The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
talmid
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is Jesus the Messiah?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 910 times Debate No: 85820
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (0)

 

harrytruman

Pro

I reviewed all the evidences you provided, you make a very compelling case, and you got me to question the New Testament.
I think that there is enough evidence that it mandates a debate to settle it and to come to a undeniable conclusion.
So I hope you accept this debate.
talmid

Con

Jesus is not the Messiah because he did not fulfill any of the Messianic prophecies, which are:

1. Rebuild the Holy Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)
Not only did he fail to do this, but he even asked that they destroy the Temple according to your book, so that he could "rebuild it in three days" (John 2:19). Furthermore, not long after he died, the Temple was actually destroyed.
2. Gather all of the Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:6)
Not only did he fail to do this, but after his death there was great dispersion, to the best of my knowledge.
3. Usher an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. (Isaiah 2:4)
Hahaha... He failed big time on this one! How many people have suffered and died in the name of Jesus? He indirectly caused the exact opposite of what he was supposed to do.
4. Spread universal knowledge of the G-d of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. (Zechariah 14:9)
This one was a massive failure. People turned him and his mother, and the "holy spirit" into gods. They also turned "the father" into some kind of corporeal being. Pure avodah zarah... And the worst part - they claim that this "Trinity" nonsense is the same G-d of the Old Testament! Such a repulsive perversion!.

If you will come and claim that he fulfilled other prophecies, that wouldn't help you. IF he fulfilled EVERY prophecy except for ONE, he is not the Messiah. He needs to fulfill them ALL. To say that he will "come again" is also false, because you can say the same of Bar Kokhba. There are plenty of other reasons why Jesus is not the Messiah, but I don't think it's necessary to go into them. Hopefully this is enough evidence.
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

Jesus is not the Messiah because he did not fulfill any of the Messianic prophecies, which are:

1. Rebuild the Holy Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)
Not only did he fail to do this, but he even asked that they destroy the Temple according to your book, so that he could "rebuild it in three days" (John 2:19). Furthermore, not long after he died, the Temple was actually destroyed.

Ezekiel 37:24-28 reads like this:
"David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in my judgments and observe my statutes, and do them. 25 Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children"s children, forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 The nations also will know that I, the LORD, sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore."

So this verse is actually talking about what G-d will do, not what the Messiah will do, and it is referring to a event unrelated to the Messiah.

John 2:19-22:
"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"
Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?"
But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them;[c] and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said."

He was not talking about the real temple, he meant his body.

2. Gather all of the Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:6)
Not only did he fail to do this, but after his death there was great dispersion, to the best of my knowledge.

This was for the second coming, not a violation.

3. Usher an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. (Isaiah 2:4)
Hahaha... He failed big time on this one! How many people have suffered and died in the name of Jesus? He indirectly caused the exact opposite of what he was supposed to do.

This was for the second coming, not a violation.

4. Spread universal knowledge of the G-d of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. (Zechariah 14:9)

It says that G-d will be the only G-d being worshipped, it is talking about the world to come AFTER the Messiah, this is after the second coming, hence, not a violation.

This one was a massive failure. People turned him and his mother, and the "holy spirit" into gods. They also turned "the father" into some kind of corporeal being. Pure avodah zarah... And the worst part - they claim that this "Trinity" nonsense is the same G-d of the Old Testament! Such a repulsive perversion!.

Jesus never teached a "trinity", this was something the Catholic Church invented, because this "trinity" came from their religion. They backed it up with scriptures where G-d is referred to "G-d the father", and ones where something called "the Holy Spirit" is mentioned.
It is a doctrine, not in the New Testament, it would be like if some Jews got together and decided to make a trinity off of "Adonai, Moses, and Y-H-V-H", even though "Adonai" and "Y-H-V-H" are just two different names for G-d, and Moses is NOT G-d, he was a prophet and never claimed to be anything more. Then I decided to say Judaism is a false religion because some Jews made a doctrine COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the Torah.
Likewise, the New Testament refers to G-d as "G-d the father", but gives him a second name "the Holy Ghost".
The reference to G-d described as "the Holy Spirit" is actually in the Old Testament too, in Ezekiel 11:24. This was a misinterpretation by the Church.

If you will come and claim that he fulfilled other prophecies, that wouldn't help you. IF he fulfilled EVERY prophecy except for ONE, he is not the Messiah. He needs to fulfill them ALL. To say that he will "come again" is also false, because you can say the same of Bar Kokhba. There are plenty of other reasons why Jesus is not the Messiah, but I don't think it's necessary to go into them. Hopefully this is enough evidence.

I disproved them, please send more evidences.
talmid

Con

EZEKIEL 37:24-28, THE HOLY TEMPLE:
IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED, the words "my servant David" appears about 50 times in this chapter, which is an obvious reference to the Messiah who is the son of David. This temple being built will occur in the days of the Messiah. This did not happen in Jesus' days, and so there is no possible way that he could ever be the Messiah. And about that nonsense in John, why would he call his body a "temple"? Just to troll the Pharisees? When they objected to his horrendous statement, he didn't respond, which shows further that he just wanted to cause confusion. In Judea, "temple" was synonymous with the Holy Temple. When you said "temple", everyone knew what you were talking about. Why would Jesus say something that is to be so easily misunderstood? And how can a man possibly be a "temple"? Perhaps for a split second, the dimensions of Jesus' body changed and he all of the sudden became a temple?

SECOND COMING:
I have said this before and I say it again, with no shame at all: The Christians are the masters of lies and deceit. They love to invent lies, mix things in with the story, and they do it all in order to manipulate the public to believe and live by their lies. A prime example of this is the blood libels. Priests would deliver powerful sermons to their ignorant followers who probably never read the Bible once in their lives, and they would say, "Passover is arriving! The Jews need the blood of Christians in order to make their matzas!" Then the Christians used to take a dead body, and sometimes even go so far as to kill a person, and take their body, throw it into the yard of a Jew, and then when the morning came, they'd say: "This Jew killed that person and used his blood for his Passover matzas!". Thereupon, the ignorant Christians used this as an excuse to kill and torture Jews. That is but one example: The example that we have here is called the "Second Coming".These evil manipulative Christians knew that Jesus did not fulfill jack diddly squat, like rebuilding the temple, regathering the Jews, the era of peace, etc, etc, so in order to circumvent all of these issues, they invented the a very convenient doctrine by the name of the "Second Coming." This doctrine teaches that while Jesus (And Bar Kokhba) did not do anything that we expected him to, that is of no avail, because he will come back and then he will fulfill all of the prophecies. This is an extremely stupid doctrine for two reasons:

1. It applies to me and to you no less. I can claim that I am the Messiah, and obviously you'll ask me to prove it by fulfilling the Messianic prophecies. Thereupon, I can simply state: "Not now. I will however fulfill the prophecies NEXT time when I come back!" Thus, I will die, and for all generations people will claim that I am the Messiah and I will eventually come back and fulfill the prophecies. Why? Because of my convenient excuse, which by the way has ---

2. --- zero basis in the Old Testament. IF in the Bible we saw an explicit verse which states: "The Messiah will come, and then he will leave, and then he will come back.", THEN and ONLY THEN will we be able to believe in the Second Coming. Since there is no such verse anywhere in the entire Bible, to claim that Jesus will come back is false, and like I said above, it applies no less to me, to you. When someone leaves the world, all possibility of him being the Messiah is immediately gone. Examples of such people are Shabtai Tzvi, Jacob Frank, Simon bar Kokhba, Jesus of Nazareth, Moses of Crete, and many others.

Shalom.
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

"EZEKIEL 37:24-28, THE HOLY TEMPLE:
IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED, the words "my servant David" appears about 50 times in this chapter, which is an obvious reference to the Messiah who is the son of David. This temple being built will occur in the days of the Messiah. This did not happen in Jesus' days, and so there is no possible way that he could ever be the Messiah. And about that nonsense in John, why would he call his body a "temple"? Just to troll the Pharisees? When they objected to his horrendous statement, he didn't respond, which shows further that he just wanted to cause confusion. In Judea, "temple" was synonymous with the Holy Temple. When you said "temple", everyone knew what you were talking about. Why would Jesus say something that is to be so easily misunderstood? And how can a man possibly be a "temple"? Perhaps for a split second, the dimensions of Jesus' body changed and he all of the sudden became a temple?"

I don"t know, all I know is that he meant temple. Also, the Torah is full of metaphorical language, it is possible that it was referring to a figurative temple, just like Jesus was referring to a figurative temple.

"SECOND COMING:
I have said this before and I say it again, with no shame at all: The Christians are the masters of lies and deceit. They love to invent lies, mix things in with the story, and they do it all in order to manipulate the public to believe and live by their lies."

You don"t think I am a master of deceit do you?

"A prime example of this is the blood libels. Priests would deliver powerful sermons to their ignorant followers who probably never read the Bible once in their lives, and they would say, "Passover is arriving! The Jews need the blood of Christians in order to make their matzas!" Then the Christians used to take a dead body, and sometimes even go so far as to kill a person, and take their body, throw it into the yard of a Jew, and then when the morning came, they'd say: "This Jew killed that person and used his blood for his Passover matzas!". Thereupon, the ignorant Christians used this as an excuse to kill and torture Jews."

I know this, I read about it in "Towers of Gold", it was a bunch of anti-Semitism the Catholic Church would stir up to get people to kill Jews. I get it! We have a terrible history! But it"s just like you said:
"Don"t judge a religion on what its supposed followers do."

"That is but one example: The example that we have here is called the "Second Coming".These evil manipulative Christians knew that Jesus did not fulfill jack diddly squat, like rebuilding the temple, regathering the Jews, the era of peace, etc, etc, so in order to circumvent all of these issues, they invented the a very convenient doctrine by the name of the "Second Coming." This doctrine teaches that while Jesus (And Bar Kokhba) did not do anything that we expected him to, that is of no avail, because he will come back and then he will fulfill all of the prophecies. This is an extremely stupid doctrine for two reasons:

1. It applies to me and to you no less. I can claim that I am the Messiah, and obviously you'll ask me to prove it by fulfilling the Messianic prophecies. Thereupon, I can simply state: "Not now. I will however fulfill the prophecies NEXT time when I come back!" Thus, I will die, and for all generations people will claim that I am the Messiah and I will eventually come back and fulfill the prophecies. Why? Because of my convenient excuse, which by the way has ---

2. --- zero basis in the Old Testament. IF in the Bible we saw an explicit verse which states: "The Messiah will come, and then he will leave, and then he will come back.", THEN and ONLY THEN will we be able to believe in the Second Coming. Since there is no such verse anywhere in the entire Bible, to claim that Jesus will come back is false, and like I said above, it applies no less to me, to you. When someone leaves the world, all possibility of him being the Messiah is immediately gone. Examples of such people are Shabtai Tzvi, Jacob Frank, Simon bar Kokhba, Jesus of Nazareth, Moses of Crete, and many others."

There is a good reason to believe in the second coming, you see, in the prophecies of the Messiah, it separates into two types: type A; The Messiah comes and destroys the enemies of the Jews, and type B; The Messiah comes and dies for peoples sins.
The Messiah won"t do these two types of prophecies in one coming, how could he? So this indicates a second coming, you already know all the type A prophecies, so here is the type B prophecies:
Psalm 22:14-16 " "My life is poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax, melting within me. My strength has dried up like sunbaked clay. My tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth. You have laid me in the dust and left me for dead. My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs; an evil gang closes in on me. They have pierced my hands and feet."
Zechariah 12:10 " "Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on all the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for Him as for an only son."

Isaiah 53:
"Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And they[a] made His grave with the wicked"
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[b] and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors."

G-d will not send destruction on people until he has sent them some kind of messenger. This is why he didn"t come and wipe people off the face of the earth in his first coming. It"s like Jonah, G-d didn"t just rain fire and brimstone; he sent a messenger first.
So the second coming thing is not only in accordance with the Messianic Prophecies, it is more in concordance with the Messianic Prophecies than the idea that the Messiah will just wipe the evil people off the face of the earth. He ALWAYS offers a chance at redemption first.

"Shalom."

Have a Shalom-y day yourself.

P.S. Send more evidences!
talmid

Con

IGNORED ARGUMENTS:
You completely ignored the following of my arguments:
- I proved to you that the Ezekiel passage was refering to the Messiah. You argued that it was metephoric, providing zero evidence whatsoever. I would argue that it is meant literally; that the Messiah will rebuild the Temple, because the passage speaks about the Temple being rebuilt by the context of the words "My servant David". Since King David ZTL is no longer with us, it is obviously refering to his infamous son to come, the Messiah.
- I pointed out the stupidity of the passage in which Jesus calls his temple a body, and you left that unanswered.
- I pointed out that the Second Coming is a foolish doctrine because A: It can be easily said of anyone else, including you, me, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Muammar Gaddafi, and their like; B: It has zero Biblical basis and C: It is far too convenient and is obviously a false doctrine invented to circumvent many issues with Jesus and Christianity. You did not address any of this, instead you decided to share why you feel the Second Coming is true; without having answered even a single one of my objections to it. You either missed these arguments, or you intentionally ignored them because you have no answer. If the latter were true, I wouldn't blame you in the slightest, since you don't hold the truth, and thus, there are no answers. However, I strongly condone your giving up this lie; it would be very beneficial to you.

YOUR MISINTERPRETING SCRIPTURE:
You cited three Scriptural passages in an attempt to prove that Jesus is the Messiah by means of being "pierced". I have not studied these passages extensively, however, I stand strong in disagreement with their having to do with Jesus, and now, I shall show you why:
- The first passage which you cited is Psalms 22:14-16, which speaks of suffering. This particular psalm was written by King David (as evidenced by the first verse) probably in his earlier years before he became king. As you know, David spent a good portion of his life fleeing from enemies (like Saul, his own son Absalom, Sheva ben Bichri, etc etc). Thus, we can conclude that he was speaking of his hardships while he was being pursued. "My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs; an evil gang closes in on me" - Sounds mighty familiar doesn't it? Obviously a reference to David's fleeing from his enemies. Now, I have proven that this verse refers to David, but in order to further demonstrate that this is not talking about Jesus, I will prove that also via Biblical exegesis.
- Notice the words "All my life is poured out like water, and my bones are all out of joint." According to the New Testament, Jesus spent all of his life peacefully, and only suffered for a mere 3-6 hours at the very end. Thus, you cannot say that "all" my life is poured out like water. This cannot apply to Jesus, but it works fine with King David, who knew no rest for most of his years, especially after he sinned with Bathsheba (since he spent the majority of his life fasting after that).
- Notice the words "all my bones are out of joint". I don't recall the Romans having dislocated his bones in the NT. Wasn't he flogged and then crucified? As for David's bones being dislocated, this is a possibility, since the inflictions that were bestowed upon him are not specified and detailed.
- Notice the words "You have laid me in the dust and left me for the dead". I have no issue with the first part of this, since Jesus did die after all, but what about the second part? "and left me for the dead" - Didn't Jesus come back afterwards? Thus, he could not be called one who was left for the dead.
In a nutshell, you basically took the words "They pierced my hands and feet" (in the past tense, obviously not a reference to Jesus) and decided that this refers to Jesus' crucifixion. Very immature if you ask me.

- The second passage which you cited is Zechariah 12:10. You can clearly tell (by looking at the first verse of the chapter, ya know, UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT) that this is speaking about the future destruction of Jerusalem. Verse 10 speaks of how the people will mourn for the destruction. A proof of this concept: It mentions "Hadadrimmon who died in the plains of Megiddo" - this is a reference to King Josiah, who died in the battlefield of Megiddo in a fight against Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23:29-30). ALL of Judah mourned for their beloved, pious, righteous and saintly king, Josiah (II Chronicles 35:24), about whom it is written: "He was eight years old when he became king... He ruled for 31 years in Jerusalem, and he did what was right in the eyes of Hashem, as did his father David, and he did not turn to the right or to the left..." (2 Chronicles 34:1-2). The meaning of this verse is that the ALL of Judah will mourn for Jerusalem, as they mourned for the righteous Josiah, whose precious jewel of a soul was taken from under the Throne of Glory and gifted to the world, and it was taken from the world and put back where it came from.

- The third passage which you cited is the Isaiah 53. A friend of mine did an excellent exegesis proving that this cannot possibly refer to Jesus, even if it WAS a prophecy about the Messiah (which it is not.) I can't go through the whole thing because I have limited characters, but here are some of his arguments:

Isaiah 53:3 states "Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account." You cannot call Jesus "despised and rejected by men", since he is worshipped worldwide by millions of people. He was only despised and rejected for a short period of time, by a minority; the people of Judea. You cannot call Jesus a "man of pains and accustomed to illness" because according to your book, he lived most of his life peacefully, and only suffered at the very end, for 3-5 hours; at most a day. You cannot call someone who lives in bliss his whole life and then suffers for one day a "main of pains". Also, the NT does not report Jesus having ever been ill, therefore, Jesus does not meet the criteria of this verse. 53:7: "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth." Was Jesus quiet on the day of his crucifixion according to the NT? No, therefore it can't be about him. Also, see Matt.26:39, 27:46 & John18:36 as proof he wasn't silent. 53:8: "From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell THEM." This is a great example of this suffering servant not being Jesus or even a single person. The Hebrew word "THEM" is plural, not singular. Here's one proof of the word "lamo" being in the plural, Isaiah 48:21. (the hebrew word used here is "lamo" which is plural. I can go on further but obviously I wont, unless these arguments are insufficient.

CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALS:
This was put here because it doesn't fit with any of the relevant topics above. Nevertheless, it is important to bring this up since you argued that;
1. While it is true that Christians in the past did horrible things, that does not mean they were right
2. The Messianic prophecies are divided into two categories: 1. Dying for the sins and 2. The actual prophecies. Thus, there is no contradiction (according to your false perception. In my opinion, the Second Coming is nonsense, for the reasons I explained above.)
I will point out the flaws of this, and how evil it is. Forgive me if this is a bit out of context, I'm copying and pasting this from an essay that I wrote a while ago: Here goes,

One of the principles of the Christian faith is that if you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, he will redeem you from all of your sins which you have committed and you will not receive any punishment. Christianity is supposed to be a sequel of Judaism, and Judaism teaches that if you commit a sin which is Bein Adam L'chavero (between man and his friend), you cannot ask G-d for forgiveness, rather you must ask the man whom you have hurt for forgiveness. It is not logical for G-d to forgive you for something that you did to somebody else. That is why we teach that it is necessary to apologize to those whom you have wronged, and only then can you repent to G-d. The Christian fundamental that you can be forgiven for your sins so long as you accept Jesus is grossly immoral, allow me to explain why: First of all, all of the Jews who died in the Holocaust were not Christians, they did not accept Jesus. However, there are many historians who believe that Hitler was a Christian. In that case, according to the disgusting Christian philosophy, the Jews who died in the Holocaust are burning in Hell and Hitler, the one who murdered them is enjoying himself in Heaven. Can it get any more immoral than that? A man who does evil and accepts Jesus is considered righteous by Christian philosophy, and one who is righteous but does not accept Jesus is considered wicked. This is grossly immoral, I'm sure you can agree. A fundamental principle of Christianity is that Jesus died for the sins of humanity. This is very flawed and I will explain why: First of all, the Tanach says in three different places that fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor sons for their fathers, rather each man shall die for HIS OWN SIN. Therefore, this is a direct contradiction to the Tanach and therefore Christianity cannot be from the same G-d who revealed the Tanach. Also if I might add, how was this a sacrifice at all? According to your story, Jesus came back to life and merited reward afterwards, and even before his "sacrifice", he knew that he'd come back to life. Therefore how is that a sacrifice at all? Heck, I'd die a million times over if I knew I'd become a demigod with eternal reward afterwards.

Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

"You completely ignored the following of my arguments:
- I proved to you that the Ezekiel passage was refering to the Messiah. You argued that it was metephoric, providing zero evidence whatsoever. I would argue that it is meant literally; that the Messiah will rebuild the Temple, because the passage speaks about the Temple being rebuilt by the context of the words "My servant David". Since King David ZTL is no longer with us, it is obviously refering to his infamous son to come, the Messiah."

Actually I said that it was referring to The Messiah being with them, and that "temple" was metaphorical speech referring to the Messiah, seeing as though it says "my sanctuary and my temple will be with them", not "the messiah will rebuild the temple."

"- I pointed out the stupidity of the passage in which Jesus calls his temple a body, and you left that unanswered."

I don"t know how to, stupidity is objective.

"- I pointed out that the Second Coming is a foolish doctrine because A: It can be easily said of anyone else, including you, me, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Muammar Gaddafi, and their like; B: It has zero Biblical basis and C: It is far too convenient and is obviously a false doctrine invented to circumvent many issues with Jesus and Christianity. You did not address any of this, instead you decided to share why you feel the Second Coming is true; without having answered even a single one of my objections to it. You either missed these arguments, or you intentionally ignored them because you have no answer. If the latter were true, I wouldn't blame you in the slightest, since you don't hold the truth, and thus, there are no answers. However, I strongly condone your giving up this lie; it would be very beneficial to you."

I pointed out that there are many verses indicating that the Messiah would come first to die for the sins of the people, then come back and smite the evil people. This is because G-d ALWAYS sends some kind of warning and a chance for redemption before he rains fire and brimstone on them.
Then again his miracles amount to healings + raising the dead, and no one claims that Dr. Robert Cornish was the Messiah when he brought back a heart attack victim that died 1 or 2 days before.
Then again Dr. Robert Cornish did it by accident, only once, and the victim only came back partially and for 5 seconds, and he didn"t heal anyone.

"YOUR MISINTERPRETING SCRIPTURE:
You cited three Scriptural passages in an attempt to prove that Jesus is the Messiah by means of being "pierced". I have not studied these passages extensively, however, I stand strong in disagreement with their having to do with Jesus, and now, I shall show you why:"
- The first passage which you cited is Psalms 22:14-16, which speaks of suffering. This particular psalm was written by King David (as evidenced by the first verse) probably in his earlier years before he became king. As you know, David spent a good portion of his life fleeing from enemies (like Saul, his own son Absalom, Sheva ben Bichri, etc etc). Thus, we can conclude that he was speaking of his hardships while he was being pursued. "My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs; an evil gang closes in on me" - Sounds mighty familiar doesn't it? Obviously a reference to David's fleeing from his enemies. Now, I have proven that this verse refers to David, but in order to further demonstrate that this is not talking about Jesus, I will prove that also via Biblical exegesis.

Except Psalms are consistently referring to G-d, not King David.

"- Notice the words "All my life is poured out like water, and my bones are all out of joint." According to the New Testament, Jesus spent all of his life peacefully, and only suffered for a mere 3-6 hours at the very end. Thus, you cannot say that "all" my life is poured out like water. This cannot apply to Jesus, but it works fine with King David, who knew no rest for most of his years, especially after he sinned with Bathsheba (since he spent the majority of his life fasting after that)."

Actually, this is inconclusive.

"- Notice the words "all my bones are out of joint". I don't recall the Romans having dislocated his bones in the NT. Wasn't he flogged and then crucified? As for David's bones being dislocated, this is a possibility, since the inflictions that were bestowed upon him are not specified and detailed."

This was a standard result of crucifixion, for everyone who was crucified, this was what happened.

"- Notice the words "You have laid me in the dust and left me for the dead". I have no issue with the first part of this, since Jesus did die after all, but what about the second part? "and left me for the dead" - Didn't Jesus come back afterwards? Thus, he could not be called one who was left for the dead."

Agreed, this verse was not referring to the Messiah.

"In a nutshell, you basically took the words "They pierced my hands and feet" (in the past tense, obviously not a reference to Jesus) and decided that this refers to Jesus' crucifixion. Very immature if you ask me."

Actually, these prophecies commonly refer to future events in the past/present tense, "unto us a child IS given, unto us a son HAS BEEN born", see?

"- The second passage which you cited is Zechariah 12:10. You can clearly tell (by looking at the first verse of the chapter, ya know, UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT) that this is speaking about the future destruction of Jerusalem. Verse 10 speaks of how the people will mourn for the destruction. A proof of this concept: It mentions "Hadadrimmon who died in the plains of Megiddo" - this is a reference to King Josiah, who died in the battlefield of Megiddo in a fight against Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23:29-30). ALL of Judah mourned for their beloved, pious, righteous and saintly king, Josiah (II Chronicles 35:24), about whom it is written: "He was eight years old when he became king... He ruled for 31 years in Jerusalem, and he did what was right in the eyes of Hashem, as did his father David, and he did not turn to the right or to the left..." (2 Chronicles 34:1-2). The meaning of this verse is that the ALL of Judah will mourn for Jerusalem, as they mourned for the righteous Josiah, whose precious jewel of a soul was taken from under the Throne of Glory and gifted to the world, and it was taken from the world and put back where it came from."

You"re right, these are NOT Messianic prophecies, Agreed.

"- The third passage which you cited is the Isaiah 53. A friend of mine did an excellent exegesis proving that this cannot possibly refer to Jesus, even if it WAS a prophecy about the Messiah (which it is not.) I can't go through the whole thing because I have limited characters, but here are some of his arguments:

Isaiah 53:3 states "Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account." You cannot call Jesus "despised and rejected by men", since he is worshipped worldwide by millions of people. He was only despised and rejected for a short period of time, by a minority; the people of Judea. You cannot call Jesus a "man of pains and accustomed to illness" because according to your book, he lived most of his life peacefully, and only suffered at the very end, for 3-5 hours; at most a day. You cannot call someone who lives in bliss his whole life and then suffers for one day a "main of pains". Also, the NT does not report Jesus having ever been ill, therefore, Jesus does not meet the criteria of this verse. 53:7: "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth." Was Jesus quiet on the day of his crucifixion according to the NT? No, therefore it can't be about him. Also, see Matt.26:39, 27:46 & John18:36 as proof he wasn't silent. 53:8: "From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell THEM." This is a great example of this suffering servant not being Jesus or even a single person. The Hebrew word "THEM" is plural, not singular. Here's one proof of the word "lamo" being in the plural, Isaiah 48:21. (the hebrew word used here is "lamo" which is plural. I can go on further but obviously I wont, unless these arguments are insufficient."

He was despised and rejected by men when he was alive, but I can"t think of an explanation for the "pains and illness" part.

CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALS:
This was put here because it doesn't fit with any of the relevant topics above. Nevertheless, it is important to bring this up since you argued that;
1. While it is true that Christians in the past did horrible things, that does not mean they were right
2. The Messianic prophecies are divided into two categories: 1. Dying for the sins and 2. The actual prophecies. Thus, there is no contradiction (according to your false perception. In my opinion, the Second Coming is nonsense, for the reasons I explained above.)
I will point out the flaws of this, and how evil it is. Forgive me if this is a bit out of context, I'm copying and pasting this from an essay that I wrote a while ago: Here goes,
One of the principles of the Christian faith is that if you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, he will redeem you from all of your sins which you have committed and you will not receive any punishment. Christianity is supposed to be a sequel of Judaism, and Judaism teaches that if you commit a sin which is Bein Adam L'chavero (between man and his friend), you cannot ask G-d for forgiveness, rather you must ask the man whom you have hurt for forgiveness. It is not logical for G-d to forgive you for something that you did to somebody else. That is why we teach that it is necessary to apologize to those whom you have wronged, and only then can you repent to G-d. The Christian fundamental that you can be forgiven for your sins so long as you accept Jesus is grossly immoral, allow me to explain why: First of all, all of the Jews who died in the Holocaust were not Christians, they did not accept Jesus. However, there are many historians who believe that Hitler was a Christian. In that case, according to the disgusting Christian philosophy, the Jews who died in the Holocaust are burning in Hell and Hitler, the one who murdered them is enjoying himself in Heaven. Can it get any more immoral than that? A man who does evil and accepts Jesus is considered righteous by Christian philosophy, and one who is righteous but does not accept Jesus is considered wicked. This is grossly immoral, I'm sure you can agree. A fundamental principle of Christianity is that Jesus died for the sins of humanity. This is very flawed and I will explain why: First of all, the Tanach says in three different places that fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor sons for their fathers, rather each man shall die for HIS OWN SIN. Therefore, this is a direct contradiction to the Tanach and therefore Christianity cannot be from the same G-d who revealed the Tanach. Also if I might add, how was this a sacrifice at all? According to your story, Jesus came back to life and merited reward afterwards, and even before his "sacrifice", he knew that he'd come back to life. Therefore how is that a sacrifice at all? Heck, I'd die a million times over if I knew I'd become a demigod with eternal reward afterwards.

This is a doctrine, you won"t find it in the New Testament; in fact there is many New Testament verses that are openly against this doctrine:
Romans 6:1-2:
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?"
This translates into:
"What will you say? Will we live in sin because G-d will forgive us for it? If you are saved you would not live this way."

Matthew 5:23-24:
"Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering."
This translates into:
"If you repent to G-d, G-d won"t forgive you unless you make it right with the person you wronged."

Furthermore, in the story of Zacchaeus, Zacchaeus didn"t just "say a prayer", he had to reconcile with every person he wronged to be saved. So this doctrine is completely unbiblical, if you want to explain how evil it is, you won"t find any argument here, I am very familiar with the evil doctrines in Christianity.
talmid

Con

INFORMAL RESPONSES:
I take personal offense that I wrote a lengthy responsa, squeezing all of my arguments into my limited characters (using every last character), refuting and debunking much of your shtuyot and you responded with a few words, not even a line, very informally, not addressing or refuting any of my points, but rather just making a claim in regard to what I said. E.x, "Actually that's inconclusive." Heck, it probably took you less than ten minutes to write that petty response. It goes to show how much respect you have for me, for religion, for G-d, and for the truth. You could not even sit yourself down and consider what I'm saying, but rather, you hastily wrote your response informally and did not attempt to refute many of my claims, or analyze them and debunk them according to the laws of logical reasoning, but rather you simply made a tiny insignificant comment and carried on.

RESPONSUM:
Again, you left many of my arguments unaddressed. Here are the arguments which you ignored or pettily answered:
- I pointed out that the verse referring to the Temple being built in the days of the Messiah. You argued that this Temple is actually a metaphoric reference to the Messiah, but that can only come from the mouth of one who has no understanding of Scripture. The verses read "David" and ALSO "the sanctuary". When it says that David will be among them, and additionally the temple, they cannot both be the same. Thus, we can LOGICALLY conclude that the Messiah and the temple are two completely different things here in this verse.
- I pointed out that if Jesus were speaking of his body when he said temple, why did he speak in the context of the actual Holy Temple? I further demonstrated his trolling which made it appear that he had malevolent intentions. Either that, or he was simply stupid.
- After I destroyed the Second Coming doctrine, you continuously argued on its behalf according to your own understanding, but you never refuted any of my claims. Now, you come again and say that you pointed out verses (which were all refuted in my previous argument, and thus it is foolish to bring it up again) which indicate that the Messiah will come twice, once as a warning and the second time to do what he was supposed to do.
This is very false. First of all, even if you were right, Jesus did not serve as a warning for anyone except for the few individuals who saw him personally perform his miracles. Also, even if the whole world DID see Jesus perform his miracles, that still doesn't serve as a warning for us. Thus, if you were right, in this context, he should have been crucified after he served as the warning, and then immediately come back and stay with us forever, fulfilling the Messianic prophecies. Instead, he came back three days later and then mysteriously vanished from the earth. Thus, we have a fortiori issue. First, if you were right, he only served as a warning for the few people who saw him. Second, if he truly was a warning, he should have come back immediately afterwards, after he served as the warning. Third, for the past two thousand years, he hasn't exactly served as much of a warning, even if he did appear to the whole world once (Which he didn't.) Logically flawed.
- The Psalms were written BY David TO G-d, kind of like a love letter. David talks to G-d about his personal life, his experiences, what's happening in his current situations, etc. Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi shlit'a made an excellent set of lectures called "The Psalms Series", in which he explains all of the Psalms in detail, and their meanings, and he talks about what situation David was in when he wrote the psalms. It truly is heart-touching and inspiring to learn about the Psalms in-depth, when David wrote them, what situation he was in, and what he was thinking. E.g, "A psalm by David as he was fleeing from his son Absalom." (Psalm 3)
- I argued that the words "my bones are all out of joint" could not have been a reference to Jesus, since during crucifixion, they did not exactly de-socket his joins. Crucifixion does not result in the dislocation of the bones. They took him, beat him, nailed his hands and feet to a cross, put a spear in his gut, and left him there to rot in the sun. No dislocating of the bones was involved. (This is all hypothetically speaking ~ I personally don't believe that Jesus was crucified at all. Crucifixion has never been, is not, and will never be a form of Jewish capital punishment. There is lashing, strangulation, decapitation, burning, and stoning, but not crucifixion. If you should argue that the Jews turned him over to the Romans and thus the crucifixion makes more sense since the Romans had no problem with crucifixion, I would argue that it is one of the biggest sins in the Torah to turn over any Jew, even a heretical one, over to the gentiles. If he is guilty of a crime punishable by death, you must punish him yourself. Simple halacha, which the writer of this dumb story was unaware of.)
- I would like to take this opportunity to point out how hypocritical you are. Notice above that you said that you brought down verses to prove the Messiah wlll come twice, once as a warning and sacrifice, and the second time as the actual Messiah. You quoted a verse claiming that it was a reference to the Messiah. After I refuted it, you claimed otherwise.
- In regard to the past-tense thing, I admit that I was wrong about that.
- In regard to the citation for Zechariah which you used as a prophecy for the Messiah, I refuted that, and you denounced that former belief. I'd have no problem with that, except the problem is; you still claimed above that you proved the Messiah would come twice with these prophecies :/
- You cited the Isaiah chapter. I proved in a few ways that it could not possibly refer to Jesus, because Jesus was not despised by men, except for the Jews, who were a minority. Take Reuven. Reuven has 20 archenemies. Can you call Reuven despised by men? Obviously not, since he is only despised by a minority. And in regard to Jesus NEVER HAVING BEEN ILL ONCE IN HIS LIFE and NOT BEING A MAN OF PAINS, you said that you had no answer for it, but you still insist that it is a prophecy for the Messiah. Why? Because you are not even considering the fact that you MIGHT be wrong. You've convinced yourself beyond any doubt that you're right; despite all the evidence against your beliefs. So why can't you just admit that you were wrong and that the whole Isaiah chapter has nothing to do with Jesus? I just gave you one or two proofs, I have dozens. If you analyze the chapter, you can see that it isn't a reference to the Messiah, but rather a reference to the nation of Israel. Isaiah 53 continues the theme of Isaiah 52, which speaks about Israel. Please learn before you teach.


THE GROSS FUNDAMENTALS OF CHRISTIANITY:
You are wrong about this not having a Biblical source. See Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." If you bring another verse which says something that opposes to this, you're just refuting the New Testament via contradiction. Besides for that, you did ignore much of my points. I don't have any more time to make this responsa, so I'll just let you figure it out. Shalom.
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

"INFORMAL RESPONSES:
I take personal offense that I wrote a lengthy responsa, squeezing all of my arguments into my limited characters (using every last character), refuting and debunking much of your shtuyot and you responded with a few words, not even a line, very informally, not addressing or refuting any of my points, but rather just making a claim in regard to what I said. E.x, "Actually that's inconclusive." Heck, it probably took you less than ten minutes to write that petty response. It goes to show how much respect you have for me, for religion, for G-d, and for the truth. You could not even sit yourself down and consider what I'm saying, but rather, you hastily wrote your response informally and did not attempt to refute many of my claims, or analyze them and debunk them according to the laws of logical reasoning, but rather you simply made a tiny insignificant comment and carried on."

I don"t know why you are acting so hostile toward me, I didn"t understand your statement so I said it was inconclusive because it was not fully developed. Don"t get so angry about it, I under-develop my arguments sometimes too.

"RESPONSUM:
Again, you left many of my arguments unaddressed. Here are the arguments which you ignored or pettily answered:
- I pointed out that the verse referring to the Temple being built in the days of the Messiah. You argued that this Temple is actually a metaphoric reference to the Messiah, but that can only come from the mouth of one who has no understanding of Scripture. The verses read "David" and ALSO "the sanctuary". When it says that David will be among them, and additionally the temple, they cannot both be the same. Thus, we can LOGICALLY conclude that the Messiah and the temple are two completely different things here in this verse."

I did not say it was metaphorical, I said that it is referring to the sanctuary being "amongst them." When examining this, you see that G-d is talking here, and when he says "my sanctuary and my tabernacle will be amongst them," you know it cannot be a physical place. Rather, it is talking about G-d"s sanctuary meaning safety, and tabernacle as the covenant/terms of the covenant. So this verse is referring to the world to come, not the rebuilding of the temple.

"- I pointed out that if Jesus were speaking of his body when he said temple, why did he speak in the context of the actual Holy Temple? I further demonstrated his trolling which made it appear that he had malevolent intentions. Either that, or he was simply stupid."

I don"t know his reasons, all I can attest to is that I would not have said that.

"- After I destroyed the Second Coming doctrine, you continuously argued on its behalf according to your own understanding, but you never refuted any of my claims. Now, you come again and say that you pointed out verses (which were all refuted in my previous argument, and thus it is foolish to bring it up again) which indicate that the Messiah will come twice, once as a warning and the second time to do what he was supposed to do.
This is very false. First of all, even if you were right, Jesus did not serve as a warning for anyone except for the few individuals who saw him personally perform his miracles. Also, even if the whole world DID see Jesus perform his miracles, that still doesn't serve as a warning for us. Thus, if you were right, in this context, he should have been crucified after he served as the warning, and then immediately come back and stay with us forever, fulfilling the Messianic prophecies. Instead, he came back three days later and then mysteriously vanished from the earth. Thus, we have a fortiori issue. First, if you were right, he only served as a warning for the few people who saw him. Second, if he truly was a warning, he should have come back immediately afterwards, after he served as the warning. Third, for the past two thousand years, he hasn't exactly served as much of a warning, even if he did appear to the whole world once (Which he didn't.) Logically flawed."

You make a valid point, at most nations were given ~1 year to repent since the warning, and this was in the incidence of King Saul. Not 2,000, so why the big grace period?

"- I argued that the words "my bones are all out of joint" could not have been a reference to Jesus, since during crucifixion, they did not exactly de-socket his joins. Crucifixion does not result in the dislocation of the bones. They took him, beat him, nailed his hands and feet to a cross, put a spear in his gut, and left him there to rot in the sun. No dislocating of the bones was involved. (This is all hypothetically speaking ~ I personally don't believe that Jesus was crucified at all. Crucifixion has never been, is not, and will never be a form of Jewish capital punishment. There is lashing, strangulation, decapitation, burning, and stoning, but not crucifixion. If you should argue that the Jews turned him over to the Romans and thus the crucifixion makes more sense since the Romans had no problem with crucifixion, I would argue that it is one of the biggest sins in the Torah to turn over any Jew, even a heretical one, over to the gentiles. If he is guilty of a crime punishable by death, you must punish him yourself. Simple halacha, which the writer of this dumb story was unaware of.)"

Well, the Jews are not necessarily known for abiding by the laws, in Exodus 32 for example, G-d was going to rain fire and brimstone on them they were so bad. And it made Moses so mad that he "took the golden calf, burnt it, ground it up into powder, cast it into the water and made them drink it," sounds pretty bad now doesn"t it.
Bones out of joint was a standard result of the beatings, floggings, and dehydration. Oh, did you know that the Nazi"s experimented with crucifixion? They hung people by their wrists on straps, they stopped being able to breath, then they suffocated to death.

"- I would like to take this opportunity to point out how hypocritical you are. Notice above that you said that you brought down verses to prove the Messiah wlll come twice, once as a warning and sacrifice, and the second time as the actual Messiah. You quoted a verse claiming that it was a reference to the Messiah. After I refuted it, you claimed otherwise."

I may turn out to be a hypocrite, but not for those reasons, I claimed otherwise because I was proven wrong, no other reason.

"- In regard to the citation for Zechariah which you used as a prophecy for the Messiah, I refuted that, and you denounced that former belief. I'd have no problem with that, except the problem is; you still claimed above that you proved the Messiah would come twice with these prophecies :/"

I remember denying that, did I?

"- You cited the Isaiah chapter. I proved in a few ways that it could not possibly refer to Jesus, because Jesus was not despised by men, except for the Jews, who were a minority. Take Reuven. Reuven has 20 archenemies. Can you call Reuven despised by men? Obviously not, since he is only despised by a minority. And in regard to Jesus NEVER HAVING BEEN ILL ONCE IN HIS LIFE and NOT BEING A MAN OF PAINS, you said that you had no answer for it, but you still insist that it is a prophecy for the Messiah. Why? Because you are not even considering the fact that you MIGHT be wrong. You've convinced yourself beyond any doubt that you're right; despite all the evidence against your beliefs. So why can't you just admit that you were wrong and that the whole Isaiah chapter has nothing to do with Jesus? I just gave you one or two proofs, I have dozens. If you analyze the chapter, you can see that it isn't a reference to the Messiah, but rather a reference to the nation of Israel. Isaiah 53 continues the theme of Isaiah 52, which speaks about Israel. Please learn before you teach."

That is not true, I admitted that I do not have an explanation, but I never said that it is still referring to the Messiah, the opposite actually.

"THE GROSS FUNDAMENTALS OF CHRISTIANITY:
You are wrong about this not having a Biblical source. See Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." If you bring another verse which says something that opposes to this, you're just refuting the New Testament via contradiction. Besides for that, you did ignore much of my points. I don't have any more time to make this responsa, so I'll just let you figure it out. Shalom."

Are you sure that isn"t out of the Qur"an? It does sound like it is from the Qur"an.

Alright, you"ve proven your case, I have debated this with Christians before, but unfortunately the underlying fact remains, it actually says that.
I like not to have a double standard and sit by saying Muslims should abandon Islam because of the doctrines therein, while I have a similar book.
So I am going to have to start accepting fax (if only I could get a fax machine), and make the conclusion that you are right.
So this debate goes to you Talmud.
Also, you proved it because of the moral fallacy in the New Testament, that is also present in the Unholy Qur"an, that;
"Believers are going to heaven just because and non-believers are going to hell just because."
Thank you for opening my mind, though I don"t think it is going to be feasible right now to convert to be full-on Jew-man with the hat and the tassels and the- uh, crackers! So I"m just going to have to convert my ideologies only, and convert my practice in about 3 years or so when I"m an audult.

P.S. When the REAL Messiah comes, he"s not the Messiah, Daniel prophesied of a false Messiah with the "abomination of desolation" and all that Jazz, it"s all right here in Daniel 7.
talmid

Con

2 RESPONSUM:
- There is only one definition for the tabernacle, and that is where the Jews brought their offerings to The-One-Who-Spoke-And-Brought-Everything-Into-Being. It has never, is never, and will never be used for metaphoric purposes, unless you are called by the name of Jesus H. Christ. The tabernacle = the sacrifice place. NOT the World to Come. Metiphi
- You say that you don't know his reasons as to why he did that stupid and childish thing; I can accept that. However, I want you to now admit that it's all nonsense.
- In regard to the whole Second Coming thingamajigger, I'm not sure that I know what you're talking about, with the whole grace period and whatnot. Let's just move on from that - I think I did a good enough job proving that the whole thing is nonsense.
- In regard to that abomination from Mark, I DID cite the source after all. It's NOT from the Quran, chabibi. This is your Gospel of Mark, which says that all who don't accept Jesus and baptize themselves are damned. It might be hard for you to digest, but it's the truth. Hah, not what Mark says, but the fact that he says it.

DEFAMATION OF ISRAEL:
Again, you decide to defame and slander the holy nation of Israel, G-d's firstborn and most beloved son. Elijah, the Chief Prophet, spoke ill of Israel, and he was kicked out of office and replaced with Elisha (See the entire chapter of I Kings 19). Same with the Prophet Isaiah. When Isaiah heard the angels singing to G-d, he did not join them, stating "I have unclean lips among those with unclean lips." For that last remark, an angel descended and burned his tongue with a hot coal (Isaiah 6:6). There are plenty of other examples of people who spoke ill of Israel and were punished by G-d. I very much recommend you end the slander of your nation, unless you want to be next on that list. Besides, your arguments are empty anyways. All of the nations of the world worshiped idols. The Jews worshiped G-d, and from time to time they slipped. But at least they weren't idolaters at all times. Thus, whatever they did to inherit the title of evil, the gentiles have done ten times more. Besides, for the past 2000+ years, after Nebuchadnezzar, the Jews never again worshiped idolatry. Thus, we have some more fortioris here. 1. You have no right to render judgement 2. Even if you did, you'd still be wrong, because we were far less idolatrous than the gentiles and 3. We have not worshiped idols for over 2000 years, at least the majority of us. Also, I have one more thing to add before I finish: EVEN in the days of Ahab, the Baalists were a small minority. The evidence of this is that Jehu was able to gather them all into ONE BUILDING to kill them all. If the whole kingdom was idolatrous, then how did they all fit in that one tiny temple? Clearly it was only Ahab and his friends.

CONCLUSION:
I believe elsewhere you have stated that you decided to convert to Judaism, but later. If you truly do have a Jewish mother, who has a Jewish mother, who has a Jewish mother, who has a Jewish mother, so far and so forth, then there is no need for conversion at all. Just start keeping the mitzvot. Go listen to Rabbi Mizrachi's "Beginners Start Here" section on his website so that you can have basic knowledge of the religion. Then go learn Maimonides' Thirteen Principles, and go learn more and more, until you become knowledgeable in Torah. You need to go buy tefillin NOW. Shabbat needs to start being kept EVERY WEEK. You must proclaim with your lips "I have made a mistake in believing in the religion of Christianity. I renounce all of my former Christian beliefs. Jesus is NOT the Messiah. G-d is one and only; Shema Yisrael Hashem Eloheinu Hashem Echad." You cant wait to become religious later in your life; it has to be now. Judaism is not just a "way of life", it is law. You don't have to grow a beard of wear a hat, just cover your head with a yarmulke and don't shave with a razor (since it destroys the roots.) The tassels are optional, but it is EXTREMELY FOOLISH not to wear them. Imagine if I told you "Wear this garment and every second you wear it, another 10 dollars goes into your bank account." Would you take it off for even a second?
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Do I remove votes from everyone's debates? No. Do I assess every vote that's reported and determine if it should be removed? Yes.
Posted by talmid 1 year ago
talmid
Do you do this with everyone's debates, whiteflame?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: CapAhab// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Second coming argument is weak. There is no reason that why Jesus should be the messiah that Con did not refute.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter needs to do more than just state what the losing side failed to do and that the other side's rebuttals were wrong. Without examining the burden of proof or Con's arguments, the vote only begs the question of why Con's arguments were sufficient for the voter to negate.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: HSamei1999// Mod action: Removed<

4 point to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pretty obvious who won the argument. But one comment for Pro, I understand you want to respond to Con's arguments but you do not need to copy each section and reply to it, just talk cause it gives you more of a voice. It really looked like Con was the only one speaking most of the time as a lot of your material was quoting him. Good job Con, and I might be neither Christian nor Jewish but your arguments are pretty powerful and straightforward.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is unexplained. (2) The voter doesn't do much to explain arguments, merely stating that they're obvious and that Pro quotes Con too much, presenting few arguments of his own. That doesn't explain why you find Con's argument more persuasive. You have to point to specific arguments made by both sides.

Note: Votes are moderated based on the normal standards. If the debaters wish to agree at the end of the debate to not have anyone vote on their debate, then that can affect how we moderate. However, if you wish for no one to vote on your debate from the outset, you should exclude voters by setting a super high elo limit or otherwise excluding voters via the debate creation process.
************************************************************************
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
This is what I mean:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
I will, also, I have to take issue with you on a few things that I am morally obliged to address.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
I will, plus, I have to take issue with you on a few things, I am morally obliged to address it.
Posted by talmid 1 year ago
talmid
Do me a favor: Send your questions to me privately
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
8). The Torah never mentions a ban on eating roast mattresses on a skewer, does that mean that roast mistresses are kosher?
9). I never talked ill of Israel, I just quoted the Torah on how the Jews were pretty bad at various times, unless you are going to say that the Torah spoke ill of Israel, this has no ground.
10). How am I not to judge and what?
11). I am going to be a Sikh because then I get to wear a turban and run around with a cool ceremonial blade called a, I can't remember.
What would you say about this?
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
5). Can I drop the kosher meat thingy and just be a vegetarian like Ketuvim?
6). Better yet, can I just wear a turban and be a vegetarian, I would be following Sikhist laws AND Jew Laws at the same time.
7). Do you think the Sikhs are going to hell?
No votes have been placed for this debate.