Cerebral Faith fails to properly defend the moral argument for god's existence

 This is my reply to an article by Cerebral Faith entitled

The Moral Argument NOT Debunked - Response To YouTuber Rationality Rules

 Posted: 12 May 2019 11:57 AM PDT

After writing my blog post titled "The Kalam Cosmological Argument NOT Debunked - A Response to YouTuber Rationality Rules", one of my Facebook friends commented in one of the various places I had posted that blog post on Facebook and in the comment, he asked if I would respond to his video dealing with The Moral Argument. I agreed to it because (1) he asked me to, and (2) Rationality Rules (RR) is a very popular atheist YouTuber whose videos get thousands of views and who makes thousands of dollars per creation on Patreon. Lots of people are being exposed to his bad arguments against Christian theism, and therefore, we Christian Apologists who create online content need to interact with his work. If you'd like to watch the video for yourself before reading the article, click "The Argument From Morality - Debunked (William Lane Craig's Moral Argument Refuted)"

For the uninitiated, The Moral Argument for God's Existence is as follows

1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3: Therefore, God exists.

I have defended this argument in several blog posts on this site as well as in my recent book The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity.

*snip*

Let me defend this claim.

*Defense Of Premise 1

Moral Values

First off, if theism is not true, then what reason remains for thinking that human beings are intrinsically valuable?

 I'm not seeing how the question is relevant, it is assuming humans are indeed instrinsically valuable, but they are not, as the notion of "intrinsic" worth is false.  "Worth" always refers to a person making a value judgment about another person or object, there is no such thing as something having "worth" apart from another person making such judgment call.  Minton will say God values us, but since the moral argument he's trying to defend is seeking to prove god exists, he can hardly insist that god's valuation of us supports this first premise, otherwise, he's just begging the question of god's existence.  What you are "worth" must be answered with reference to an outside person or agency, not yourself alone.  So "intrinsic worth" is a nonsense concept.  Minton can trifle that a person can place a value on her own self, but that wouldn't establish actual worth, anymore than the homeless alcoholic who thinks he is "worth" $6 trillion has therefore proven he's really worth that much.

On atheism, man is just a biological organism. There are other biological organisms on the planet. What makes humans more valuable than the life of say, a cockroach, or a tree?

 The opinion of other human mammals, who do like most mammals, and naturally find the members of our own species more worthy of our time and resources, than other species.

Most people don’t believe you’re committing murder when you stomp on a cockroach or cut down a tree, but they do think you’re committing murder if you end the life of another human being.

 Because "murder" is the "unlawful" type of killing.  There's no law against stepping on bugs.

Why is it that the life of a man is of more value than that of a roach or a tree?

 You haven't established that yet.  But generally, as I said, we are mammals, and being intelligent, we naturally find preserving of our own kind of greater importance than preservation of other species.

Why is it murder to cut down a man, but not murder to cut down a tree?

 It is not "murder" to cut down a man...you have to show that the way he was cut down or killed was by unlawful means.  Human beings have set up laws that say killing another human, absent exceptional circumstances, is a crime, and we call that crime "murder".  Cutting down a tree thus wouldn't be "murder" unless somebody enacted a law saying cutting down a tree is a crime and we then started referring to tree-cutting as "murder".  Yeah right.

Both are living organisms. They’re both considered life.

 But the mammals who are more intelligent than trees have decided for themselves that certain acts of killing another human being are criminal.

Maybe humans are more valuable than these things because they’re more advanced.

 Why a trait should make something more "valuable" depends on the person who is evaluating the trait.  Many women have called their boyfriends "good-for-nothing".

A man, unlike a roach or a tree, can walk, talk, and do complex mathematical equations.

 And most people react to the wanton death of the higher mammals with emotion slightly less intense than they do in reaction to the murder of a man.  All of us feel sorry for the fawn or gazelle who gets caught and ripped apart by the lion.  Some of us have no care at all about death of such animals. People value things differently.

A person can build a rocket and fly it to the moon, build houses, and can do many things lower animals cannot do, and this is certainly something trees cannot do.

 Once again, the "worth" of a person is not determined by himself, but by others at least in the way that society functions as a whole.

But if you were to say that this is what makes a man intrinsically valuable, another question immediately arises; why is complexity a criterion for objective worth?

 You are assuming the existence of objective worth.  I deny that based on the above.  There is no such thing as objective worth.  What something costs is the price set by the actual or legal owner.

Why is a human more valuable than any other organism just because he’s higher up on the evolutionary tree?

 That's loaded question, I don't think humans have greater value merely because they are higher up on the evolutionary tree.  I decide the worth of a human being on a case-by-case basis.  I've decided to conform to society's rules and criminal codes, so when I think somebody worthy of death, I don't murder them.

Why isn’t it the case that simpler organisms have the most worth like an amoeba?

Probably beacuse as intelligent mammals we find very little use for the simpler life forms.  Then again, the simpler organisms are valued highly by the bio-tech industry, and every doctor knows that killing off all the bad simpler organisms, might be sufficient to send them on unemployment benefits.  Because the lower-life forms eat the lesser life forms, life for us would become unbearable if the simpler forms simply all died off.  We'd have ceaseless indigestion, and birds would become bold as they attack us in hunger.  So in a way the simpler organisms are very valuable to human life, but not in the direct way most people think about.

Why is the advanced-ness of man a criterion for his objective worth?

There is no such thing as objective worth.  What something is "worth" arises from another person's personal opinion, which is subject to change.

It doesn’t seem that there is any intrinsic worth of human life on the atheistic worldview.

Correct.  On atheism, what something is "worth" is completely subjective.

On atheism, man is just a bag of chemicals on bones who, because of the electrochemical processes in his brain, neurons firing, and molecules going about in motion, goes about his day thinking that his life is valuable.

Exactly.  Except that because the delusion is shared by so many, life for us is much more rewarding and satisfying if we simply live and let live, as opposed to trying to convince everybody else that we are nothing but moist robots on a damp dustball lost in space.

This, despite the fact that he was thrust into existence from a blind process which did not have him in mind, despite the fact that he’s a tiny speck on a somewhat less tiny speck of dust called Planet Earth in a massive universe that cares not whether he lives or dies.

 Exactly.  Through millions of years of evolution, it is second nature to be altruistic toward others of our same species.

On atheism, there is nothing but matter, energy, space and time. Why is one bag of chemicals on bones so sacred, but other bags of chemicals on bones not so much?

Because the other bags (the simpler life forms?) do not serve us as directly as other human beings do.

It is true though, that humans can have subjective value. After all, many people have other people who care about them. A man loves his wife, his kids, and his parents. Given that many people have other people who care about them, it may be said that they really do have value after all. But this isn’t objective value, it’s subjective. What that means is that your worth is dependent on how many people love you. This type of value that a detractor of my argument may refer to seems akin to sentimental value. A man may cherish a toy because it reminds him of the happy times he had back in his childhood. There may be thousands of toys exactly like it, but this one is special to him because it is this one that he grew up with. Replacing it is out of the question. However, the toy doesn’t have objective value (that is to say, the value in and of itself). Its value is wholly dependent upon the man cherishing it. Human beings, on atheism, seem to have that kind of value. We have sentimental value to those around us, but there doesn’t seem to be any value to the man in and of himself.

 Correct.

I can’t see how human life can have any objective worth on the atheistic view.

You are already a Christian.  You already view any system showing less than Christian worth of human beings, as offering you far less.  Most humans don't like the option that provides less.  SInce Christianity offers "more" as in "more love", people naturally flock to it and similar religions.

It seems that the first premise of the Moral Argument is correct. If God does not exist, there are no objective moral values.

 Agreed.

Man is just a bag of chemicals on bones. He is nothing but a speck of dust in a hostile and mindless universe and is doomed to perish in a relatively short time.  Without God, wherein lies the objective worth of a man’s life?

Nowhere.  But a lot of people, lacking in critical thinking skills, have been so accustomed to drawing worth for their lives from religion, than they just cannot imagine how relative or subjective worth can be equally as intensive and satisfying.

What makes human life sacred?

The other person who is evaluating whether you deserve to live, that's what.

I don’t see any reason to think that there is objective worth on the atheistic worldview.

 Good.

Moral Duties

If atheism is true, it would seem that moral values go out the window.

 No, only objective moral values go out the window.  You are doing what Turek does, and falsely assuming that if a moral is not "objective", then it is worthless. Not so.  Your moral opinion about how to raise kids is not objective, but it likely contributes to the good of your child anyway.

The life of human beings is no more worth protecting than the life of insects.

 No, other human beings are profoundly useful to other human beings, far more than insects, which is precisely why we sense a greater loss at the death of a human being than we do at the death of a bug.  You may retort that you also feel bad hearing about the murder of strangers on the national news, but I reply that your grief over the death of people you never met will not be quite as emotionally intense as your grief over the death of a human being who had repeatedly satisfied your sense of worth for most of your life (family, friends, etc).  Don't forget, families can come to hate each other and honestly not care whether one member ends up dead in a ditch.  Values change.

If moral values go out the window, then moral duties go with it.

 True, but only for objective morals and duties, not subjective morals and duties.

Why? Because if man has the same value as a flea,

Most people think a man is worth more than a flea, and that subjective opinion is enough to justify laws protecting his life, and it is natural and normal for adults to obey the same laws they observed as a child.

then you have as much of an obligation towards your fellow man as you do a flea. Since atheism robs human life of objective, intrinsic worth, why is it morally wrong to murder someone on that worldview?

 Whether it is morally wrong is something various people would answer differently.  Most would say murder is morally wrong, but their reasoning is usually superficial and stops at the point of "the law" and "how could you be so callous!?" But if a person causes sufficient unnecesary harm or trouble to others, you'll find lots of people thinking it morally good that he wind up dead in mysterious circumstances that are never solved.  Like the convicted pedophile who comes to live in your neighborhood.  If he's found dead in a ditch tomorrow with a bullet in his head, you probably won't be crying about it as loudly as you would if the same happened to the local business owner who has been donating to charity for years.

Why is it wrong to mistreat a person on atheism?

 Because other people think its wrong.  And there are times when they don't think it is wrong (fights in locker rooms, ceaseless bullying, etc), and in those cases, all you can do is side with those whom you agree with, whether the victim or the bully.

If humans have no moral value, then it seems that we have no moral duties towards one another either.

 That's true, but only for objective moral value and duties.  Once you admit the obvious reality and significance of subjective moral values and duties, your problems disappear.

To reject moral values is to reject moral duties. The denial of the former entails a denial of the latter. If human life is worthless

No, under atheism life's worth is decided by people of differeing opinion on how much your life is worth, including whether it has any worth at all.

, it seems like it wouldn’t be much of a crime to end it.

"Crime" is an "unlawful" act, an act that transgresses what our lawmakers have prohibited or criminalized.  Once again, you have insufficient reasons for trivializing the concept of subjective morals and pretending that nothing means anything without objectivity.  I can dictate the price of my used dvd player for the garage sale I plan next month, and that price is completely subjective.  Only a fool would say that price is completely useless to me or my goals merely beacuse it isn't "objective".

Why is it an atrocity to kill six million Jews but not an atrocity to exterminate an entire hill of ants?

 Because as mammals we naturally sympathize with other human beings.  But if you wish to be objective in your analysis, the fact is that lots of people don't really give a shit about the holocaust one way or the other.  Not everybody is a bleeding heart Christian who forgets Deuteronomy 32:39.

What reason is there to think that there is a real moral difference between these two situations?

There is no objective moral difference.  But there is a subjective moral difference.  Subjectivity is not a defect, it counts as part of the way normal human beings go about making value-judgements.  Just because subjectivity isn't quite as "iron-clad" as objectivity, doesn't mean subjectivity is utterly pointless.  Subjective value judgments are perfectly natural to mammals.  They don't always agree in the lower-animal world, and nothing is different in the human world.

Not only do we not have any moral obligations on the naturalistic worldview but it seems like there are no moral prohibitions either.

Once again, that is true, but only in the case of objective moral values.  If you are arguing that if there be no objective moral values, then murdering a human being cannot be reasonably or coherently argued to be far more detrimental to the democratic society we wish to live in, you are mistaken.

If human life has no objective value, then discarding it isn’t a moral abomination.

Plenty of people, including Christians, do not think all discarding of humnan life is a moral abomination.  That's because you have subjective reasons for thinking it better to kill than keep alive.  That's why you constantly try to "defend" your bible-god's requireing the Israelites to slaughter pagan children. Whether slaughtering children is a moral abomination depends on whether God commanded you to do it...right?  Or are you going to say it would be a moral abomination even if god required it?  The last I checked, you are a classical theist just like Turek...whatever God commands is holy, just and good....right? 

How ghastly it is to say such a thing, but, this is the logical implication of the atheistic worldview!

No, it's the implication when we deny objective morals.  It's not the implication as long as we follow subjective morals.

In his talk “Arguments For God’s Existence” at the Truth For A New Generation conference in Spartanburg South Carolina in 2012, J.P Moreland gives another way to think about this. Dr. Moreland explained that we can tell what is right and wrong because there’s a prescription of how something ought to behave.

 If God is so against abortion, why do Christians disagree on whether the woman has a moral right to abort a pregnancy caused by rape?  Is one of the Christian groups in this dispute just not praying hard enough, or living in sin, so that they cannot discern the position God takes in that debate?

Dr. Moreland asked the audience at Truth For A New Generation how we can tell the difference between a good carburetor and a bad carburetor? We can tell the difference because there is a way a carburetor ought to function.

As assigned by the person installing it.  If the person installing it intended it to cause the engine to backfire, than how the carburetor "ought" to be installed is completely subjective.

It ought to make the car run.

 Not if you had other plans, such as making the car run rough just to laugh at the next person who drives it.

If it doesn’t, Moreland says, we conclude that it’s defective.

 But car parts have already been assigned a function by us, so that we "know" defectiveness by the failure to perform as required.  This is not analogous to human morality...Christians themselves disagree on scores of moral topics like abortion, gun rights, death penalty, taxes, including the degree to which one must put forth effort to avoid the immorality of sin.  Shall we conclude Christianity is defective because after 2,000 years of trying to give the world objective morality, its adherents are no more in agreement than they were when it started?

It doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to.

If you didnn't intend for the engine to backfire, then yes.

It’s not behaving the way it was designed to work. It’s not working the way that its creator intended it to work.

Now, let’s switch the analogy from carburetors to leaves from an autumn tree. These leaves fell from an autumn tree and just so happened to land on my front porch because the wind randomly blew them up there. Given that there was no design involved, there’s really no prescription of how the leaves should have landed.

 There's also no intelligent life in dead leaves that blow around in the wind, so not even subjective morals would be placed at issue.

Moreland said that he couldn’t point to one particular lead and say “You see that leaf? That’s a bad leaf! That’s a really bad leaf!” He can’t say that because there’s no purpose to the formation of the leaves on his porch. There’s no design involved.

 your logic works well enough until you remember that "god designed" the physical laws that cause leaves to fall and get moved around in the wind. If we assume ID is true, then perhaps the way the leaves get blown around could possibly be immoral.  Indeed, in Genesis God cursed the earth because of Adam, so there might be biblical precedent to say God is dismayed when he sees leaves die, fall off the tree and get blown around in the wind.  That's rather stupid, but it's still "biblical".

But with the carburetors, everyone knows there’s a way that they ought to perform,

 And it's not a "defect" if the installer intends on making the car backfire and thus configures the carburetor to do so.

and we can look at one functioning carburetor and call it “good” while looking at a non-functioning carburetor and call it “bad”.

 That's totally subjective.  Somebody might think the less efficient one is "better".  You aren't being very objective in your analysis if you simply dismiss anybody and everybody who have eccentric views about carburetors.

Now, on atheism, we are like those leaves. There’s no purpose. There’s no design. We’re just here by chance + nature. So, if atheism is true, it’s really odd to say that there’s a way we ought to behave since we were not made by anyone who intended us to behave as such.

 No, we are mammals born to other mammals that teach us what we need to do if we wish to have comfort and ease in the present world we live in.  And most of us conform thereto because we desire comfort and ease more than putting our lives and freedom at risk.

If theism is true, we’re like the carburetors. We were made on purpose and for a purpose, and when people don’t function according to that intended purpose we say that they’re “bad” people.

 The problem being that Christianity doesn't do a very good job of specifying which people are "bad" beyond those who commit actions that any self-respecting mammal would find disagreeable.  Worse, your Christianity says people are bad merely beacuse they were born in sin and are incapable of doing any "good" (Romans 3:10 ff) despite the obvious fact that most people routinely do "good".

What's worse: a completely subjective moral system?  Or a moral system that says you aren't doing good even while you are doing obvious good?

But if atheism is true, we’re kind of like the leaves on the porch. We just blew up there through blind, undirected processes. There’s really no way that we’re supposed to behave.

That's true.  There's no "really objective" way we're supposed to behave.  Once again, your falsely assume that the disappearance of objective morals constitutes the disappearance of morality altogether.  But subjective morals obviously exist, and therefore they obviously don't go out of existence if it be shown that merely "objective" morals don't exist.

So if there is an oughtness, there must be a personal being who prescribed this sense of obligation within ourselves (as Romans 2:14-15 says).

That's true, but since we were all raised by other mammals who instilled their sense of values on us, its no surprise that we generally tend to hold to the same morals our parents or caretakers did back when we were kids.  "you ought not murder other people" is only a general maxim; not everybody agrees to it, and the law cannot function properly in a democratic soceity unless it is evenly applied.  But the need to even application to achieve our democratic ends does not mean there's some transendent moral the law is based on.  The fact that murder generally hurts the pack...but not always...is precisely why we all agree murder is wrong...but some of us are willing to entertain exceptions when unlawful killing will achieve a greater moral good...which is probably why many good people are tempted to engage in vigellante justice

This is because only a personal being can give purpose to a system. Blind forces don’t care how you behave; only a person would.

No, if you have kids, you likely are aware that they needed to have morals instilled into them from outside, as even your bible says foolishness is bound in the heart of a child but the rod of correction will drive it far from him. 

There is no good reason to think we get our morals from anywhere other than genetic predisposition and environmental conditioning.

*snip*

See my rebuttal to Frank Turek's identical reasoning here.

Cold Case Christianity: Is God Real? God is the Best Explanation for Objective Moral Laws

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

Cold Case Christianity:

Is God Real? God is the Best Explanation for Objective Moral Laws         

Posted: 20 Feb 2019 01:56 AM PST

We live in a world populated with self-evident, objective, transcendent moral laws.

 Thus indicating you aren't trying to convince atheists or skeptics, only bible-believing Christians.  Should you ever feel up to the challenge, grow a pair of balls and actually have a debate with an informed atheist the way Turek does.  Something tells me you are too afraid to do this.  Why threaten your fan base you've worked so hard to get?

“It’s never OK to torture babies for fun”

But the burden is on YOU to show that this is an objective moral.  You are assuming, without argument, that because most people agree this is morally wrong behavior, then presto, it must be objectively wrong. Not so.  You are assuming without proof that whatever morals are agreed to by "most people" are therefore representative of transcendent objective moral standards.  But it could just as easily be that most people think torturing babies for fun is wrong, for much the same reason that gorillas and other higher mammals don't go around torturing their own babies for fun.  It's mere natural instinct to survive.  The question of why we have that instinct goes beyond the moral question and gets into the muck of "intelligent design".

And regardless, your own bible shows God requiring his followers to torture kids (when the bible says you must hit your child with a "rod" its authors probably wouldn't think that leaving bruises and lacerations on the child's body was too much, see Pro. 20:30, and remember that many proverbs are strung together without concern for theme or context, so you cannot automatically assume v. 30 must be interpreted in a way harmonious with the "immediate context".

How torturous do you suppose it is for the child who watches as strangers over run their village killing everything in sight?  How long can a child fend off the man trying to murder it?  How much torture does that child endure in those horrific moments?  Where else could the Canaanites go after be chased out of the promised land, except to barren places already occupied by slave traders, where survival required criminal acts, or selling kids into slavery, or prostitution?

or (my new favorite from a blog reader) “It’s never OK to torture non-believers just because you don’t like them?” are two examples of such transcendent laws. How do we account for laws such as these?

 The better question would be to avoid begging the question of transcendence and ask instead "why do most people think it immoral to torture babies?" or "why has human history exhibited a pattern of disapproving of baby-torture?" 

Of course, I'd disagree that humans have agreed throughout history that baby torture is immoral.  That Israel found some babies expendable is clear (Numbers 31:17, 1st Sam. 15:2-3), and as already pointed out, if all Israel was doing was "dispossessing" the Canaanites, they were chasing them off the promised land and thus into dangerous barren territory where crime or worse would be the only way a family could stay alive.

We are mammals, and we instinctively avoid doing things that inhibit the survival of our young.  Furthermore, in our mammalian minds, any "benefits" we could get from torturing babies would be outweighed by the cost of inhibiting survival.  The fact is most mammals simply lack a desire to torture babies just like they lack a desire to torture forgotten invisible dust particles. What fool would pretend this cannot be accounted for except by positing space aliens controlling our minds with their beam-weapons?  How's that any different than your invisible god who can read minds?

Their existence points to a reasonable inference: the existence of a Transcendent Moral Law Giver.

Not if you define that TMLG as spaceless, timeless, immaterial, invisible, other-dimensional, and the other mantra that Turek repeats ad nauseum to his mostly Christian audiences.  That's nothing more than an incoherent definition which we are reasonable to dismiss.   The only theory you have, to justify such nonsense talk, (i.e., the big bang) is a theory that is manifestly not what the originally intended addressees of Genesis 1-2 would have thought when reading the creation account.   Try again.

But there are other alternatives typically offered by those who reject the existence of such a Being. Is God real? The insufficiency of the alternative explanations strengthens the argument for the existence of God:    

    Are Objective, Transcendent Moral Laws A Product of Genetic Evolution?

When you ask a loaded question like that, no.  If a moral was objective and transcendent, then no, mere genetic evolution would not create it.  Evolution cannot create something whose nature extends beyond the physical.

    As one friendly skeptic said recently, “We share 99.999% of our physical traits with our fellow humans . . . so why would our mental traits not be similarly shared?” Are moral truths simply part of our genetic coding?

 Yes, that's why newborn babies don't need to be taught to breastfeed.  Your theory that "god puts his laws into our hearts" is bullshit anyway, as testified to by billions of children, who obviously don't already have such morality, who only acquire it by learning from their mammalian caregivers.

There are good reasons to reject such an explanation. When someone claims self-evident moral truths are simply a matter of our genetic evolution, they are assuming the same evolutionary pathway for every people group. What are we to make of cultures that behave in a manner different than our own?

 It's called cultural conditioning.  We all seek after food, water, shelter and companionship, we just tend to go about it in different ways in different periods of history.

How can we justly adjudicate between the myriad of people groups, all of whom have their own genetic evolutionary pathway? This form of emboldened relativism is powerless to judge any form of behavior, good or bad.

 No, you are assuming that if all morals are relative, that we have no "right" to judge others.  That's total bullshit.  One "relative" moral instinct we have is to criticize others who do things differently than we do.  Our "right" comes from our innate desire to criticize outsiders.  Just like there is no "right" for one junkyard dog to bite another, nevertheless, they still do.  It's purely instinctive, as nuanced by a person's environmental conditioning.

There is no objective moral truth governing the carnivores chasing the herbivores on earth, but that hardly means we accuse them of being "inconsistent" for foisting their morals on each other.  It's just what creatures of instinct do when they have different ideas about survival, yet have to live together.

In fact, how can we judge any behavior if it is so connected to our genetic nature?

 The same way one junkyard dog decides to attack another junkyard dog.  If we feel uncomfortable with another person being in what we consider our personal space, we react.  We aren't reacting merely because we first figured out how to prove that our moral view was more "objective" than theirs, we simply "react".

We don’t blame people for being brunettes or having blue eyes; if our genes are the cause of our moral understanding, what right do we have to blame people when they simply express genetic moral wiring different from our own?

Because we all innately resist the attempts of others to harm the ability of ourselves and our favored groups from surviving and thriving.  Instinct. And since I deny freewill, yes, I think society is wrong to pretend that a criminal had a "choice" or ability to resist the temptation to do a crime.  Why some boys in a group shy away from stealing while the others go through with the plan, has to do with the boys having very different genetic predispositions and environmental conditioning.  $50 says in the group of 5 boys playing to steal from a store, the one who will actually not puss out, but go through with it, will be the kid whose genetics make him more aggressive, and/or the kid who is lacking any serious discipline at home.

Perhaps most importantly, even if my skeptical friend is right and commonly accepted moral truths are merely a product of our genetic encoding, we still must account for the source of this encoding. 

No, that gets into the question of intelligent design, which doesn't get you off the hook.  Your attept to prove that some morals can only be accounted for by a transcendent moral lawgiver, has failed.  You cannot correct that problem by simply insisting on intelligent design.  That's called moving the goal-posts.  The "moral argument" for God fails.  The "intelligent design" argument for God is another matter.

DNA is information rich. As Stephen C. Myers observes in Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, there isn’t a single example in the history of the universe in which information has come from anything other than an intelligent source. If our genetic code contains information about moral truth, we still must ask the foundational question, what intelligent source provided this code? All codes require encoders.

 Meyers is debunked here.

But I don't really care if a "god" exists, the NT provides evidence that makes it more likely Jesus stayed dead, so given that Christianity is a failure, whatever 'god' exists, is nothing to worry about. 

And it wouldn't matter if Jesus did rise from the dead, the idea that God will send to hell all those who fail to live up to whatever Christian light they had, is total bullshit and is denied by enough liberal Christian scholars  to justify the non-religious person in turning away from such an exercise in futility as "What does the New Testament teach?"  You people have been asking that for 2,000 years, you couldn't agree with each other in the lifetime of Jesus, the lifetime of Paul, by the second century many sects of Christianity were competing as "the" truth and calling each other "heretic", and the only thing Christianity did for the next 2,000 years was get more splintered and more complex.

    Are Objective, Transcendent Moral Truths a Matter of Cultural Agreement?

When you ask the question in loaded form like that, the answer is obviously "no".  Cultural Agreement cannot produce some invisible moral law that "transcends" humanity itself.

    If societies are the source of objective moral truths, what are we to do when two cultures disagree about these truths?

You are assuming there is a higher moral law to answer that in an objective way, and there isn't.  When we find other cultures with morals opposed to ours, then whether we attack or leave them alone is largely conditioned on the current generation's genetic predispositions and their environmental conditioning. Once again, there's no higher moral "truth" to govern when two dogs choose to fight, so its pretty stupid to ask what moral law governs when you confront another person whose morals are opposite to our own.  But that fact that human history has exhibited a tendency to war or to just stay away from those of differing persuasion makes a good case that there really are no higher moral truths to it, and what we "should" do goes no deeper than what we feel like we should do at the moment.

How do we adjudicate between two competing views of a particular moral claim?

By using our relative morals. When we all gasp about the criminal who was caught torturing children, this shows nothing more than that a bunch of people have formed a city, state or nation and they all pretty much have the same moral disgust for hurting kids.  While we may often act like putting such people in jail aspires to some higher moral law, this is not true, such act only aspires to the moral law that a bunch of mammals agree on.

If objective moral truths are simply a matter of “shared morality”, the societal majority rules; “might makes right”.

 Which is precisely what we have in our democratic "Christian" nation.  You either obey the majority's morals, or they will send their strongest representatives after you to put you in jail even if you don't wanna go.

In a world like this, anyone (or any group) holding the minority position in a particular moral argument is, by definition, immoral.

Yes.   A minority of men in America approve of homosexuality and/or pedophilia. Not really strange that they are automatically accounted "immoral" by the majority.

In fact, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson made this clear in his early career as a prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials following World War II. When the German soldiers who committed atrocities in the Jewish prison camps were brought to trial to face criminal charges, the issue of moral relativity was tested directly. The lawyers for the German officers argued that these men should not be judged for actions that were actually morally acceptable in the nation of Germany at the time of the war.

Those lawyers were just asking for consistency. 

They argued their supervisors and culture encouraged this behavior; in fact, to do otherwise would defy the culture and ideology in which they lived. In their moral environment, this behavior was part of the “shared morality”. Jackson argued against such a view of moral relativism and said, “There is a law above the law.”

 Jackson was wrong if he meant there was a moral law transcending humanity.  The fact is that before WW2, not everybody in the world agreed that they should go involve themselves in the affairs of other countries.   But then that's why they call it "war".  Us mammals tried but could not achieve peace, so we just fought it out.

    Are Objective, Transcendent Moral Truths a Consequence of “Human Flourishing”?

Not when you ask the question in that loaded way.  Once again, if the moral truth "transcends" humanity, than humanity's flourishing obviously did not create said law. 

    Sam Harris (author of The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values), argues we can establish the moral value of any particular action by simply evaluating its impact on human well-being (something Harris typically refers to as “human flourishing”).

 And Harris was wrong on the point, as are most moral objectivist atheists, since he fails to provide an objective definition of human well-being.  And indeed he cannot.

Harris likens the establishment of such truths to a game of chess. In any particular game, each player must decide how to move based on the resulting effect. If you are trying to win the game, some moves are “good” and some moves are “bad”; some will lead you to victory and some will lead you to defeat. “Good” and “bad” then, are evaluated based on whether or not they accomplish the goal of winning the game. Harris redefines “good” (in the context of human beings) as whatever supports or encourages the well-being of conscious creatures; if an action increases human well-being (human “flourishing”) it is “good”, if it decreases well-being, it is “bad”. What, however, do we mean when we talk about “flourishing”?

Good question, which is why I say atheist moral objectivists are just being silly.  If humanity is the highest form of life, then it us US, and nobody and nothing else, that decides whether a given act constitute moral goodness or moral badness. 

It’s one thing to evaluate a behavior in terms of its impact on survival, and if we are honest with one another, this is really what drives Natural Selection. But Harris recognizes survival, as a singular goal, can lead to all kinds of morally condemnable misbehavior.

 Condemnable only because of Harris's subjective and relative morals that he brings to the moral investigation table.  Harris might think the way the Nazis chose to 'survive' in WW2 is condemnable, but his basis for such criticism cannot be anything greater than his naturalistic relative morals.

Harris suggests the goal is something more; the goal is “flourishing”. Human flourishing comprises a particular quality of life; one in which we honor the rights of others and seek a certain kind of character in order to become a particular kind of human group that has maximized its potential.

That sounds nice, but doesn't solve the problem:  "Should" we allow the Taliban to "flourish"?  If not, then apparently "flourishing" is not a sufficient criteria for morality.

See the problem here? Harris has already imported moral values into his model, even as he seeks to explain where these values come from in the first place. One can hardly define the “maximization” of human wellbeing without asserting a number of moral values. What, beyond mere survival, achieves our “maximization” as humans?

Good question, I don't think Harris can answer it.  Dan Barker tried to answer it with "pain" by saying we naturally recoil from pain, which is true enough, but he draws back somewhat by acknowledging that some pain is required to achieve good, such as the doctor who sets the broken bone, or cutting off one's hand that is stuck between two huge rocks so that one can survive.

The minute we move from mere survival to a particular kind of “worthy” survival, we have to employ moral principles and ideas.

Correct.

Concepts of sacrifice, nobility and honor must be assumed foundationally, but these are not morally neutral notions. Human “flourishing” assumes a number of virtues and priorities (depending on who is defining it), and these values and characteristics precede the enterprise Harris seeks to describe. Harris cannot articulate the formation of moral truths without first assuming some of these truths to establish his definition of “flourishing”. He’s borrowing pre-existent, objective moral notions about worth, value and purpose, while holding a worldview that argues against any pre-existing moral notions.

Good for you.  You refuted Harris.  But you didn't refute me.  I've based humanity's morality in each human's mammalian instinct for individual and group survival, as flavored by genetic predispositions and environmental conditioning.  These naturalistic explanations account for all known moral issues.

    Try as we might, the alternative explanations for objective, transcendent moral truths are desperately insufficient.

Dream on.

    Try as we might, the alternative explanations for objective, transcendent moral truths are desperately insufficient. The moral law transcends all of us, regardless of location on the planet or time in history.

And there you go again, proving you aren't talking to skeptics but only to Christians just looking for anybody that can professionally articulate what they already believe.  Try having a live debate with an informed atheist, then take a poll of your fan base and see how many think you survived.

Or....continue running away from challenges and just tell yourself that periodically preaching to the choir must be something inspired by God because it happens to boost book sales.

Cold Case Christianity: Is God Real? Evidence for God from Objective Moral Truth

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

Cold Case Christianity: Is God Real? 

Evidence for God from Objective Moral Truth

Posted: 30 Jan 2019 01:56 AM PST

There are several compelling arguments for the existence of God, and many of them are rooted in science (i.e. thee Cosmological Argument) or philosophy (i.e. the Transcendental Argument). Sometimes these disciplines are foreign to our everyday experience, however, and not many of us are prepared to debate (or even describe) scientific details or esoteric philosophical concepts, especially as they might be related to God’s existence.

  Should we blame that on the Holy Spirit, who apparently wants to be known as your teacher?  Sure is funny that we have no problems blaming the teacher if the kids remain uneducated, but when it comes to "god", then suddenly, any and all imperfections seen in "his" work can never never never be blamed on him.  Feel free to take comfort in your insanely inerrant security blanket, but don't expect the atheist's goosebumps to rise up from their skin as high as your goosebumps do.

Another set of evidences may be far easier to assess and communicate. Is God real?

 You'd serve the cause of truth more efficiently if you narrowed the debate proposition, so you can focus your attention more to less issues  Don't ask whether God exists.  Ask whether Kalam's first premise is fatally ambiguous.  Don't ask whether Jesus rose from the dead.  Ask whether a non-Christian can be reasonable to find apostolic authorship of Matthew's gospel too obscure and problematic to be granted.  See how that works?

The presence of objective moral truth validates the existence of God and this evidence may be much easier to communicate to others.

 So since burning teen girl prostitutes to death was commanded by God (Leviticus 21:9), you are forced to view that form of justice as objective morality.  You can assert that not everything God commanded through Moses was morally objective, but you'll find yourself in theological gridlock in no time.  The end of the Mosaic theocracy appears to have less to do with God's will and more to do with naturalistic historical circumstance.  If killing all the gays was good for the Mosaic society, how could it possibly be bad for any other society?  Would it be true that in every such execution, the people were "putting away the evil from among them"?

We live in a world filled with moral truths and most of us, whether we are aware of it or not, believe these truths are more than a matter of personal opinion, evolutionary development or social convention. “Torturing babies for fun” is (and has been) morally repugnant regardless of the time in history, place on the planet, or identity of any particular people group.

 But there is a perfectly good naturalistic explanation for the common human aversion to torturing babies.  The natural mammalian desire to protect the young.  Furthermore, there is the fact is that torturing babies doesn't appear to serve any mammalian purpose, and contradicts mammalian genetics.  If the whole purpose of life is to procreate, then obviously the parents are going to view anything that inhibits the life of the newborns, as something to be shunned.

Torturing babies does not keep the food supply stable, it does not replenish needed water, it does not tell you which person would be good for the company, etc, etc. You also forget that many older siblings do indeed torture their younger brothers or sisters.  "Torture" doesn't have to be water-boarding or smashing knees with hammers, to be torture.  Your own bible consistently affirms the goodness of physically harming children with a "rod", and one could easily argue that this is a form of torture even if it doesn't last very long.  Torture doesn't require a minimum length of time.

You also forget that plenty of people throughout history have engaged in child torture via slavery, hard work, harsh discipline, or placing them out in open territory to let them die slowly.  You are not very scholarly if you just automatically exclude such adult opinions from your analysis.  One could also argue that if morals come from God, we probably wouldn't find anybody in history torturing babies or children.

Moral truths of this nature transcend and precede us.

 Sorry, but there you go again, preaching the choir, since you know perfectly well no atheist is going to agree that any truth we exhibit "transcends" us.

We don’t invent or construct them, we discover them.

 In the sense that we were raised by parents who imposed on us the morals they discovered from their own caretakers, yes.  In the sense of the moral truths existing outside of humanity?  No.  Go work in a daycare for a few days, them come back and tell me God put his laws into our hearts.  No, he only puts his laws into our hearts when our caretakers put their laws into our hearts.  I'd say the timing is suspicious.

Transcendent, objective moral truths such as these form the foundation of the Axiological Argument for the existence of God. “Axio” means the “study of values” and the Axiological Argument uses the existence of objective values or “mores” to prove the existence of God:

(1) There is an Objective (Transcendent) Moral Law

 No.  I already grilled Matthew Flannagan on this:  when he told me that we shouldn't torture babies to death solely for entertainment, I asked him what moral standard he was using to condemn the practice, and he skipped town.  The best he could do was to simplistically bleat that if any person needs to be told why such act is wrong, then they have something wrong with their brain.  That's nothing but an appeal to emotion.  Flannagan knows the basis for saying such act is wrong, but is rightfully fearful that if he admits what it is, he will infuse his argument with more subjectivity than he wants his viewers to think is necessary.  So he just skips town instead of honestly admitting that his argument for God from objective morality is fatally subjective.

(2) Every Law Has a Law Giver

Not when the law in question is merely the name we attach to patterns of thinking we observe in mammals.  There is a "law of gravity", but that's obviously something far different from "law says you can't drive over 55 mph."

(3) Therefore, There is an Objective (Transcendent) Law Giver

(4) The Objective (Transcendent) Law Giver is God

Dream on.

If objective, transcendent moral truths exist, an objective, transcendent moral truth giver is the most reasonable inference.

No, the concept of "god" as an immaterial intelligence is incoherent, so since naturalistic explanations are at least coherent, they will always be better than this appeal to 'god'.

Living in a world filled with moral choices, we often confuse description with prescription. It’s one thing to describe “what is”, but it’s another thing to prescribe “what ought to be”. Humans are good at the former, but have been historically uneven with the latter.

And Christians have always been divided on the latter, i.e., what ought to be.  Your trifles about how this doesn't get rid of god, really don't accomplish much.  If you people ARE that divided on morality, and have been for 20 centuries, the mere possibility this could still be consistent with God's existence does precisely nothing to enable the atheist to figure out which Christian morality is from god. If you couldn't attain like-mindedness on this for 20 centuries, its pretty reasonable to conclude you aren't going to be achieving that goal with an internet post.

Individuals and groups often allow their own selfish interests to color the way they evaluate moral truth.

Sort of like the greed involved in a land-grab conveniently has the grabbers suddenly discover that grabbing land is more holy than allowing its original occupants to live there.  Sure is funny that you think every group doing a land-grab in the ANE was immoral to do so...except of course, conveniently, the Hebrews.

When this happens, we sometimes come to very different conclusions about the “rightness” of our beliefs or actions. When we disagree about the moral value of a particular action, we usually try to convince the other side to accept our position. But why would this be necessary if all moral truths come from individuals or groups? If humans are the source of moral truth, why should we consider one group’s values to be any better than another?

 This usually takes place in the context of showing how your particular moral stance is more likely to achieve your opponent's goals, than his own moral stance.  That's why.  Last I checked, you don't require your little daughter to wear matching clothes to school because God hath decreed it so, yet her obedience to her parents is a "moral" issue.  If morality comes from God, then there you go:  God has an opinion about what clothes she should wear to school. Let me guess:  you've always asked God about this matter, amen?

Nope, you believe your sky-daddy only gives a fuck about the big issues, and doesn't really care what color your shoes are, despite the fact that the biblical teaching that Christ holds all things together would imply that God is ultimately responsible for how the neurons fire in your brain, in ways that often manifest as you choosing a certain color of shoe.  Your bullshit idea that God doesn't care about your personal details, is theological heresy.  God could no more be apathetic toward what you'll have for dinner tomorrow night, than he could just remove his presence from rocks.

When we argue for what “ought to be” we’re not simply asking someone to accept our subjective opinion; were asking them to see the “rightness” of the objective moral truth we happen to hold.

When a group of societies come together to discuss the moral value of a particular action (as is often the case at meetings of the United Nations), they are appealing to a standard transcending the group in an effort to convince any one member of the group.

No, one group is trying to show how their unique morality will more efficiently achieve the common goals of the united nations, than the morality of any other group.

When one nation asks another to conform to some form of moral behavior, it’s not saying, “Do it our way,” it’s saying, “Do the right thing.”

 Correct, the "right" thing being the subjective view held by the nation whose representative is doing the talking.  

Our appeal to a particular behavior isn’t based solely on our collective, subjective opinion; it’s based on an appeal to objective moral values transcending our opinion.

 I find that to be rather disingenuous given that even conservative Christians disagree on morality so much they will accuse each other of defying common sense.  Forgive me if I refuse to believe that one of them speaks from the Holy Spirit and the other doesn't.  Your God could fix this stupid bullshit by just waving his magic wand to get people to believe whatever he wants them to believe, as he allegedly did in Ezra 1:1.  You always blame the parents if they allow their stupid kids to starve themselves to death.  Do you call God a "father"?  

We can argue about the identity of these values, but we must accept the transcendent foundation of these moral truths if we ever hope to persuade others to embrace them. Nations may dislike one another and resist the subjective values held by other groups. That’s why we argue for the transcendent moral value of an action, rather than appealing to a subjective national opinion.

 I don't find a UN speaker's appeal to "divine rights" or similar to be any more compelling than a terrorist's speech that says Allah wills the massacre of thousands of Americans.   I'm sorry Wallace, but bellowing out moral commands in the name of Jesus does precisely nothing to "show" that they come from god.  Which you probably don't care about since you didn't intend to do apologetics here anyway, you are simply preaching the choir with all the smug blindness of a 1940's teacher in a Book of Mormon class.  In our little world, we can tell ourselves whatever we want and feel good about it the whole time, amen?

The evidence from the existence of objective moral truth points to God as the most reasonable explanation.

No, "god" is an incoherent concept, and if he is the most infinite thing in existence, as you classical theists are forced to allege, then Occam's Razor would slice away the god-hypothesis long before it would slice away any less complex explanatory theory.  What now?  Did you suddenly discover that Occam's Razor isn't quite as bright as most Christian apologists say it is?

Now you start in with the irrelevant questions that arose only because you formed an illegitimate theological foundation:

If transcendent moral truths exist, from where do they come? Is God real? The evidence from the existence of objective moral truth points to God as the most reasonable explanation.

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.