You are not very informed. The Septuagint was written in Africa around 250-275 BCE. Therefore, if it has a prophesy of a first century CE fulfillment,.......
You gotta do beter than that.
You sure do seem to like to asusme a lot about people. Not uncommon, religion tends to foster arrogance in its believers, I'll try to ignore it.
The septuagint being written as late as the second century BC does not refute my point at all. The prophecy itself is very vague, it never actually flat out says Crucifiction, and considering the very questionable authorship of the Gospels(ie, they weren't written by the people they are named after, they were written as much as 60 years after the fact, and they all differ in multiple points), we do not know wether they are true in all details. The Bible as we know it today was bound together by the Council of Nicea, at which time the cannon of the Christian Church was decided on.
It would be one thing if any of the divine Bible claims could be verifed by other sources, but they cannot. We have only the Bible to substanitae that Jesus did any of the miraculous things he is reputed to have done, and even more so for the events of the old testament.
Like I said, you cannot use prophecy written of in only one book, and documented as fullfilled in only one book as evidence that such a prophecy was not only fullfilled but also substantiates the existence of your god.
We need more evidence than that. Otherwise all you have is 2000 year old book detailing all kinds of miraculous events that conviently no longer occur today when we could verify their validity.
As Cassieopia said, it would be one thing if you just stated, this is what I beleive because of my faith. I could accept that, though I certainly wouldn't accept it as true. It is when believers claim to have actual evidence, and it invariably turns out to be highly subjective, single source evidence such as the aforementioned prophecy that i take exception.