Jesus – The Son of God or False Prophet?

According to the Christian Gospels: this has been a question ever since
the life of Jesus. Jews have not believed, yet many others have. Why? Well,
the Jews do not believe that Jesus fulfilled any prophecies, although the
Christians do. Which of them are correct? Probably the best way to find out is
to analyze the scriptures ourselves. I will be using a NKJ Bible and the Jewish
equivalent - NJV which is the New JPS (Jewish Publication Society) Hebrew-
English Tanakh. I call it the Jewish equivalent to the NKJ, because the [old] JPS
Hebrew-English Tanakh was published in 1917; thus reading in similarly old
English as the [old] King James Bible, but was written by Jews instead of
Christians. So, the NJV, like the NKJ, is just an easier read, while aiming to
keep to the original translation. Mark, Luke, and John only mention a couple
of the prophecies, whereas Matthew has them all. So, I will be going through
Matthew.

The first one comes in chapter 1, verse 23. It reads:

"Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His
name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."

Mary did not name her child Immanuel, or any form of it. She named her
child Jesus. The name Jesus does not mean God with us. But, then why are
Son and His capitalized? Doesn't this refer to Jesus [as the Son of God]? Well,
the Jews say otherwise. Isaiah 7: 14 in the NJV reads:

"Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord!

Look, the young woman is with child, and about to give birth to a son.

Let her name him Immanuel."

Notice that son and him are not capitalized, indicating no divinity. Also, it
does not specify that the mother was a virgin. It only says young woman. For
Jesus to have been born of a virgin is very important, because it implies that
he is actually He, being the Son of God, instead of the son of Joseph. The NJV
does not make either of these divinity claims - both of which are important.
So, it is not talking of the Son of God, nor is it referring to Jesus at all. Who
did the editing - the Jews or the Christians? Both groups have equal motives
to edit this, but it is much more apparent that it was done by the Christians.
Here is why I say this. Both the Jews and Christians agree on naming the
child Immanuel. Jesus is not at all the same name. Therefore, the Jews would
have no reason to edit anything, because the text would already show that
there is no relation to Jesus. The Christians, however, would have every
reason to edit; to try and show that Jesus is the prophesied Son of God. For, if
he is not connected to the Old Testament, then there is no way he could be
the Son of the God of Israel. Are you too stuck in your beliefs to not be
convinced by the obvious (yet overlooked) name difference? Well, let's read
further into Isaiah. Chapter 7, verse 15 in the NJV reads:

"By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be
feeding on curds and honey."

A whole people eating curds and honey is kind of a big thing, so why does
Matthew not mention that happening? The answer is in the NKJ:

"Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and
choose the good."

Instead of a whole people eating curds and honey, it says that the child will
eat curds and honey. Also, unlike the NJV, the NKJ capitalizes He. Why does
the people/child difference matter? I will explain. If the prophecy said that
the people would eat curds and honey, and it did not happen during the
childhood of Jesus, then in order to make Isaiah's prophecy fit Jesus they
would need to change it to the child. For, how would anyone be able to know
that Jesus did not eat curds and honey as a kid? They would just have to
believe Matthew, which is what all the Christians do. They need to start
looking at the evidence for themselves, instead of just trusting an ancient
manuscript that was not even written by an eye-witness. Even without the
Jewish text you can see that this prophecy did not fit, because of the
complete difference in the naming of the child. I see this as enough proof
alone that Jesus is not the Son of the God of Israel. I will continue anyway,
though, because I know that anyone who has believed that Jesus is the Son
of God will be very reluctant to believe otherwise - no matter how obvious
the proof is - because they had to have been ignorant to believe in the first
place. Yes, I was ignorant, but not anymore! Although I hold even this one
false claim and obvious editing by the Christians to be enough to support the
idea of Jesus not being the Son of God, I will be fair and score each prophecy
as 1 point. When it comes to ancient documents: proving that one party has
made alterations and false claims according to a document does not show
whether the original document was accurate to begin with. So, with this
study there can be no gaining of points, but only losing. So, the score is Jews:
0, Christians: -1. Next!

In the second chapter of Matthew, Herod asks where the Christ is to be

born. In verses 5 and 6 the chief priests and scribes answer him:

So they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the
prophet:

'But you, Bethlehem of Judah,

Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;

For out of you shall come a Ruler

 Who will shepherd My people Israel.' "

First, notice that they said Judea, while the prophecy says Judah. This is ok
though. Why? Judea is just the Greek adaptation of Judah, which was
commonly used in that time and location. There is a problem with connecting
the prophecy to Jesus though. Jesus was never a literal ruler, and he was
concerned with more than just Israel. I think that this prophecy is speaking of
a literal ruler. Jesus was referred to as King of the Jews though. Let's look at
the original prophecy. Micah 5: 2 in the NKJ reads:

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,

Yet out of you shall come forth to Me

The One to be Ruler in Israel,

Whose goings forth are from of old,

From everlasting."

The important difference in this is that it says nothing about shepherding.

Maybe this is because God is sometimes referred to as a shepherd, and so
the Christians needed to identify Jesus as one. Does the NJV say anything
different?

And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath,

Least among the clans of Judah,

From you one shall come forth to rule Israel for Me -

One whose origin is from of old,

From ancient times.

The NJV does not have the shepherd reference, but neither does the
Christian Old Testament. So, it could not be the Jews that made that change,
since only in Matthew does it include the shepherding. Also, the NJV more
clearly defines that the ruler rules Israel, which cannot be taken figuratively.
The only sensible option then is that the Christians added [in Matthew] the
shepherd reference, and watered down the wording of the ruler, in order for
Jesus as King of the Jews to fit. They were just un-thorough to make changes
in the Old Testament apart from capitalizations. And, we have already seen
that they are not very thorough with their editing. So, the score is now Jews:
0, Christians: -2. What's next?

Matthew 2: 14-15 reads:

When he (Joseph) arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night
and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might
be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called
My Son."

Why would God need to call Jesus out of Egypt? Joseph would automatically
return [with Jesus] to Israel without needing a message from God, and it was
never mentioned that he got one anyway. Nor was it prophesied that Jesus or
the Son of God would be taken into Egypt in the first place. Maybe the
original prophecy will clear things up. Hosea 11: 1 in the NKJ reads:

When Israel was a child, I loved him,

And out of Egypt I called My Son.

This actually makes it less clear. It says that God called His child out of Egypt
when Israel was young. When Jesus came around, Israel had been around for
a long time. Now, what about that NJV? It reads:

I fell in love with Israel

When he was still a child;

And I have called [him] My son

Ever since Egypt.

Firstly, I am not always going to mention the capitalization difference, for it

happens in every single one. Secondly though, even without the "[him]"
(which was put by the NJV, and not me), it is obvious what the translation
means. It is referring to God; referring to Israel as His son (He often called
them His children, and we just saw how God referred to Israel as His child!),
which He did call out of Egypt from slavery! As this makes complete sense,
and the others did not (when trying to apply to Jesus), I would say the score
is Jews: 0, Christians: -3.

This next one is short. In the end of Matthew chapter 2 it talks of how
Joseph came [with his family] to Nazareth. In verse 23 it says it was fulfilled
by the prophets, saying, "He shall be called a Nazarene." It does not mention
who the prophets were, and does not refer to any Old Testament passage.
The only reason it would not be mentioned would be to attempt to hide that
it does not exist. There is no Old Testament passage, so this was purely a
Christian claim. This puts the score at Jews: 0, Christians: -4.

The next prophecy is not about Jesus specifically, but about the decree
that Herod makes to kill all males 2 years and younger in Bethlehem. This is
why Joseph had been warned to flee with his family to Egypt. In Matthew 2:
17 it states that this decree was fulfilled by what was spoken by Jeremiah,
which it then shows in verse 18:
 "A voice was heard in Ramah,

Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning,

Rachel weeping for her children,

Refusing to be comforted,

Because they are no more."

It says this happened in Ramah - I thought it happened in Bethlehem! I

looked up Ramah, and none of the areas that it refers to are Bethlehem. So,
it tells of a different area. Also, it says a voice - not voices - and goes on to
talk about Rachel crying for her dead children. Who is this Rachel? She is not
part of this story! And, shouldn't the whole town be crying instead of this one
mother? You do not even need to look at the Christian Old Testament and the
NJV (which are not any different, so the Jews cannot be blamed for editing -
there wasn't any) to see how unrelated this passage is! So, Jews: 0,
Christians: -5.

The next one is about John the Baptist, which is in Matthew 3: 3. It

reads:

For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying:

"The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

'Prepare the way of the Lord;

Make His paths straight.' "

So, Isaiah said that the voice of one crying in the wilderness was telling
someone to prepare the way of the Lord. Wait. Isn't the voice of one crying in
the wilderness supposed to be John? Then who is John telling to prepare the
way of the Lord? I thought John was supposed to prepare the way of the
Lord! Is John talking to himself?! This is already not making sense! Let's take
a look at the original prophecy. Isaiah 40: 3 in the NKJ reads:

The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

"Prepare the way of the Lord;

Make straight in the desert

A highway for our God."

Make straight in the desert? Was Judah desertous? It probably was, being in
the Middle East. But, if you look into the context, it is pretty clear that the
voice of one crying in the wilderness is the tribe of Judah in Jerusalem, and
not John. Further clarity is in the NJV:
 A voice rings out:

"Clear in the desert

A road for the Lord!

Level in the wilderness

A highway for our God!

This would make sense [figuratively] if the voice ringing out was God
speaking to John as a command. We already know that the voice is of the
tribe of Judah, so it is no such command. Also, John was not around when
Isaiah was, so God could not have been speaking to John [in the book of
Isaiah] anyway. So, who did this one? Even in the Christian Old Testament it
is apparent in context that it is not at all referring to John the Baptist. So,
again there was no editing (besides the not so important difference in
Matthew), but just a false claim by the Christians. Jews: 0, Christians: -6.

Matthew 4: 13 says that Jesus left Nazareth to dwell in Capernum,

which is by the sea, and in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali. Verse 15
reads the prophecy of Isaiah:

"The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,

By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,

Galilee of the Gentiles:

The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light,

And upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death

Light has dawned."

This may relate to Jesus, who went to that area to preach the good news.
What was his good news? It reads in verse 17 that his message was:

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

So, this would mean that the darkness that those people were sitting in was
sin (for Jesus says they need to repent), and the light being the newly
received knowledge that they need to repent for the "entrance fee" of the
soon coming kingdom of heaven? Maybe, but what does the original
prophecy say? Isaiah 9: 1-2 in the NKJ reads:

Nevertheless the gloom will not be upon her who is distressed,

As when at first He lightly esteemed

The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,

 And afterward more heavily oppressed her,

By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,

In Galilee of the Gentiles.

The people who walked in darkness

Have seen a great light;

Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death,

Upon them a light has shined.

Wait, Jesus heavily oppressed Capernum? Maybe the NJV will shed some light
on the subject. The first verse in the NKJ does not exist in the NJV, so Isaiah
9:1 in the NJV reads:
The people that walked in darkness

Have seen a brilliant light;

On those who dwelt in a land of gloom

Light has dawned.

There is no mention of the land of the shadow of death, but instead a land of
gloom. Not the land of gloom, but a land of gloom. It does not look like it is
referring to a specific place, and neither does it include the parts about
Zebulun, Naphtali, or by the sea, which were all things that were very
pointed out in Matthew 4: 13. Also, that whole verse which is only in the
Christian Old Testament does not even make sense in that passage (when
you read further). So, the Jews could not have taken that verse out, but the
Christians added it. Jews: 0, Christians: -7.

For three more chapters, Jesus still has not fulfilled any prophecies. In
chapter 8, verse 16 it tells of Jesus casting out demons and healing the sick.
In verse 17 it reads the prophecy of Isaiah:

"He Himself took our infirmities

And bore our sicknesses."

Bore our sicknesses? Doesn't that mean that Jesus would bear the sickness
(in other words, be sick) instead of them? When was this in any of the
gospels? Let's see what the original prophecy has to say. Isaiah 53: 4 in the
NKJ reads:

Surely He has borne our griefs

And carried our sorrows;

 Yet we esteemed Him stricken,

Smitten by God, and afflicted.

Since when did people think of Jesus as stricken, smitten by God, and
afflicted? Well, how about the NJV?

Yet it was our sickness that he was bearing,

Our suffering that he endured.

We accounted him plagued,

Smitten and afflicted by God.

That shows in even plainer speaking that it does not fit Jesus, but the Jews do
have equal motives. This one goes deeper; any part of Isaiah that mentions
this servant (which is mentioned in surrounding verses although not this one)
in the NJV is un-capitalized, whereas all over the Christian Old Testament
(you guessed it) it is capitalized. Seeing as even the Matthew version does
not fit Jesus (because of the word "bore"), it is obvious that the Christians did
the editing as well as the claiming. Jews: 0, Christians: -8.

In the next one (which is in Matthew 11: 10) Jesus refers to John the
Baptist with the prophecy of Malachi:

"Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,

Who will prepare Your way before You."

It is apparent by the capital My that God is speaking, but to whom? This

passage would only make sense if God was speaking to Jesus. God could not
have been speaking to Jesus though, because this is way before his time. It
must be God speaking to Malachi. But, if this is the case, then it appears that
God is sending a messenger to prepare Malachi's way! I thought it was
supposed to be John preparing the way for Jesus! Can you help us Malachi?
Malachi 3: 1 in the NKJ reads:

"Behold, I send My messenger,

And he will prepare the way before Me.

And the Lord, whom you seek,

Will suddenly come to His temple,

Even the Messenger of the covenant,

In whom you delight.

Behold, He is coming,"
 Says the Lord of hosts.

Oh, so the messenger is preparing the way for God, Himself. That does not
destroy the possibility of it being Jesus though, if you believe in the trinity
(which is nowhere in any Jewish or even Christian Bible!). So, for this to work,
the Messenger of the covenant has to be Jesus. Let's take a look in the NJV:

Behold, I am sending My messenger to clear the way before Me,

and the Lord whom you seek shall come to His Temple suddenly.

As for the angel of the covenant that you desire, he is already coming.

Aha! Jesus is never said to be an angel, and not of any covenant either! Ok,
so who did this one? The fact that the Matthew version is different even from
the Christian original, shows that the Christians at least did some editing. But
which Old Testament is unedited? The key to this lock is in the word Temple.
Notice that in the NKJ it is un-capitalized, whereas it is capitalized in the NJV.
The Jews would not need to edit the un-capitalization of temple. It would
already have been capitalized by them from the beginning, because the
Temple is Holy and Sacred to them. The Christians, on the other hand, would
want to un-capitalize it. The Christians believed that Jesus had made the
ultimate sacrifice, which would get rid of the need of the daily sacrifices in
the temple - which they would no longer hold sacred - and thus need to un-
capitalize it. Jews: 0, Christians: -9.

Next, we come to chapter 12 of Matthew. In verse 16 Jesus warns them

to not make him known [as being Him - the Son of God]. In verses 18-21 it
reads the prophecy of Isaiah:

"Behold! My Servant whom I have chosen,

My Beloved in whom My soul is well pleased!

I will put My Spirit upon Him,

And He will declare justice to the Gentiles.

He will not quarrel nor cry out,

Nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets.

A bruised reed He will not break,

And smoking flax He will not quench,

Till He sends forth justice to victory;

And in His name Gentiles will trust."

I thought that Jesus spoke in the streets a lot. Also, how was he that calm
and quiet when he turned tables in the temple? Let's check out the original
prophecy. Isaiah 42: 1-4 in the NKJ reads:

"Behold! My Servant whom I uphold,

My Elect One in whom My soul delights!

I have put My Spirit upon Him;

He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.

He will not cry out, nor raise His voice,

Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street.

A bruised reed He will not break,

And smoking flax He will not quench;

He will bring forth justice for truth.

He will not fail nor be discouraged,

Till He has established justice in the earth;

And the coastlands shall wait for His law."

Both versions say that He will bring justice to the Gentiles, but only the
Matthew version says the Gentiles will trust in His name. I think we are
getting two different ideas of justice! But, we still have not looked at what
the Jews have written. Isaiah 42: 1-4 in the NJV reads:

This is My servant, whom I uphold,

My chosen one, in whom I delight.

I have put My spirit upon him,

He shall teach the true way to the nations.

He shall not cry out or shout aloud,

Or make his voice heard in the streets.

A bruised reed, he shall not be broken;

A dim wick, he shall not be snuffed out.

He shall bring forth the true way on earth;

And the coastlands shall await his teaching.

Notice that in this version the translation refers to him as the bruised [but
not broken] reed and a dim [but not snuffed out] wick. If in that metaphor
break means die, then he did break - he was crucified! The prophecy says
that he would not break. So, I really do not think this fits Jesus. So, like the
last one, we can see that the Christians at least edited the Matthew version
from the original (by adding And in His name Gentiles will trust which
changes the meaning of bringing justice to them; and by watering down the
wording of the reed and wick to attempt to make it relate to Jesus not
making Himself known). But which Old Testament is unedited? The NJV says
nothing about Gentiles, and I would not say that the Jews took that out -
even the Christian Old Testament does not specify that the Gentiles would
trust this servant. Another clue is in the word spirit. Only the Jews do not
capitalize God's spirit. God's spirit does not have to imply Jesus, so not
believing in Jesus as the Son of God would not be a reason to un-capitalize it.
They must have had it un-capitalized from the beginning, for some other
reason unknown to us non-Hebrew speaking people. But, as we have seen
before, the Christians like to capitalize anything and everything that they
could possibly use to imply Jesus as the Son of God. So, again, it all adds up
to the Christians as the culprits. What's the score? Whoa! Jews: 0, Christians:
-10! Need I go further? Well, there are more prophecies, so I will.

Next in line is Matthew 13: 10. Jesus’ disciples ask him why he speaks
to the crowds in parables. He tells them that as his disciples they can know,
but not for the [common] people. He gives the reason, "seeing they do not
see, and hearing they do not understand." If Jesus means that they would not
understand him if he spoke to them plainly, then what would make him think
that they would understand him with parables? It already does not look like
this prophecy fits, yet it comes from the mouth of Jesus! Or did it? Was it put
into his mouth? Surely the Son of God, or even the man that we know of
Jesus, would not have been as stupid as that! We definitely need to dive into
this one! In verses 14-15 it reads:

"And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,

And seeing you will see and not perceive;

For the hearts of this people have grown dull.

Their ears are hard of hearing,

And their eyes they have closed,

Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,

Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,

So that I should heal them.' "

So, this talks of people who cannot understand, because they do not want to
understand and be healed. I am pretty sure that the crowds that constantly
followed Jesus wanted to understand and be healed! And, there is still the
illogic of Jesus’ answer and actions in Matthew concerning the parables. Let's
move on into the original prophecy! Isaiah 6: 9-10 in the NKJ reads:

And He said, "Go, and tell this people:

'Keep on hearing, but do not understand;

Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.'

Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy,

And shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,

And understand with their heart,

And return and be healed."

You do not even need to look in context (although I have, to make sure) to
see that God is instructing Isaiah to make a people's heart dull. It is not
Isaiah speaking of the Son of God who will speak in parables. Jews: 0,
Christians: -11.

In Matthew 13: 34 it claims that Jesus did not speak to the multitudes
without using parables. What about the beatitudes? Those were very plain!
In verse 35 it gives the prophecy:

"I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from

the foundation of the world."

This apparently comes from a Psalm this time. It is written by Asaph (who
was not - to my knowledge - a prophet) as God in the first person. So, it is
most likely not a prophecy, but just a song. Let's look at the original passage
though, just in case. Psalm 78: 2 in the NKJ reads:

I will open my mouth in a parable;

I will utter dark sayings of old.

Notice that my is not capitalized. That must be because Asaph was the one
writing it. So, even though the song was written as God in the first person,
Asaph did not want to sound like he was claiming himself to be Divine. And,
again, we already know how "capitalization happy" the Christians are. Now,
what do the Jews have to say? Psalm 78: 2 in the NJV reads:

I will expound a theme, hold forth on the lessons of the past.

There is no prophetic notion of the Son of God speaking in parables to the
people, but just a review of the need to keep the Laws of Moses, and to not
make any of the same mistakes they had made before. If you look at that
Psalm in context (which remember is a song and not a prophecy), it is clear
(even in the Christian Old Testament) that the Christians made the edit and
the claim. Jews: 0, Christians: -12.

In Matthew 15, Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites, and tells them that
Isaiah prophesied about them, saying, (In verses 8-9):

"These people draw near to Me with their mouth,

And honor Me with their lips,

But their heart is far from me.

And in vain they worship Me,

Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

The original prophecy in the NKJ and the NJV are hardly different (which is in
Isaiah 29: 13), but the important thing here is that the Pharisees did NOT
worship or honor Jesus. They came to him to question him in hopes that he
would answer something incorrectly. Even based on this passage alone it is
clear that Jesus cannot be the Son of God! There were not any alterations in
this one, but just a false reference [by the Christians] to an Old Testament
passage. So, Jews: 0, Christians: -13.

Next, we come to Matthew 21. It tells of Jesus coming in on a donkey.

Verse 5 tells of the prophecy:

"Tell the daughter of Zion,

'Behold, you King is coming to you,

Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,

A colt, the foal of a donkey.' "

Jesus did ride into Jerusalem on a donkey (according to the Christian

Gospels), but I will remind you that Jesus was never a literal king. Let's see if
the original prophecy is any different. Zechariah 9: 9 in the NKJ reads:

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!

Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!

Behold, your King is coming to you;

He is just and having salvation,

 Lowly and riding on a donkey,

A colt, the foal of a donkey."

There is no significant difference, except for maybe the "having salvation"

part. But, if that was in the original prophecy, then why would it not be
mentioned in Matthew? Perhaps it was not in the original prophecy.
Zechariah 9: 9 in the NJV reads:

Rejoice greatly, Fair Zion;

Raise a shout, Fair Jerusalem!

Lo, your king is coming to you.

He is victorious, triumphant,
Yet humble, riding on an ass,

On a donkey foaled by a she-ass.

There is no mention of salvation in this one, and neither is king capitalized.

Also, not only was Jesus not a literal king, but even as the figurative King of
the Jews he was not victorious or triumphant - he was questioned, shunned,
beaten, flogged, and crucified! Well, couldn't the impact he made on the
world be counted as victorious? This is a pretty big stretch, as it already was
a stretch to count Jesus as a king. Plus, the mass spread of Christianity did
not spread until some time after his death [and his believed resurrection]. I
got the impression that it meant the king would be victorious and triumphant
while ON EARTH. So, Jesus may have ridden into Jerusalem on a donkey
(along with plenty of other Jews), but he did not fulfill any prophecy by doing
so. Jews: 0, Christians: -14.

Matthew 26: 31 reads:

Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me
this night, for it is written:

'I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'."

Well, this could relate if Jesus’ crucifixion counts as God striking the
Shepherd [Jesus], because the disciples [or sheep of the flock] did scatter. Is
the original any different? Zechariah 13: 7 in the NKJ reads:

"Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd,

Against the Man who is My companion,"

Says the Lord of hosts.

"Strike the Shepherd,

 And the sheep will be scattered;

Then I will turn My hand against the little ones.

So, who is the sword - the people who arrested Jesus? Who are the little ones
- people who were not his disciples? I do not think that this relates very well.
Notice that the Matthew version says God will strike the shepherd, whereas
in the Christian Old Testament it is God commanding someone to - or saying
what would happen if someone - strike(s) the shepherd. Also, the NJV is
similar, but does not capitalize shepherd or man, nor does it call him His
companion. So, either Jesus is misquoting scripture (which is unlikely with the
context that does not relate to him), or the passage was Christianized and
then put into his mouth. The latter is a better explanation. Jews: 0,
Christians: -15.
In Matthew 26: 55 Jesus speaks to the priests about how they came to
arrest him during the night with weapons, when they had opportunities to
arrest him while he was amongst them during the day. In verse 56 he says,
"But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."
What scriptures of what prophets is he talking about? There are no
references to any! Also, look at the context. After saying [in verse 55]: "Have
you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat
daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me.", why would
he then say out loud, "But all this was done that the Scriptures of the
prophets might be fulfilled."? I would think that they would ask him what he
is talking about. Also, he says it like it already happened, and that it "might"
be fulfilled. If Jesus is the Son of God, then he would say that it would be
fulfilled, without any doubt. It doesn't sound like he said this, but that
Matthew did. Also, aside from whether he said that strange sentence, there
is no reference to what scriptures were fulfilled by him getting arrested like
that. He must not have fulfilled any! Jews: 0, Christians: -16.

Next, we come to Matthew 27. It is the story we all know of Judas

returning the money to the priests, because he was ashamed of what he had
done. In verse 7 it tells of how they took the thirty pieces of silver and
bought the potter's field to bury strangers in. In verses 9-10 it says that the
prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled:

"And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced,
whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter's
field, as the Lord directed me."

Wait, they did it, as the Lord directed me? That does not make any sense.
Something is already wrong. Let's see what the original prophecy has to say.
Jeremiah 32: 6-9 in the NKJ reads:

And Jeremiah said, "The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 'Behold,
Hanamel the son of Shallum your uncle will come to you, saying, "Buy my
field which is in Anathoth, for the right of redemption is yours to buy it." '
Then Hanamel my uncle's son came to me in the court of the prison
according to the word of the Lord, and said to me, 'Please buy my field that is
in Anathoth, which is in the country of Benjamin; for the right of inheritance
is yours, and the redemption yours; buy it for yourself.' Then I knew that this
was the word of the Lord. So I bought the field from Hanamel, the son of my
uncle who was in Anathoth, and weighed out to him the money - seventeen
shekels of silver."

This clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with the priests of Jerusalem

buying the potter's field to bury strangers in. This is just a story of Jeremiah
buying his cousin's field. Yes, the money happens to be the same amount,
but it is not at all a prophecy referring to the story in Matthew. Aside from the
minor differences in translation, the NJV is not any different. Jews: 0,
Christians: -17.
Matthew 27: 35 reads:

Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might
be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet:

"They divided My garments among them,

And for My clothing they cast lots."

If this is Jesus (or perhaps God) speaking, then it makes sense. Where does
this come from? It is a Psalm of David. David was not a prophet, so why
would a song he writes be prophetic? Anyway, here it is - Psalm 22: 18 in the
NKJ:

They divide My garments among them,

And for My clothing they cast lots.

Being in the Christian Bible, it still capitalizes My. Even more importantly, is
that it says divide instead of divided. You could say that if this is a prophecy,
that it means will divide. But, it sounds more like it is something that is
repeatedly happening to David. Wait, what about the My? Is David writing as
if God is speaking; like Asaph did? Unlike Asaph's Psalm, this one does not
say that. I think it is time to look at what the Jews have written. Verse 18 in
the NJV is 17 in the NKJ; the Jews must have a verse that the Christians do
not have. So, Psalm 22: 19 in the NJV reads:

They divide my clothes among themselves, casting lots for my garments.

Here it is clearer that it is David speaking about himself. Even in the NKJ
(aside from capitalizations) you can see by reading the whole Psalm that it
was not intended to be taken as God speaking as Jesus; how could it be if it
was written by David? There are no more prophecies, so the final score is
Jews: 0, Christians: -18. You can determine your own conclusion from this
evidence, but I do not see how you could still believe in Jesus as anything
other than a false [and misrepresented] prophet.