link it up Jesus' crucifixion:

For dogs have surrounded me;

     a pack^a of thugs have encompassed me;

     my hands and my feet were exhausted.^b

a 17.a. On the nuance “pack” for עדת, see Dahood, Psalms I, 140.

b 17.b. MT’s כָּאֲרִי (“like a lion”) presents numerous problems and can scarcely be correct. One must suppose that incorrect vocalization of the consonantal text occurred, perhaps through association with a marginal gloss at v 14; see note a at v 14 and L. C. Allen, “Cuckoos in the Textual Nest,” JTS 22 (1971) 148–50. It is probably best to read a consonantal text כארו or כרו; see the massive discussion of the manuscript evidence in De-Rossi, IV, 14–20. G’s translation, “they pierced my hands and feet” (ὤρυξαν), may perhaps presuppose a verb כרה, “to dig,” or כור (II), “to pierce, bore” (though the latter verb is dubious). Some scholars have supposed a verb אָרָה (“to pluck, pick clean”), prefixed by כְּ‍; for different approaches to this solution of the problem, see Dahood, “The Verb ĀRĀH, ‘pick clean,’” VT 24 (1974) 370–71, and Tournay, VT 23 (1973) 111–12. Still another solution is the proposal of a verb כרה (V), “to be shrunken, shriveled” (on the basis of Akk. and Syriac), as proposed by Roberts, VT 23 (1973) 247–52. The starting point for the translation which is adopted above is provided by E. J. Kissane (The Book of Psalms, 97–101). He proposes an original text כלו, changed to כרו (noting the occasional interchange of ל and ר), and translates “consumed.” This is basically the position adopted above; on the consonantal interchange, see A. Fitzgerald, “The Interchange of L, N and R in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 97 (1978) 481–88. Thus the verb is a form of כלה (3 plur. perf.); on the nuance “to be exhausted,” for this verb, see BDB, 477.

Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 19: Word Biblical Commentary : Psalms 1-50.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 195). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Craigie also makes the "typological" interpretation the most likely when he says the original intent of the Psalm wasn't messianic:

Though the psalm is not messianic in its original sense or setting (though some scholars would interpret vv 28–32 as a messianic relecture: see MartinAchard, art. cit.), it may be interpreted from a NT perspective as a messianic psalm par excellence.

NT New Testament

Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 19: Word Biblical Commentary : Psalms 1-50.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 202). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Wallace continues:

The Messiah Would Be Buried in a Rich Man’s Tomb

In yet another prophecy of Isaiah, made between 701 BC and 681 BC, the prophet predicted the burial of the Messiah.

Isaiah 53:9

He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Seven hundred years after this was written, Jesus was killed with two criminals and buried in a tomb owned by a wealthy man. Jesus was resurrected three days later and eventually ascended into Heaven.

 Maybe so.  But since he was buried in a rich man's tomb, the rich man could also have easily bribed the guards to simply say they found the tomb empty upon arrival...and that particular story would not have subjected them to any punishment, whereas the bribery story Matthew gives (i.e., they were bribed to say they were asleep when the disciples stole the body) not only would subject the guards to severe punishment, but would not make sense anyway, they'd obviously anticipate their boss asking "how could you know who the grave robbers were, if it happened while you were asleep?"  In this case, the historicity of the burial account opens historiographical doors the apologists don't want to open, doors that are more plausible than the bullshit story Matthew gives.  So yes, the disciples stole the body before the guards arrived (if Joe can move a stone in front of the tomb, other men can just as easily move it aside).

It would seem that skeptics are winning the messianic prophecy debate.  Christian Research Institute ('CRI') has always stood for standard Protestant orthodoxy and apologetics, but in one of its articles (attributed to Hank Hanegraaff but more than likely ghost-written for him mostly by actual bible scholars, as was the case with his best-selling books), it specifically denies that Isaiah 7:14 was a literal prediction of Jesus' birth, it rather admits the fulfillment in Jesus is "typological":

As with double-fulfillment, single-fulfillment does violence to the biblical text. Indeed, Isaiah 7:14 does not constitute a direct prediction about the Messiah at all. Though Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin, Isaiah did not predict the virgin birth of Jesus. As we will now see, when Matthew says the virgin birth of Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, he speaks of typological fulfillment, not predictive fulfillment.

 See here.