IT is, because agian, he checks every mark of the false prophet

Lmao

It's a classic blunder.

The jews tried to say that centuries ago

And the Fathers of the Church already addressed

Isaiah 53 is not about the messiah

See Isaiah 43:9

**Isaiah 43:9 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<9> Let all the nations gather together, and let the peoples assemble. Who among them declared this, and foretold to us the former things? Let them bring their witnesses to justify them, and let them hear and say, "It is true."```

It can't be young woman, first becuse then there wouldn't be any sign of the messiah

Second, the same word is used to denote virgins

Or rather Isaiah 49:3

**Isaiah 49:3 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<3> And he said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified."```

Third, even the translation from HEbrew to greek before Christ translated it as virgin

> first becuse then there wouldn't be any sign of the messiah


That's literally begging the question. "It can't be young woman" because then it would not be about my messiah Jesus.

THat's literally standard circular reasoning.

No, because a young woman giving birth isn't something unusual

So it makes no sense that Isaiah would say that is a sign

lmao

It is not a messianic prophecy.

It's about Hezekiah IIRc.

It has been since before Christ was born lmao

Why should I think so?

Muslims already believe in the virgin birth and this passage is not about virgin birth nor a messiah

You did not engage my claims above about miracles, prophecies and war.

You completely droppted those and jumped the gun to prophecies about Jesus

IT is, for the reasons I have explained. It was seen as a messianic prophecy even before Christ. I have responded to every claim

Which Jesus failed to fulfill pretty much any (except donkey to Jerusalem)

Regarding miracles, Muhammed even had to come up with verses trying to explain why he had no miracles

>It was seen as a messianic prophecy even before Christ.

This is exactly what I am asking you to justify.

>Muhammed even had to come up with verses trying to explain why he had no miracles

That's not true.

You can't drop silly claims and expect me to take them as rebuttals.

Regarding war, Muhammed was bloodthirsty. He didnt just reluctantly participate in a war for a goal determine by God, he directs

let me check the exact number

>e didnt just reluctantly participate in a war for a goal determine by God,

That's literally circular reasoning again. For somebody who thinks Muhammad is a prophet. He would not share that assumption.

MORE than 15 military campagin. Source, these hadith: https://sunnah.com/search/?q=military+campaigns

Why should I believe that claim?

Sixteen military campaigns.

That also includes the mention of how he kept one fifth of the spoils of war for himself

And that's fine as said above. A lot of those were defensive or to spread a political empire.