Christians make assertions; atheists just ask for evidence. What Old Testament evidence is there that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah?

That is a fair request, and the Christian should answer it with evidence rather than with indignation. Peter commands exactly this: be ready to give a reason, with gentleness and respect.

1. The burden is accepted, not dodged. "Always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15). Notice that the command includes the manner as well as the content. An answer delivered with contempt has failed the instruction even if the argument is sound.

2. Isaiah 53 describes a suffering servant. "He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities" (Isaiah 53:5), and the chapter goes on to say he was numbered with transgressors and bore the sin of many. That a deliverer would suffer rather than conquer was not the expected messianic profile, which is why the text is argumentative rather than decorative.

3. Psalm 22 reads like a crucifixion report. It opens with the cry Jesus quoted from the cross, describes hands and feet being pierced, and has his garments divided by lot (Psalm 22:16-18). Crucifixion did not exist as a practice when the psalm was written, which is why skeptics have worked hard on the textual question in verse 16 rather than dismissing it.

4. The birthplace was named centuries earlier. "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel" (Micah 5:2). A Galilean execution victim from a village of no account is not who anyone would invent to fit that line.

5. The resurrection is the decisive evidence. Paul says Jesus was "declared to be the Son of God in power... by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4). That is a historical claim, investigable like any other: what best explains the empty tomb, the disciples' transformation, and the conversion of James and Paul? Prophecy identifies a candidate; the resurrection settles the case.

6. Jesus read the Old Testament this way himself. On the road to Emmaus, "beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27). Whatever else that is, it shows the messianic reading was not invented by later gentile Christians looking for proof texts.

7. Turn it around: the demand proves too much. If nothing counts as evidence short of deductive proof, then no historical claim qualifies, including the critic's own assertions about what Jesus did or did not do. History runs on inference to the best explanation, and the objection is applying to the resurrection a standard it applies to nothing else.

8. Jewish disagreement is real and should be stated. Jewish interpreters have read Isaiah 53's servant as Israel, read the psalms as David's own experience, and read the prophecies as describing an era rather than an individual. Those are serious readings held by serious readers for two thousand years. A Christian who pretends otherwise is not arguing honestly.

9. Christians disagree about the strength of individual texts. Some apologists build the case almost entirely on prophecy; others think prophecy is suggestive and put the weight on the resurrection. Some count typological fulfillments like Matthew's Egypt citation; others restrict themselves to direct predictions. That is a live disagreement inside the tradition, not a united front.

10. The case is cumulative, not a single silver bullet. Prophecy narrows the field, the resurrection confirms the identification, and the existence of a Messianic community that worshiped a crucified man requires explanation. Each strand can be attacked; the question is what explains all of them together. That is how historical arguments are supposed to work.

The Old Testament supplies a profile that first-century Jews were actively reading: a Davidic ruler from Bethlehem, a pierced and despised servant, a vindicated sufferer. Whether Jesus fits it is exactly the question the resurrection answers, and it is a question open to investigation rather than to assertion.

Sources: Michael L. Brown; Gregory Koukl; Tactics; Gary Habermas.

Related challenges:
• Please check your facts – the biblical account of Noah was derived from the Babylonian myth of Utanapishtim. Your mythical God didn’t 'inspire' it.
• Sorry Christians, but the creation account in Genesis is borrowed -- it is based on the Enuma Elish.
• Christian claims are not credible! Wouldn’t we expect SOME evidence of the exodus from Egypt, if it took place? 2.5 million people wandering around for 40 years in a specific geographic location...and NOTHING!