Jesus is Messiah

Con claims Matthew 16:28 was not fulfilled and thus Jesus failed the litmus test of Deuteronomy 18:20, but this prophecy at Matthew 16:28 was indeed fulfilled hence Con's argument fails yet again. Jesus said that some of them standing there would not die till they "saw" him coming in his kingdom, but he didn't say the whole generation would. Who are these "some"? John saw in vision the Son of man coming in his kingdom when given what we now know as the book of revelation while on the Isle of Patmos. (Rev 1:4, 7, 9-11; 14:14) No doubt, other disciples also "saw" him in this way. Peter and James were also among the "some" who saw Jesus transfigured before them just a few days after he uttered this prophecy. They saw him shine in the kingdom glory he will have when he returns, and even the clouds he will come on appeared overhead as God's voice spoke from heaven. (Matt 17:1-6) Jesus didn't promise he would return before they died, but that they would "see" his coming before he died. Similarly, Abraham saw Jesus' day even though he lived long ago before Christ. (John 8:56) How can Con claim to know these folks did not have such religious experiences before they died? Matthew 12:38-40 declares Jesus would be dead three days ad three nights, and he was. Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus died on Friday, or that he was raised on Sunday. The Jews did not use the Roman calendar, and even if they did, the current Roman calendar is a deviation from the nundinal calendar in use in Jesus' day. Just because some churches teach Jesus was raised on the 1st day doesn't mean Jesus taught that too. Con is confusing later church theology with the teaching of Jesus, but nowhere does the Bible say the 1st day of the week is Sunday, or that Jesus was raised on the first day. By the time the women got there before sunrise on the first day the body of Jesus was already gone. (John 20:1-2) I don't have space to go into this at length, but I think its wrong for Con to put the Friday to Sunday view in the mouth of Jesus in order to make him a liar when he said no such thing. It's the Christians who got that wrong, not Jesus. Isaiah 53:9 is describing a "sinless" servant. Israel is never described in the Bible as sinless. Isaiah 1:4 "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity." (also vss 10, 15, 21) What a far cry from the sinless servant of Isaiah 53 who "had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth." (Isa 53:9) Isaiah also said: "It pleased the Lord to bruise him." (Isa 53:10) Can it really be said that anti-semitism pleased the Lord? Did the Holocaust please the Lord? Why would God be please over the genocide of his people? Yet, it makes perfect sense that God would be pleased to have the Messiah die to be our sin offering because it would save millions of souls. What would the Holocaust accomplish that is pleasing to God? The suffering servant suffered silently and willingly. (Isa 53:7) The Jews were certainly not silent during the Holocaust or the following years of suffering. All other men complain when suffering. Brave Jewish men and women resisted Hitler and spoke out. Jesus was silent before his accusers. (Matt 26:60-63) You don't really think the Jews suffer silently and willingly do you? In Isaiah 53:10 the word for "atone" is "asham," the same as in Leviticus 5-6 and it means "sin-offering." Whomever Isaiah 53 speaks of, this one suffers and dies to pay for the sins of others so they can gain forgiveness, hence the context speaks of him as a sheep and using sacrificial language connected to animal sacrifice. The Jewish community never died for anyone to be forgiven, Jesus did. Con says Isaiah 53:5 is mistranslated, and wishes to replace "for" with "because of" and then says this means he suffers because of others. But who are the "others" mentioned here? "Our transgressions," and "our iniquities" indicates that Isaiah's own people, the Jews are the "others" mentioned in the text. It makes no sense to say that "Israel was wounded because of Israel's transgressions" and then claim this as anti-semitism, sounds more like self-semitism! It makes more sense contextually that the Messiah is wounded "for" his people, so save them, not because of them. But even if it should be translated as Con claims, it suppots Jesus being the Messiah, for he was indeed crucified because of Jews who handed him over to Pilate, and Jews who called for Barabbas to be freed instead of him, he came to his own but they didn't receive him. (John 1:11) It was because of Israel that Jesus was crucified, so even so the text makes more sense applying to the Messiah and not Israel as the servant. Had I more space I'd list ten other reasons why Isaiah 53 can't mean Israel but Jesus as the suffering servant. Con actually argues that substitutionary sacrifice contradicts Isaiah 55:6-7, Jeremiah 36:3, Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33, Hoseah 14:1-3, Jonah 3:6-10, Proverbs 16:6, Daniel 4:27 and 2-Chronicles 7:14. It amazes me that Con overlooks the fact that the writers of all these verses he lists used to offer up animals sacrifices as substitutes to atone for their own sins. Clearly, the ancient Jews saw no contradiction between these verses and all the animal sacrifices commanded in Leviticus 16 and throughout Leviticus as "substitutions" to atone for their sins. If no blood had to be spilled and it was as simple as asking forgiveness, why butcher all these animals? Because "without shedding blood there is no remission." (Heb 9:22) Jesus is our sin offering just as animal sacrifices were in Old Testament times. Now while Jewish law forbid the righteous to be punished for the unrighteous, this did not mean a righteous person could not sacrifice themselves to save the unrighteous. Con is confusing two different situations. "Why would God send a messiah to atone for sin, if he could already atone for that sin without blood?" He couldn't! "I challenge my opponent to find ONE Old Testament reference that speaks of blood being necessary for forgiveness." Leviticus 4:13-20, there, I've named one, my opponent stands refuted! Blood had to be shed for forgiveness to take place. Also see Leviticus 4:22-35 for more examples. Con argues that if the New Testament doesn't apply Isaiah 9:6 to Jesus that it must not have been fulfilled in that time, yet he argues that the child is Hezekiah when the Old Testament never ever applies Isaiah 9:6 to him. True, this verse is not quoted by any New Testament writer since Isaiah wrote it, but its also true that its not quoted by any Old Testament writer since Isaiah wrote it; so the very logic Con is using to deny it refers to Jesus would also show it doesn't refer to Hezekiah! New Testament Christians had no need to record an exhaustive list of every prophecy Jesus fulfilled in the Bible, only sufficient for any ready to get the point. Indeed, John confesses this much at John 21:25. Modern Jews claim that Isaiah 9:6 was written to encourage Hezekiah, who at that time was being threatened by the powerful armies of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. According to 2 Kings 18:1-2, Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he began to reign. The Bible establishes that Sennacherib's army attacked the cities of Judah during the fourteenth year of Hezekiah's reign (2 Kings 18:13). Hezekiah was 39 years old (25+14) at the time Isaiah gave the message of Isaiah 9:6 when Assyria threatened invasion. Could the phrase "for unto us a child is born" apply to a 39 year old man who was the king of Judah for 14 years? It's insulting to apply this verse to a 39-year-old king! The age factor alone eliminates Hezekiah as the subject of Isaiah 9:6,7. Ancient monotheistic Jews didn't go around calling any mere man "mighty God," there was only one deserving of that title, Yahweh. (Isa 45:5; 10:21) The mighty God's rule of Isaiah 9:6-7 lasts forever, unlike Hezekiah who died and never came back. Jesus lives to rule earth when the time comes.