I don't get the relevance of the first point to the second
They're both big numbers, silly! They must be directly connecte-
Sorry, had an acute attack of numerology there. There's no connection.
Besides, the second figure is just laughably absurd. There's no way in hell any kind of figure could be put on the odds of us living in one of the possible universes, out of all possible universes, where Jesus existed and did exactly what was stated in the bible. You'd need a computer unimaginably bigger than the universe to even attempt something like that, and I'm pretty sure that it flies in the face of the uncertainty principle too.
Actually, come to think of it, the second paragraph isn't any kind of proof at all, it's actually a very strong disproof (or would be, if it were derived in some valid way, but we can't know that since there's no working and no citation given - quelle surprise.) To assert that the odds of Jesus fulfilling the prophesies are one in 1x10^157 is to assert that it's almost certain that it never happened. The whole post is just inane ramblings, there's no underlying rationality. Maybe the original poster simply associates big numbers with meaningfulness and truth, whilst failing to realise that the reciprocal of an unimaginably big number, as he quoted the odds, is a similarly unimaginably small number.
EDIT: Oh, wait, I get it now. The OP does in fact realise his assertion makes the odds vanishingly small, and takes that to make the assumed fact that it did happen all the more amazing; apparently he thinks such amazement constitutes proof. The "logic," for want of a better word, goes this way: The more unlikely an event, the more amazing it would be if it happened. Assuming it did happen (here's where we get into circular argument territory), the cause of that event is therefore similarly amazingly powerful for bringing it about. Since the cause, presumably god, is amazingly powerful, it must have really happened. Just a variant on traditional, fundie-tastic circular logic.
