Jesus is the Messiah who was prophecied in the Old Testament.

I would also like to echo PRO’s appreciation regarding the reasoned nature of this discourse. I did think, based on the comments section, that you were looking for a Jewish perspective, but as no one was taking the debate, I figured I’d throw my hat in the ring. Onto the arguments! Bethlehem I would like to start with your point about Bethlehem being a “small village” at the time of Jesus’ birth. I could find no evidence to support your claim, and I unfortunately do not have an Archaeological Study Bible to reference. I did look to see if there was an online version I could consult, to no avail. On this matter, however, I would question the source. The Archaeological Study Bible is published by Zondervan, a publishing company that claims to be a “world leading Bible publisher and provider of Christian communications. ” They also boast to have been providing “transformational Christian experiences” for more than 80 years [1]. They clearly have a profit motive to support the Christian mythos. With that background, I have to question their objectivity. Pope Emeritus PRO has claimed to have personal knowledge of the book written by the former pope. Unfortunately, I cannot verify either point, not having the book at my fingertips. I included this point simply because I found it interesting; my argument does not hinge on it. Since PRO has read the book, I will concede the point. The Veracity of Matthew Here, PRO has made many points regarding the authorship and conditions around which it was written. Unfortunately, PRO has not offered any evidence for his claims. However, even if he is right, it doesn’t matter. What is important is that there is no external verification. PRO thinks that the text of Matthew should be accepted as reliable until it is demonstrated otherwise. Unfortunately, this is just not how things work. It is understood that evidence is required to choose between two competing views [2]. However, in the absence of evidence, should we believe claims until they are disproven, or should we withhold belief? If we believe a proposition simply because it has not been disproven, as PRO suggests, we are committing an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy [3]. Therefore, if we are going to come to any justified conclusions about reality, we are better served by withholding belief until evidence is provided. I would like to add that I am not claiming that the account in Matthew is false, I am stating that we have no reason to accept it as true. Unfulfilled Prophesies I offered examples of three unfulfilled prophesies, all of which PRO challenges. I will address them in order: Descent from David PRO claims that Jesus fulfills this prophesy by being the adopted son of Joseph and therefore having a legal claim to the throne of David. However, Psalms 132:11 says that the messiah will be “of the fruit of thy [David’s] body” [4]. It does not say “legal heir,” or “someone living in the house of,” it is clearly talking about physical, genetic descendants. Universal Knowledge & the Gathering of Israel PRO’s rejection of these two prophesies rely on different interpretations. PRO interprets the passages I cited in different ways, changing their meanings. I admit that I am no scholar of holy books; as an atheist, I have only a passing interest. I will simply note two points:1. PRO has not offered any reasoning or evidence as to why his interpretation should be accepted over mine.2. My interpretations are supported by the Jewish community [5][6], by the people who are most familiar with the language and culture in the time and place where many of the books were written. Wrapping Up PRO has questioned my evidence that Bethlehem didn’t exist during the alleged birth of Jesus, but he has not provided any good reason to think otherwise. He has also claimed, by fiat, that we should believe the accounts in Matthew until they are disproven. I have demonstrated why that is the incorrect way to evaluate claims. PRO has questioned my examples of unfulfilled prophesies. In the first case, I demonstrated the veracity of my claim with scripture. In the other two, which were subject to interpretation, I showed how the Jewish community supports my position; PRO has offered no good reason to accept his interpretation. On the whole, PRO has not met the burden of proof for his claim that “Jesus is the Messiah who was prophesied in the Old Testament. ” Sources: [1] . http://www.harpercollinschristian.com... [2] . http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] . http://philosophy.lander.edu... [4] . https://www.biblegateway.com... [5] . http://www.jewsforjudaism.ca... [6] . http://www.aish.com...