Why are you (still) a Christian?

[LinuxGal]

You shouldn't pay so much attention to scholars and atheists. A prophecy of Jesus . . . 

Isaiah 9:6: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The only thing that was on his shoulders was a red robe for about five minutes, maybe, as the Romans mocked him as king of the Jews.  This prophecy was salt in his whip wounds. As for Jesus being the "Everlasting Father" that's a heresy called modalism.

[Data]

Prophesy is not prediction. Omen reading was forbidden. 
"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,"
Deeuteronomy 18:10

It was not a prophesy of Jesus. 
Isaiah was telling the King that HIS wife / consort was pregnant, and that they would win the war. 

Excellent, Bucky. Not only that but God doesn't see into the future like a fortune teller because the future doesn't exist. We can look into the past because it once existed but we can't look into the future. Fortune telling is either fake or demonic deception. God and demons can better see what could happen in the future than we can so they can deceive us - just like demons can more accurately recount the past and so deceive us into thinking spirits, that is ghosts or shades (shadows) are once living now dead humans.

Fascinating, isn't it?!

Let's see . . . what was I going to say? Oh, I know, case in point. At the trial of Jesus when they covered his head and slapped him they told him to prophecy to them who had done it. That didn't require seeing into the future. Prophecy means to proclaim, for example, something God can see will happen or will make happen. Like, for someone to say "I'm going to get ice cream" and then doing it, or "He's going to get ice cream." How did you know? "He always gets ice cream this time of day." Ezekiel prophesied to the wind. Ezekiel 37:9-10

ETA: But you were wrong about it not being a prophecy of Jesus. Sure, some think that. It was thought that the third son of Isaiah by a Jewish maiden who may have been Isaiah's second wife. Ahaz' son, Hezekiah. But it wasn't because the prophecy was given during Ahaz' reign and that would have made Hezekiah at least 9 years old. (Isaiah 7:1; 2 Kings 16:2; 18:1-2)

Others think Immanuel was Isaiah's second son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Yes, I said Maher-shalal-hash-baz. (Isaiah 8:1-4; 7:14, 16; 8:18) That's a close fit, but Isaiah's wife was a prophetess, not a maiden, and she was already the mother of Shear-jashub. (Isaiah 7:3; 8:3)

Now we're going to get into an argument about maiden and virgin.

[LinuxGal]

Didn't Isaiah also prophesy that Mary would name her child 'Immanuel'? Seems this whole prophecy thing is rather hit or myth.

Immanuel means god is with us. That prophecy was fulfilled at Matthew 1:22-23.

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God...

That's Jesus explicitly denying that he is "God with us".

[Bucky Ball]

The role of a prophet was never to tell the future. 
The entire Book of Isaiah was written with multiple references to the Suffering Servant, whom the writers make very clear is Israel, not Jesus. 

Isaiah 7 talks about the history of King Ahaz, son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, who was king of Judah. At the time, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, son of Remaliah, King of Israel, marched up to fight against Jerusalem, and the campaign was long and protracted. See the Syro-Ephraimite War, (Wikipedia : [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Ephraimite_War][color=#0e7ece] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Ephraimite_War ), and it happened in the 8th Century (734) BC. When Ahaz was loosing faith, Isaiah went to visit him, and told him to "buck up", keep the faith, and continue the war, and told him that the SIGN from god, that they were favored, was that one of his wives, (a "woman of marriageable age") would be found to be with child. The SIGN was the CHILD, (and NOT the manner of the birth .."And they shall name him Emmanuel" which means "god is with us". The CHILD was the SIGN. 

The word "virgin is a mistranslation, of a translation. So WE have a translation, of a mis-translation, of a translation. Matthew, writing in Greek about the "virgin birth" of Jesus, quotes the Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word "παρθένος" (parthenos,), (we still use the term "parthenogenesis") while the original Hebrew text has "עלמה" (almah), which has the slightly wider meaning of an unmarried, betrothed or newly-wed woman such as in the case of Ahaz' betrothed Abijah, daughter of Zechariah. He NEVER meant to imply that he was asserting "gynecological" claims, and THAT whole business was "off-the-wall", a mistranslation, taken to ridiculous extremes, by interpreters who missed the point. THE CHILD was the sign. Not a future child, the child of Ahaz. 
The Jews needed no Jesus. They were told in Isaiah that their sin was ALREADY forgiven by their suffering during the Exile.

Isaiah 40: 1-2
1] Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
[2] Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD's hand double for all her sins.

[LinuxGal]

Excellent, Bucky. Not only that but God doesn't see into the future like a fortune teller because the future doesn't exist.

On the contrary, it is written (Daniel 2:28): But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.

[Bucky Ball]

Prophesy is not prediction. Omen reading was forbidden. 
"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,"
Deeuteronomy 18:10

It was not a prophesy of Jesus. 
Isaiah was telling the King that HIS wife / consort was pregnant, and that they would win the war. 

Excellent, Bucky. Not only that but God doesn't see into the future like a fortune teller because the future doesn't exist. We can look into the past because it once existed but we can't look into the future. Fortune telling is either fake or demonic deception. God and demons can better see what could happen in the future than we can so they can deceive us - just like demons can more accurately recount the past and so deceive us into thinking spirits, that is ghosts or shades (shadows) are once living now dead humans.

Fascinating, isn't it?!

Let's see . . . what was I going to say? Oh, I know, case in point. At the trial of Jesus when they covered his head and slapped him they told him to prophecy to them who had done it. That didn't require seeing into the future. Prophecy means to proclaim, for example, something God can see will happen or will make happen. Like, for someone to say "I'm going to get ice cream" and then doing it, or "He's going to get ice cream." How did you know? "He always gets ice cream this time of day." Ezekiel prophesied to the wind. Ezekiel 37:9-10

ETA: Wait a minute, I forgot I have more to add.

There was no trial. Galilean peasants never got trials before Roman aristocrats. Reading the passions, they are very different, not even on the same day, one says he was silent one says he gave a long speech. They made it all up. Trouble-makers were summarily executed and tossed into a common grave. 
Some day, you really should take History 101. .

[Data]

You shouldn't pay so much attention to scholars and atheists. A prophecy of Jesus . . . 

Isaiah 9:6: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The only thing that was on his shoulders was a red robe for about five minutes, maybe, as the Romans mocked him as king of the Jews.  This prophecy was salt in his whip wounds. As for Jesus being the "Everlasting Father" that's a heresy called modalism.

You find it difficult to stay focused on the topic? The point is, your allegation of Isaiah's monotheism is faulty.

[Data]

There was no trial. Galilean peasants never got trials before Roman aristocrats. Reading the passions, they are very different, not even on the same day, one says he was silent one says he gave a long speech. They made it all up. Trouble-makers were summarily executed and tossed into a common grave. 
Some day, you really should take History 101. .

You really should at least attempt to supply some evidence of all of that.

[Bucky Ball]

There was no trial. Galilean peasants never got trials before Roman aristocrats. Reading the passions, they are very different, not even on the same day, one says he was silent one says he gave a long speech. They made it all up. Trouble-makers were summarily executed and tossed into a common grave. 
Some day, you really should take History 101. .

You really should at least attempt to supply some evidence of all of that.

You really should learn some history and how Romans treated occupied peoples.

[Bucky Ball]

The only thing that was on his shoulders was a red robe for about five minutes, maybe, as the Romans mocked him as king of the Jews.  This prophecy was salt in his whip wounds. As for Jesus being the "Everlasting Father" that's a heresy called modalism.

You find it difficult to stay focused on the topic? The point is, your allegation of Isaiah's monotheism is faulty.

Unfortunately for Data again, he's 110 % wrong.

Data again reveals his utter ignorance. What would one expect of a self-taught idiot ? 
Isaiah 44:6 contains a clear statement of monotheism: "I am the first and I am the last; beside me there is no God".
In Isaiah 44:09–20, this is developed into a satire on the making and worship of idols, mocking the foolishness of the carpenter who worships the idol that he himself has carved. 

The ENTIRE Book of Isaiah which this guy never read, is a set of admonitions to the Jews that the Exile was caused by their worship of other gods / idols.
I mean, look at the big picture. He doesn't even get the subject matter of the entire book.