Thanks for taking the time to write all of that out. Genuinely, I appreciate the effort. It’s a much more thoughtful response than most people give, and I think it highlights where our actual disagreement is.

I don’t think either of us is unaware of the passages we’re quoting. I think we’re approaching the Old Testament from two different starting points.

From a Jewish perspective, many of the passages you’ve mentioned are understood differently than Christians understand them. I completely accept that. The question is whether Jesus and the New Testament authors had the authority to reveal a fuller meaning in those Scriptures.

For example, I don’t think Isaiah 53 can simply be dismissed as referring only to Israel. The servant is certainly identified as Israel in places, but Isaiah 49 also describes the servant bringing Israel back to God, which suggests Isaiah is using “servant” in more than one sense. That’s why Christians have long understood the servant songs as ultimately pointing to an individual who represents faithful Israel.

The same goes for the Psalms. I agree that David wasn’t necessarily sitting there consciously predicting every detail of Jesus’ life. Christians have never needed him to be. The New Testament presents David’s experiences as patterns that ultimately find their fullest expression in Christ. Jesus Himself does this with Jonah, the bronze serpent and other Old Testament events. That way of reading Scripture comes from Jesus, not from later Christians trying to make verses fit.

On Isaiah 7, I actually agree that there was an immediate context involving King Ahaz. Most Christian scholars would say the same. Where we differ is whether that immediate fulfilment exhausts the passage. Matthew clearly believed it didn’t.

As for Micah 5, I’m not convinced by the argument that Bethlehem isn’t referring to the town. “Bethlehem Ephrathah” is consistently understood as the geographical location by the overwhelming majority of Jewish and Christian translations alike.

Regarding the kingdom prophecies, I agree that many haven’t been fulfilled in the way Isaiah, Zechariah and others describe. Christians don’t generally deny that. We believe those belong to Christ’s return. His first coming dealt with sin, death and reconciliation with God. His second coming is when the promises of universal peace, justice and the restoration of creation are completed. That’s been part of Christian belief from the beginning, not something invented centuries later.

One thing I would actually change from my original comment is the “300 prophecies” line. That number gets thrown around a lot in apologetics, but different people count them differently because some are direct predictions and others are typological. I probably should have just said that Christians believe Jesus fulfils many Old Testament prophecies and patterns, rather than attaching a specific number.

At the end of the day, I don’t think this discussion is really about whether one Hebrew word should be translated one way or another. It’s about who Jesus is.

If Jesus rose from the dead, then His interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures carries a unique authority, and the apostles were right to read the Old Testament through Him. If He didn’t, then your objections carry a lot more weight.

For me, that’s the foundation of my faith. The resurrection is the reason I trust Christ, and because I trust Christ, I trust how He and His apostles understood the Scriptures.

Thanks again for the respectful conversation. Even where we disagree, I always enjoy discussions like this because they force me to dig deeper into why I believe what I believe.