If Jesus was indeed the Messiah that was predicted, all one would have to do is to report what actually took place and it would appear that the story was written to show similarities to Isaiah chapter 53 and others such as Daniel chapter 7 verses. 13-14.
Yeah, all they had to do was quite simply
report the
observed fact that Jesus was conceived of a virgin, for example. Let's ignore, though, how it is that they would have witnessed the virgin birth.
There seems to be quite a bit of stuff written about Jesus in the NT, by the way, that the writers couldn't
possibly have observed (e.g., what Jesus does when nobody else is around--remember, if they were
witnesses, they
must have been around).
Naive people like myself could be led to believe that the writers did, in fact, not witness those events--
without even needing to appeal to things like inconvenient historical data. It's as if it's written specifically to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah.
But oh, how many things they wrote that fulfilled the prophecies! Could there be something to those events that the authors could not have possibly known, but wrote about?
(Let's also ignore that the "prophecies" were about other things... they are only prophecies insofar as it was a common belief that the holy texts had multiple interpretations--such as the ones the authors had in mind).
