Summations Only

But if you look at Micah 5, it clearly isn't about Jesus: Now Jesus was not a ruler in Israel, Israel was not invaded by Assyrians during Jesus' time; nor did Jesus deliver Israel from the Assyrians who weren't actually there, by wasting the land of Assyria with the sword or otherwise.Clearly Micah was expecting someone else altogether to turn up out of Bethlehem and to do something completely different from what Jesus is said to have done.

Possibly instead of lying about what "the liberal or humanist" thinks, you could ask one. Or read this thread, even.But that wouldn't be like you, would it?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Er, according the the Gospels, the Jewish people most learned in the scriptures wanted Jesus crucified for claiming to be the Messiah. If he had been an obvious fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies, then they would have recognized him as being the Messiah.You want an "outcry"? Here's your outcry: Got that? If the gospels are true, then the people who were, as you say, "closer to all the facts", did indeed take Jesus to be a "false messiah" and a "fraud".If, on the other hand, the gospels are false ...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But if I'm reading Maccabees correctly, they weren't talking about an imminent resurrection, they were talking about Judgement Day.Actually the account of their martyrdom is so stylized that I barely believe a word of it, but that's another question.

Yes, but if there was a "prophecy" stating that you'd call him Biff Rocco, then you would call him Biff Rocco, thus making the "prophecy" true. You'd be writing things like: "There is a classic hymn which has been sung for probably over a centry - "Hark the Herald Angels Sing." That song sung by millions has a line in it refering to "Jesus Our Biff Rocco"." Well, it's not a real prophecy if you have to go out of your way to fulfill it.But besides that, it doesn't fulfill the prophecy. Isaiah says that the woman who bears the child shall name him Immanuel. Well, she didn't, did she? It doesn't say "centuries later someone will write a hymn calling him Immanuel", it says: "therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: a maiden is with child and she will bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel."יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵלEdited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Right, but she actually named him Jesus.Now, you can imagine that Immanuel was one of her pet names for him, but then again you can imagine that Biff Rocco was one her her pet names for him. The fact is that with no evidence for this, you can't claim it as an example of fulfilled prophecy.

But you have no evidence that his mother named him Immanuel, which is what the prophecy actually says. No, it's my major objection to the claim that this is an example of fulfilled prophecy.

"Almost always"?

I guess that's why no-one ever said so except the imaginary people who live in your head. Yes, "Almah" does not imply that the woman in question is not a virgin. That's why no-one said that it did.