None of them were really rebutted on a significant level.
If you look at the link I posted it just seems more convincing.
Jesus didn’t fulfill the prophecies the messiah was supposed to but the Christians just say he will in the “second coming”…but that is just a way to excuse Jesus’ failure when he walked the Earth 2000 years ago.
He didn’t fulfill any prophesies of the messiah when he was here 2000 years ago…So why would you think he would thousand of years later?
The theory that he will has absolutely no credibility since all evidence points in a different direction.
Well, I’d say we responded to 5D pretty well. Also, the major sticking point here seems to be the concept of a second coming. As charming a description as that was, this not just a way to excuse His ‘failure.’ Have you seen the earlier posts I and others have made in regard to how fulfilled prophecy never conforms to people’s expectations? If Christianity had been something that we would have expected, that would be reason to reject it. The OT covenant and prophecies were to prepare God’s people for the first coming of the messiah. If there was to be a second coming, why would that be revealed to us before the first? We were told of what was important for us to know then. Also, He didn’t fulfill ‘any’ of the prophesies of the messiah? I would suggest you read these prophesies of the OT and then compare them with the account of Jesus in the NT. It is rife with fulfilled prophesies.
A number of these other claims against Christ as messiah are fairly odd. 2A makes quite the extraordinary claim: Jesus could not have been prophet, because prophecy can only “exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry.” I’d have to see that claim substantiated, as it doesn’t follow from anything that I know. It also would seem to suggest that, due to this claim, the messiah will never come: “…prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets—Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.”
I think 2C and 5 are linked here. In 2C, Jesus is not given authority to defy the old commandment, and in most of 5, his divinity is rejected. However, the former can only be true if the latter is. This is a whole other debate in and of itself (which is really the problem when confronting these types of lists: each item is potentially its own debate and there aren’t enough hours in the day to confront each in a reasonable time.) For now I’ll simply have to say that there is nothing in the Trinity that contradicts a Judaic understanding of God, only in the Judaic understanding of the Trinity. We Christians are not polytheists, we believe in One God, whose presence in three persons is a mystery to us.If you were interested in a truly Christian perspective on just this subject, I would suggest reading CS Lewis’
Mere Christianity, Bk 4.
I’d also like to point out something I found to be a bit ironic: I don’t know what the extent of your experience in Christianity is, but the account in 2C is often used in the opposite way. The Pharisees’ legalism, cynicism, and worldliness are often contrasted with Jesus’ nature, even being more concerned with His spitting on the Sabbath than His curing the blind in God’s name!
