The Instigator
yoshidino
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
YehudaYisrael
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is Yeshua the Mashiyakh?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 12/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,035 times Debate No: 66459
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

yoshidino

Pro

I am not Christian. I believe that the made up Christian Jesus is to be considered a false prophet. I am a Yehudi of the sect of the Netsarim. I wish do "drash" with you whether or not Yeshua is the Mashiyakh. The Greek New Testament will not be my basis for information about Yeshua, but rather the Aramaic Peshitta written witnesses of Yeshua the Netsari.
My statement: I believe that Yeshua is the Mashiyakh as prophesied in the TANAK.

You can start your first argument this round.
YehudaYisrael

Con

To summarize my position, I am simply going to demonstrate that yeshua is not the Messiah son of David who is spoken of in the Tanach. I'm not here to play semantic games, so whatever you want to call yourself, that's your prerogative. For the purposes of this debate, I will refer to you as a "believer in yeshua" and I will refer to the Greek NT as the "Aramaic peshitta" to make you happy.

Your "Aramiac peshitta" is filled with inconsistencies and abuses the context of the Tanach in order to falsely champion yeshua as the Moshiach son of David. From the very first page of Matthew, (Matisyahu) I can discount the "Aramaic peshitta" as being the authentic word of Hashem.

I will now demonstrate to you how the "virgin birth" that matthew speaks of is a lie"Isaiah never made such a prophesy!
The birth of Isaiah"s child was clearly the fulfillment of the sign prophesied in Isaiah 7:14-16. How do I know this? Isaiah tells us himself! Lets look at these verses

Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.

Isaiah 7:16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

Keep verse 16 in mind. It is crucial to the context of Isaiah. Now, lets look at the next chapter of Isaiah and see what he has to say:

Isaiah 8:3. And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Isaiah 8:4. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, "Father" and "mother," the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."

Well what do you know! Isaiah said a young woman would give birth to a child and in the very next chapter his wife has a son! Prophesy fulfilled! The interesting thing about it is that Isaiah explicitly says he was intimate with her. This means that this "alma" described in Isaiah 7:14 is Isaiah"s wife. Morever, she is not a virgin! Thus, the word "alma" does not exclusively refer to women who are virgins! Isaiah says it himself!

And if you are still not convinced, here"s a direct statement from Isaiah saying his sons are signs:

Isaiah 8:18. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel, from the Lord of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion.

The natural birth of Isaiah"s son was the fulfillment of the sign of Isaiah 7:14, namely that his wife would give birth to a son, and that before he knew the difference between good and evil/father and mother, "the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."And if you are going to whine that Isaiah"s son was not called "Immanuel directly," I will kindly point out to you that your yeshua was never called "Immanuel" by his mother either, so you would be setting a double standard, as Isaiah states that the mother of this child will call him "Immanuel."

If you are going to argue that this is a "dual fulfillment" regarding Matthew"s application of this to the supposed virgin birth of yeshua, you will have to concede that the word "alma" does not exclusively refer to a virgin, as I have demonstrated above. This shows lack of exclusivity to the nature of the word "alma" and demystifies the "yeshua believer's" obsession with the birth needing to be "miraculous" in order to see fulfillment.

In other words, Isaiah 7:14 has just as much to do with the birth of yeshua as it does the birth of Karl Marx, or Jerry Seinfeld, assuming a "multiplicity of fulfillments" theory"

Or perhaps my birth! I was born of a woman! Maybe Isaiah 7:14 is about me!

See how ridiculous it is to attribute this prophesy to yeshua?

Another problem with the "Aramaic peshitta" is that it asserts that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin." This is a false statement. Hebrews 9:22 states this:

Hebrews 9:22 Indeed according to the law almost everything was purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness

Once again, this is false. There are certain instances in the Tanach, including exilic periods of time, where blood sacrifice was not needed for Hashem to forgive us for our sins. The prophet Daniel lived during a period of time without a Temple and he was able to stand righteous before Hashem without animal sacrifices and most importantly, without yeshua!

The context of Jeremiah 29 concerns what G-d expects of us during the exile in order to merit the rebuilding of the Holy Temple. Consider what is said in Jeremiah 29:12-14

Jeremiah 29:12. And you shall call Me and go and pray to Me, and I will hearken to you.

Jeremiah 29:13. And you will seek Me and find [Me] for you will seek Me with all your heart.

Jeremiah 29:14. And I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will return your captivity and gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will return you to the place whence I exiled you.

G-d expected that the Israelites would pray to Him while in Babylon. The result of their prayers and repentance allowed them to return to the land and rebuild the Holy Temple.

If we didn't need yeshua in order to merit the rebuilding of the Holy Temple after the Babylonian exile, then why would we need him now in this exile?! We don't! yeshua was never a part of the atonement process and he never will be.

However, returning to Hashem through prayer in certain circumstances (such as exiles) is a valid method of forgiveness of sin. This is exemplified in Hosea 14:2-3

Hosea 14:2. RETURN, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have *STUMBLED IN YOUR INIQUITY.* Clearly, the subject of the next verse explains HOW Israel is supposed to RETURN to Hashem so that OUR INIQUITIES WILL BE FORGIVEN. Of course, the next verse explains just that!

Hosea 14:3 Take WORDS with yourselves and RETURN TO THE LORD. Say, "*YOU SHALL FORGIVE ALL INIQUITY* and teach us [the] good [way], and let us render [for] bulls [the offering of] our lips.

It is clearly our WORDS which take away all iniquity! There is really no way around that. There is nothing in these verses which indicate that blood sacrifice must be used in conjunction with these words in order for Hashem to "take away all iniquity" from us. Clearly, Hosea is telling Israel how we are to receive forgiveness for our sins during the exile without a Temple so that we may merit the Temple and the sacrifices at the end of days! This is supported contextually by Hosea"s prophesy in Hosea 3:4-5, which sets the context for the rest of the book of Hosea regarding the exiles:

Hosea 3:4. For the children of Israel shall remain for many days, having neither king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor ephod nor teraphim.

Hosea 3:5. Afterwards shall the children of Israel RETURN, and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and they shall come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness at the end of days.

How do we return to Hashem if we do not have any sacrifices? Hosea tells us in Hosea 14:2-3! Even though we have stumbled in our iniquity and have been put into exile, we still have a means of returning to Hashem though our sincere PRAYERS. We take our words and return to Hashem by saying; "FORGIVE ALL INIQUITY." Nothing in Hosea 14:2-3 indicates that we need the blood of animals in order to atone for our sins during the exile. And most importantly, NOTHING in Hosea 14:2-3 says we need the blood of yeshua!
This is why Daniel was able to stand righteous before Hashem, praying three times a day, despite the fact that he knew he would be thrown into a pit of lions if he continued to do so. Yet he continued to do so in the face of death! (Daniel 6:11)

I have no idea how you can read Hosea 14:2-3 with a straight face, and tell me that these verses don"t demonstrate an example in the Tanach where forgiveness of sin can be achieved without blood within exilic context. There is no mention of blood here! It is our WORDS which we are to use to return to Hashem. The context here is clearly about forgiveness of sin in context with the exiles, and there is no mention of blood and most importantly, no mention of yeshua! A279;Thus, Hebrews 9:22 is a false statement...

I have plenty more to say on this topic, especially concerning the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:30-33, but the character spacing here will not allow me to go into explicit detail in this post. In summary, the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:30-33 has not happened yet and has nothing to do with yeshua. Under the New Covenant of Jeremiah, it says this:

Jeremiah 31:33. And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember."

The very fact that we are having this debate right now is a testament to the fact that the New Covenant has not been made with anyone. You wouldn"t have to teach me and I wouldn"t have to teach you. (Jeremiah 31:33, Deut 30:6) It is a future covenant which has nothing to do with the death of yeshua.

This only scratched the tip of the iceberg concerning the erroneous assertions made by the authors of the "Aramaic peshitta" and their erroneous venation of yeshua as the Moshiach ben David. There's plenty more to say on this topic, but I'll leave this for you to deal with for now.

Shalom and G-d bless!
Debate Round No. 1
yoshidino

Pro

There are differences in the Greek NT to the Aramaic Peshitta.

The argument about Yeshayahu 7 is simply an argument on interpretation. Obviously in the "pashat" level, this is talking about Yeshayahu's wife being the "almah." But in the 'drash" level of interpretation, we see that it is possible for this passage to also be referring to a future birth from a virgin. This is what Matisyahu is doing. he is giving a "drash" interpretation of Yeshayahu 7. The word "ha'almah" is used a total of 3 times in the entire TaNaK including Yeshayahu 7. The other two are B'reshit 24, and Shmot 2. In B'reshit 24, it is clear that it is referring to a virgin "almah," and in Shmot 2, it is unclear weather she was just a young woman or specifically a virgin. With this in mind, although Yeshayahu's newly wed wife bore him a son, it's quite possible that the story of Yeshayahu and his wife was also a prophetic picture of one that would be born of a virgin.
Us Netsarim "Yeshua Believers" have no obsession with the birth of Yeshua. We do not celebrate it, nor do we celebrate Maryiam in any way.
Let me ask you this: In what way can Yeshayahu's son maher shalal khash baz be considerd "Emanu'el" (Elohim with us)?

In Evarim 9:22, He is talking specifically of the Torot concerning the Levi'im and the Temple service. his statement is true. WITHIN THE TOROT CONCERNING TEMPLE SERVICE, "ALMOST all things are, BY THE TOROT, purged with blood, and without the shedding of blood is no remission. While we were in captivity, there were no temple services being performed, so instead we got on our knees facing the place of the temple, and prayed, repenting of sins. Elohim, seeing the heart of his servants' supplications, heard their voice, forgave their sins, and returned them to Yerushalayim where they would then build a temple, and perform the sacrifices that they were before unable to offer.
Concerning the way that Elohim's servants were purged from sin even without a sacrifice:
"I, I, am YHVH; and beside Me there is no Savior." Yeshayahu 43:11
"I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake; and thy sins I will not remember." Yeshayahu 43:25
"But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed." Yeshayahu 53:5
"...he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due." Yeshayahu 53:8
"By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, and their iniquities he did bear." Yeshayahu 53:11

Who can justify anyone, but Elohim alone?
Who can take on transgressions if he himself has transgressed?
Who can "blot out transgressions" besides Elohim?
Who else can save?

It has ALWAYS been YHVH who has removed the transgressions of Yisra'el. He alone is our savior, and there is none else! Since the days of old it is YHVH that has desired to be king over Yisra'el.
1 Shimu'el 8:7; "And YHVH said unto Shimu'el, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."
But you say that it is Mashiyakh that is to reign over us.
Let me ask concerning Mashiyakh and who's son he is: It is said that Mashiyakh will be the son of David. If he is the son of David, how is it that David himself calls him Lord? For he said, "YHVH declares to MY LORD, "sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a stool for your feet. The rod of thy strength shall YHVH send from Tsiyon, rule thou in the midst of your enemies."
Tehilim 110:1-2.

Yermiyahu's Covenant:
I have never said that this covenant has been fulfilled. I do not believe it has. I only believe that the BLOOD of this covenant has been shed. But the only way for this covenant to be "fulfilled" is for the ones that Elohim is making the covenant with to except. This has not happened. When all of his people except, then this covenant will be fulfilled.

Your iceberg must be really small. Its gonna take more than that to sink this battleship!

I will give just one argument:

The Briyt Khadash tells us that Yeshua was born about 2 years before the death of Herod. In Josephus' 1st century record of Herod's death (Josephus was a historian). Josephus records that Herod died in a year that had a lunar eclipse and that he died very close to the timing of this eclipse. By checking the astronomical charts through NASA, there are only two possibilities for this lunar eclipse:
March 13th 4 BC, OR January 10th 1 BC.
Josephus goes on to mention that by Pesakh of that year, Herod had been buried and his son Archaelaus was celebration Pesakh with his friends. A study of the Roman practices for mourning and burying a King shows there was not time for Herod to have been buried and mourned in time for his son to be celebrating Pesakh 30 days later. There would not have been enough time for Herod to be properly buried and mourned for before the Pesakh if he died in the year with the March 13th 4 BC. lunar eclipse.
--List here the events that take place between Herod"s death and Pesakh according to Josephus."Herod"s sickness and death are described in detail by Josephus.
1.) Herod has two prominent Rabbis put to death on the night of a lunar eclipse.
2.) Soon after the Rabbis are put to death and the lunar eclipse happens, Herod becomes ill.
3.) Herod travels to the hot baths at the dead sea to attempt to be healed.
4.) Herod"s hot baths fail and he becomes increasingly ill and he retires at Yericho.
5.) While at Yericho, Herod receives a letter from Augustus Caesar giving him the choice to either exile or execute Herod"s problematic son Antipater.
6.) Herod has Antipater (his son) executed and dies 5 days later himself.
7.) Archelaus holds a lavish funeral for his father Herod and mourns him seven days.
8.) After much political discussion, via messengers over distances between Roman Officials, and finally fearing a revolt, Archelaus slaughters 3000 Pharisees on the Temple Mount.
9.) Archelaus is called to Rome to answer for his actions.
10.) A rebellion results in Yehuda and General Varus is sent to squash the uprising.
It is not possible for all these events to take place within the approximated 30 days between March 13 4 BC. and Pesakh. This leave us with the resolution that Herod died soon after the lunar eclipse of January 10th 1 BC.
Yokhanan the Immerser was conceived about the time of Shavu'ot. This is known by looking at the Yehudi history that still exist of the courses of the priests. The Briyt khadasha says, "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Yehuda, a certain priest named Zekharayah, of the course of Abiya: and his wife was of the daughters of Aharon, and her name was Elisabeth." According to the yehudi records of the courses, Abiyah served on the seventh Shabbat in the counting of the Omer. According to the writings, Yeshua was conceived 6 months later. Therefore, Yokhanan was born about the time of Pesakh, and Yeshua's birth at the time of Sukkot. (which also places his conception at Khanukah.) The Briyt khadasha shows that Yeshua was about 29 1/2 years old when he began his ministry. It also says that he was born about two years before Herod's death. Now we just do math:
1. Death of Herod - 1 BC.
2. Subtract two years to get the birth of Yeshua - 3 BC (Sukkot)
3. Count forward 29 1/2 years for the beginning of Yeshua's ministry - 27 AD. (there is no 0 BC.)

Daniel's prophecy says, " V'teida, v'taskeil, min motsa davar l'hashiv v'livnot Yerushalaim ad Mashiyakh nagid shavu'im shiva'a v'shavu'im shishim u'shnaim " (Know and dicern, from the going forth of the word to return and to build Yerushalayim until Mashiyakh comes is 7 weeks and 62 weeks.) Daniel 9:25
(in a prophetic week, a day is a year)
continuing the math count:
4. 7 weeks and 62 weeks gives us 69 weeks total. (483 years)
5. History tells us that the command to return and rebuild the temple was given in 457 BC. If we count forward from 457 BC. 483 years according to Daniel's prophecy (no 0 BC.), it brings us to 27 AD. The exact year that we are told that Yeshua started his ministry.

You may ask what proof we have that the "B'sorot" are even accurate as a record of history. Well, we have about 365 manuscripts of the Aramaic "Peshitta" that date back to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries that all agree word for word letter for letter 99.9% all the way through. These manuscripts have been treasured and kept sacred by what is called "the Assembly of the East." This means that the Briyt Khadasha is even more accurate and without error than even our Hebrew TANAK.
YehudaYisrael

Con

Concerning Isaiah 7:14, like I said before, if you assume a "dual prophesy" then you must admit that the word "alma" does not mean virgin in the immediate context of what Isaiah is speaking about in Isaiah 7:14. He explicitly states that his sons are SIGNS, meaning the son who was born in Isaiah 8:3-4 was a SIGN. It is no coincidence that Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a woman giving birth to a son and that in the very next chapter, Isaiah's wife gives birth to a son. The fact that Isaiah himself refers to his son as a SIGN lends even more credibility to the fact that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Isaiah 8:3-4 with the birth of Isaiah's own son. So if you want to insist that this is a "dual prophesy," you have little reason to assume that the word "alma" has any more relevance to yeshua's birth as it does to Jerry Seinfeld's...There is nothing exclusive or miraculous about this birth!

Your "Immanuel" strawman argument was already addressed. I knew you would try that on me. I will post it again for you:

"And if you are going to whine that Isaiah"s son was not called "Immanuel directly," I will kindly point out to you that your yeshua was never called "Immanuel" by his mother either, so you would be setting a double standard, as Isaiah states that the mother of this child will call him "Immanuel."

Your interpretation of Hebrews 9:22 flies in the face of the rest of your "peshitta" which states that "yeshua is the only way to the father." (John 14:6) If you admit that there are other means of atonement for sin other than through the shedding of yeshua's blood, then yeshua's sacrifice was in vain! I would agree with this ideology, except I would disagree that yeshua's death atoned for anyone...But if you are willing to admit that I can atone for my sins without the shedding of yeshua's blood, that I would be in total agreement with you! However, I cannot say the same for your "peshitta"...

I also agree with the sentiment that Hashem is the only one who can truly take away our sins. However, this means of forgiveness of sin always required some sort of repentance on our part and it NEVER included anything to do with yeshua's death.

You bring up Psalms 110, asserting that yeshua is the only fulfillment of the Psalm. Are you aware that yeshua fulfilled none of that Psalm?

For example, look at this verse in Psalms 110:5

Psalms 110:5. The Lord, on your right hand, **has crushed kings** on the day of His wrath.

Now Yoshindo, during yeshua's lifetime, did yeshua"crush kings"? Was he successful in defeating his enemies? Were his enemies "made a footstool at his feet"? Clearly not! Your yeshua was killed and failed to fulfill the Messianic prophesies outlined in the Tanach. As it stands, yeshua has fulfilled none of Psalms 110 in any tangible sense. You can argue that he will fulfill it in his supposed "second coming," but to claim that yeshua has fulfilled any of this Psalm would be completely baseless as it stands"

You also erroneously assert that Psalms 110 refers exclusively to the Messiah. I beg to differ.

Psalms 110 opens up with this verse:

Psalms 110:1. Of David a psalm. The word of the Lord to my master; "Wait for My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet."

This verse highlights the fact that the subject of this Psalm has enemies that he needs G-d's assistance in defeating them. Interestingly enough, Genesis 14 describes an event in which Abram rescues his nephew Lot from the four kings who had previously defeated the five kings. In this passage, Abram is victorious in battle against the four kings.

Genesis 14:14. And Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, and he armed his trained men, those born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and he pursued [them] until Dan.

Genesis 14:15. And he divided himself against them at night, he and his servants, and smote them, and pursued them until Hobah, which is to the left of Damascus.

So we can see clearly that Abram is certainly a legitimate candidate for this Psalm based off of the first verse. Moving on...

Psalms 110:2. The staff of your might the Lord will send from Zion; rule in the midst of your enemies.

Once again, this verse fits Abram's narrative in Genesis 14. He was able to conquer ruling kings. G-d also sent Abram Melchizedek, King of Salem, (aka Jerusalem/Zion) but we'll get to that in a moment...Moving on.

Psalms 110:3. Your people will volunteer on the day of your host, because of the beauty of holiness when you fell from the womb; for you, your youth is like dew.

Compare this verse with Genesis 14:14, posted above. Men from Abram's household willingly went with him to do battle against the four kings. Abram even makes direct reference to some of these men in Genesis 14:24

Genesis 14:24. Exclusive of what the lads ate, and the share of the men who went with me; Aner, Eshkol, and Mamrethey shall take their share."

This gives even more specificity to Abram being the subject of this Psalm, as Abram makes a point to recognize the individuals who went with him during his battle with the four kings. Moving on...

Psalms 110:4. The Lord swore and will not repent; you are a priest forever because of the speech of Malchizedek.

It is important to note that Abram was the only person in the entire Tanach to have directly encountered Melchizedek. This fact alone tips the scales in Abram's favor as being a prime candidate for being the subject of Psalms 110. Also worth noting, Abram encounters Melchizedek immediately after he had finished defeating the four kings.

Genesis 14:18. And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God.

Genesis 14:19. And he blessed him, and he said, "Blessed be Abram to the Most High God, Who possesses heaven and earth.

Genesis 14:20. And blessed be the Most High God, Who has delivered your adversaries into your hand," and he gave him a tithe from all.

And now we come full circle...Remember the first line of the Psalm? G-d says to the subject of the Psalm, "Wait for My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet." This fits perfectly with Abram, not only concerning the narrative of his victory over the four kings, but also in the blessing that Melchizedek gave to Abram. Melchizedek's blessing to Abram exemplifies exactly what Psalms 110 describes concerning G-d making Abram's enemies "a footstool at his feet." Moving on...

Psalms 110:5. The Lord, on your right hand, has crushed kings on the day of His wrath.

Need I say more? There is ample evidence to support the fact that the subject of this Psalm is Abram, as demonstrated above. I have no problem with this Psalm also referring to King David and even the Messiah. However, I know your position is that this prophesy refers exclusively to the Messiah. However, this is clearly not the case.

And concerning Daniel 9, you are erroneously assuming that the "moshiach" mentioned in Daniel 9:26 refers to the Messiah son of David. This is false. The Hebrew word "moshiach" does not always refer to the Messiah son of David in the Tanach. In fact, the word "moshiach" is never used to exclusively refer to the Messiah son of David in the Tanach EVER! When the Tanach speaks about the specific individual of the Messiah son of David, it usually uses some sort of "Davidic qualifier" to demonstrate that it is speaking specifically about the Messiah son of David.

Jews and "believers in yeshua" can agree on other passages referring exclusively to the Messiah! Here are a few: Isaiah 11:1, Ezekiel 37:24, Hosea 3:5, Jeremiah 30:9"

There is one thing all of these verses have in common: They all use a "Davidic qualifier," meaning that they all exclusively refer to the Davidic dynasty in some fashion. (David, Jesse etc.) This is why Jews and "believers in yeshua" can all understand that these future prophesies refer to one person: Moshiach ben David.

But where does Daniel 9:26 mention anything of a Davidic dynasty? It doesn't...Thus, you have poor evidence to support that this "moshiach" refer to the Messiah son of David. Even King Cyrus, a gentile king, was referred to as a "moshiach" in Isaiah 45:1! The context of Daniel 9:26 does not give us any indication that this "moshiach" is the Moshiach ben David.

Moreover, the "cutting off" of this "moshiach" is not tied directly to the blessings of the New Covenant spoken of in Daniel 9:24. All it says is that this "moshiach" will be cut off and the Temple will be destroyed. Since a High Priest is called a "moshiach" in scripture as well, (Exodus 40:13) we can easily deduce that with the destruction of the Holy Temple, went the anointed Levitical priesthood. Even the Mishkan itself was "anointed," and thus, a "moshiach" in that sense. (Exodus 40:9)

Thus, you have no basis for asserting that the "moshiach" mentioned in Daniel 9:26 refers to the Messiah son of David.

In turn, you have no basis to assert that yeshua's blood was the blood of the New Covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31:30-33. There is no indication in the Tanach that this was to happen before the destruction of the Second Temple. Rather, as Deuteronomy 30:1-6 shows, the promises of the New Covenant were to come to pass during the final exile. Once again, due to the character limit, I cannot post the whole of the verses, but they demonstrate clearly that the New Covenant has nothing to do with yeshua's blood.

Shalom and G-d bless!
Debate Round No. 2
yoshidino

Pro

Our reason for believing that Yeshayahu's sign was intended for dual purposes is because Yeshua was born of A Betula (virgin). I know that, while the word "almah" suggests a virgin, the word "betula" demands a virgin. But neither contradict each other. You can not prove that Matisyahu's words: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of Maryah (YHVH) by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, Elohim with us." - is an incorrect interpretation of the prophecy, so move on.

You totally missed what I said about Emanu'el, probably because you quickly assumed it was the same as the Christian argument. My question was: In WHAT WAY could Yeshayahu's son Maher Shalal Khash Baz be CONSIDERED "Emanu'el" (Elohim with us)? The question has nothing to do with who was DIRECTLY called Emanu'el; I know that neither of them were.

"Your interpretation of Hebrews 9:22 flies in the face of the rest of your "peshitta" which states that "yeshua is the only way to the father."
I believe that Yeshua ha'netsari is the very "Arm of YHVH" as prophesied in Yeshayahu 53;
"But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed."
"All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and YHVH hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
"He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth."
"By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due."
"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and he shall be satisfied, by his knowledge shall my servant justify many righteous, and their iniquities he will bear."
" Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (poured out his soul unto death - passed tense, I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong - future tense) this servant and arm of YHVH will be killed like a lamb to the slaughter to bear the transgressions of Yisra'el, and than rise from the dead. Thus justifying many.
You yourself said that you agreed that YHVH himself is the only one who is truly able to take away sins. Who then would this "servant" and "arm of YHVH" be that is described to have the ability to "bear our transgressions" and "justify many"??
I believe that this Is Yeshua, and that he is the ONLY WAY to the father, and the ONLY WAY to, not atone (kipur or cover) our sins, but wash us clean completely. An atonement only covers the sin until the next year when another offering of atonement would be made. Never was there give a sacrifice, according to the Levi priesthood, that could completely wash our sins away. If there was, than they would not have to continue to offer for sin, because they would no longer have it. Yeshua, on the other hand, was the perfect sacrifice prophesied by Yeshayahu in chapter 53 that is able to take away our transgressions. It is Impossible for the whole of Yeshayahu 53 to be speaking of Yisra'el. Yisra'el does not have the ability to "justify" anyone or "bear their transgressions." But rather it specifically states, "for the transgression of MY PEOPLE (Yisra'el) to whom the stroke was due."
Mashiyakh has ALWAYS BEEN the means for justification, by faith, like Avraham. Before Even Avraham was, the Spirit of the anointing (Ruakh haMashiyakh) Lived. It is by this Ruakh that Avraham, Moshe, and all the other prophets were justified. Ruakh Mashiyakh, Ruakh Yeshua. Yeshua was slain from the beginning of the world.

Psalms 110:5. The Lord, on your right hand, **has crushed kings** on the day of His wrath.
"Now Yoshindo, during yeshua's lifetime, did yeshua"crush kings"? Was he successful in defeating his enemies? Were his enemies "made a footstool at his feet"?"
You do full well ignore the testimony of Yeshua haNetsari! His is NOT dead, he is STILL alive. He rose from the dead! As it is written, "Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." He has not come as Mashiyakh Ben David YET. this is not my claim. I am claiming that Mashiyakh has come as Mashiyakh Ben Yoseph the suffering servant:

Tehilim 118:22-23; "The stone which the builders rejected has become the head corner. From YHVH was this; it is marvelous in our eyes.

Tehilim 22; "Eli Eli, Lama azavtani?.... All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head: Let him commit himself unto YHVH! let Him rescue him; let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.... For dogs have encompassed me; the congregation of the wicked enclose upon me, like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet... they divide my garments among them, and for my vesture do they cast lots."

Zekharyah 11:7; "Awake, sword, upon my shepherd, and upon the man my neighbor "geber amiti," Na'um YHVH Tseva'ot (of hosts). Smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."

Yeshayahu 53:8 "Ki nigzar me'erets ha'khayim, mipesha ami (Yisra'el) nega lamo." (For he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due.)

Daniel 9:26; " And after the sixty and two Weeks shall Mashiyakh be cut off, but not for himself."

B'reshiyt 22:8; "And Avraham said, "Elohim will provide for himself a lamb." (father Avraham taking son Yitskhac up to be sacrificed as a lamb is a prophetic picture of father Elohim taking son Mashiyakh up to be sacrificed as a lamb.)
22:13; "And Avraham lifted up his eyes, and he saw and behold, a ram behind him with his horns stuck in the thicket." this signifying by what way the lamb of YHVH would be lead to the slaughter. (with a crown of thorns on his head)

Yeshayahu 53; "like a lamb to the slaughter" in relation to "the Arm of YHVH."

Yonah 2:3; "From the belly of She'ol I cried, you have heard my voice."

The prophecies of a Mashiyakh Ben Yoseph are clear. But Like you, I also hold the hope of a coming of Mashiyakh Ben David. But I believe that Mashiyakh Ben Yoseph and Ben David are one in the same, at two very different comings.
But the question concerning Tehillim 110 was to state that this scripture is referring to Mashiyakh Ben David, the one that both of us agree on. Abraham never ruled in the midst of his enemies, he was a wanderer in the land of Cana'an to the day of his death. One Battle in B'reshit 14 does not change that. Avraham was NEVER made a priest!
"YHVH swore and will not repent; you are a priest FOREVER after the order of Malchizedek."
Let's speak of Malkhi Tsedek for a moment: First of all, the name Malkhi Tsedek, meaning Righteous King
"But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the land; and he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins."
Yeshayahu 11
Without contradiction, we know that Mashiyakh Ben David is coming to rule in Righteousness. He is the Righteous King.
"and he was priest of Elohim the Most High."
This was before any priesthood was set in order with the descendants of Avraham. What was Melkhi Tsedek's priesthood before the Most High? He was the Priest of the most High in the temple in the heavens. For it is written concerning the temple of the Levi priesthood; "And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount."
Shmot 25:40
So then then it is seen that the priesthood of the Levi'im was not the first, but the second priesthood, that is, the natural priesthood, that was only a shadow and a pattern of the spiritual temple and priesthood in the heavens, of which Melkhi Tsedek was priest. This was the first priest hood, and the priesthood that was promised to Mashiyakh in Tehillim 110.

"And concerning Daniel 9, you are erroneously assuming that the "moshiach" mentioned in Daniel 9:26 refers to the Messiah son of David."
This is incorrect. I see this as speaking concerning Mashiyakh Ben Yoseph.
The Hebrew word "mashiakh"
Search the Scriptures and you will find that NEVER is the Hebrew word "mashiakh ever used in the plural. Why? because Elohim only has ONE Mashiyakh. The word mashiyakh itself means "the anointed." Anointed of what? The Ruakh (Spirit) of Elohim. The Anointed of YHVH is anointed By Elohim's Ruakh to accomplish his will.
"The spirit of the Adonai YHVH is upon me; because the YHVH hath anointed me to bring good tidings unto the humble; He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the eyes to them that are bound; To proclaim the year of the LORD'S good pleasure," Yeshayahu 61
Yeshua spoke these words from Yeshayahu and said that it was fulfilled in their ears that day, in the year 27 AD.
You can not deny that Daniel is talking about "the anointed" of YHVH. so let me ask: If this is not a prophecy foretelling the coming of Yeshua as Mashiakh, who indeed appeared EXACTLY to Daniel's prophecy, than who IS the Mashiyakh that fulfilled Daniel's prophecy? the specific time of the prophecy has long passed and YHVH's word can not be broken. What Mashiyakh appeared EXACTLY at 27 AD. besides Yeshua that fulfilled Daniel's prophecy?
YehudaYisrael

Con

Once again, concerning Isaiah 7:14, the words of Isaiah himself fly in the face of what you believe. He's the one who claims that his sons are signs and that his wife bore a son in the very next chapter, namely in Isaiah 8:3-4 and Isaiah 8:18. You can either continue to ignore this and say, "It's a duel prophesy about yeshua!" and demand that I prove that "matthew's words are wrong," or you can face the reality and acknowledge that matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 as prophecy about yeshua carries just as much relevance to the birth of Jerry Seinfeld or any other Jew who was born of woman, since we both agree that the word "alma" does not exclusively mean virgin, especially in this case where Isaiah uses the word "alma" described his NON-VIRGIN WIFE!

What you are trying to get me to swallow is that despite the fact that Isaiah used the word "alma" to describe his NON-VIRGIN WIFE who gave birth to the SIGN which was Isaiah's own son, (Isaiah 8:3-4 and Isaiah 8:18) you want me to believe that matthew is referring to a "virgin alma" in a "dual prophesy" which points to the birth of yeshua exclusively...

Why can't you acknowledge that matthew's use of this prophesy is an abuse of the context of the Tanach? Why are you assuming that in the immediate context of Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah refers to an "alma" who is not a virgin, (Isaiah's wife) but in the case of matthew's "dual prophesy application" of this prophesy, the "alma" refers to a woman who supposedly gave a "miraculous virgin birth"?!

This is an inconsistent understanding of the word "alma" which discredits the authorship of your "peshitta." And concerning "Immanuel," once again, your question is a strawman argument. Isaiah himself says that his son was a sign and that his birth would be a sign for King Ahaz that "the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned," emphasizing that this will happen "before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good," implying that the child will be very young when these two kings are defeated.

Who would have thought that this same "lad" who is spoken of in Isaiah 7:14-16 would be born in the very next chapter!

Isaiah 8:3. And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Isaiah 8:4. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.

Put Isaiah 8:3-4 and Isaiah 7:14-16 side by side and compare. The function of the SIGN that Immanuel is to serve as is that his birth marks G-d's promise that the two kings who king Ahaz dress shall be defeated. That is PRECISELY what Isaiah 8:4 describes about the birth of Isaiah's own son in Isaiah 8:4. There is no way around this.

Your yeshua on the other hand, does not fit the context of this prophesy at all, as demonstrated above, several times. This makes the authorship of the "peshitta" look really really sloppy and not credible...

Also, would you like to explain to me why your "peshitta" writer matthew ripped the second half of Hosea 11:1 out of context and applied it to yeshua? Matthew chapter 2 describes yeshua's adoptive father joseph going down to Egypt to hide yeshua from king herod.

Matthew 2:15 He stayed there until Herod died. In this way what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled: *"From Egypt I called my son."*

Matthew is quoting from Hosea 11:1, but he ripped the verse out of context! Here is the full context of the verse:

Hosea 11:1. For, when ISRAEL was young, I loved him, and from Egypt I called My son.

So we can see here that this verse is not about simple the Messiah, BUT ISRAEL! See how matthew abuses the context of scripture? But there"s more!

Hosea 11:2. The more they called to them, the more they went away from them; to the baalim they would slaughter sacrifices, and to the graven images they would burn incense.

See the context? Your matthew abused scripture and falsely attributed this prophesy to yeshua. If you want to claim that this verse applies to yeshua, then you have to deal with the fact that the second verse refers to a SINFUL ISRAEL. Do you still want to apply this verse to yeshua?

It isn't a very strong convincer when someone uses passages that are not exclusive to the Messiah in order to try and prove that someone is the messiah. That is the case with Hosea 11:1. The prophesy in its immediate context does not concern the Messiah exclusively, and thus, is a poor choice of a verse to use in attempting to lend credibility to someone being the Messiah.
Your "peshitta" authors give poor evidence to support yeshua as being the Messiah. Clearly, they abused the context of the Tanach and ripped it out of context.

But like I said, this is only the tip of the iceberg...

Now you have weaseled the conversation over to Isaiah 53, while completely ignoring my rebuttal to your interpretation of Hebrews 9:22. This is fine, but just know that you have yet to deal with what I said in my previous rebuttal of your position on this...

Concerning Isaiah 53, in order to determine who the servant is, we need to look at the context. Isaiah 49:3-6 is a good place to start.

Isaiah 49:3. And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."

Isaiah 49:4. And I said, "I toiled in vain, I consumed my strength for nought and vanity." Yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my deed is with my God.

Isaiah 49:5. And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him, and Israel shall be gathered to Him, and I will be honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God was my strength.

Isaiah 49:6. And He said, "It is too light for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."

So how is this reconciled? How can Israel bring back Israel? The answer is simple! Isaiah 49:3 refers to a specific part of Israel, namely the righteous remnant. (G-d promised a righteous remnant of Israel throughout all generations.) Verse 5 refers to the remnant bringing back the rest of Israel back to righteousness. And finally, verse 6 refers to the newly restored Israel being "light to the nations" through the revelation of truth through Hashem.

In other words, this is a two step process:

1. The righteous remnant of Israel will bring back the rest of Israel to righteousness. (Isaiah 49:3-5)

2. The newly restored nation of Israel will serve to be a "light to the nations." (Isaiah 49:6)

So ultimately, the nation of Israel is the servant who will be "a light unto the nations." However, in order to get to that point, the righteous remnant of Israel will first gather back the rest of Israel back to Torah. It's a two step process. May it happen speedily in our days!

Your contention with this is that you claim that Israel "does not have the ability to 'justify anyone' or 'bear their transgressions.'" As demonstrated above, your assertion of this is false. However, there are other passages which also expose your erroneous assertion. Ezekiel 4:1-4 is one such example:

Ezekiel 4:1. "Now you, son of man, take a brick for yourself and place it before you, and engrave upon it a city-Jerusalem.

Ezekiel 4:2. And you shall lay siege upon it and build around it a stone-throwing catapult, and you shall pour over it a siege mound, and you shall place camps upon it and place villages around it.

Ezekiel 4:3. And you shall take yourself an iron skillet and make it an iron wall between you and the city and direct your face toward it, and it will be in the siege and you shall besiege it; that is a sign to the house of Israel.

Ezekiel 4:4. And you shall lie on your left side, and you shall place the iniquity of the house of Israel through it; the number of the days that you shall lie on it, *YOU WILL BEAR THEIR INIQUITY.*

Ezekiel 4:5. Now I have given you the years of their iniquity by the number of days, three hundred and ninety days, and you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.

Ezekiel 4:6. And when you complete these, you shall lie on your right side a second time, **and YOU SHALL BEAR THE INIQUITY of the house of Judah;** forty days, a day for a year, a day for a year, I have given it to you.

Concerning Psalms 110, once again, yeshua fulfilled none of Psalms 110. You can assume that your yeshua will come back to fulfill the prophesy, but nothing yeshua did during his lifetime fulfilled any of the Psalm. You once again erroneously abuse the context of Isaiah 53 in order to falsely champion yeshua as the "suffering servant" of that passage.

While we're on the topic, please explain to me how yeshua fulfilled Isaiah 53:10

Isaiah 53:10. And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, **HE SHALL SEE CHILDREN,** he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand.

Who were yeshua's children Yoshindo? Can you show me in your peshitta where yeshua had children? No? Then why do you assume that this servant of Hashem can only be yeshua? Clearly, he doesn't fit the context of this verse...

Concerning Moshiach ben Yosef, you are abusing the Rabbinic concept of Moshiach ben Yosef. Moshiach ben Yosef is understood to be from one of the tribes of JOSEPH, Ephraim most commonly. Thus, Moshiach ben Yosef and Moshiach ben David are NOT the same person. Obadiah 1:18 refers to Moshiach ben Yosef directly:

Obadiah 1:18. And the house of Jacob shall be fire and THE HOUSE OF JOSEPH a flame, and the house of Esau shall become stubble, and they shall ignite them and consume them, and the house of Esau shall have no survivors, for the Lord has spoken.

Did yeshua destroy the house of Esau? No. He is not Moshiach ben Yosef!

Source: http://www.chabad.org...
Debate Round No. 3
yoshidino

Pro

To say that Yeshayahu 7 is a dual prophecy is NOT ignoring the facts that at least one part of the prophecy for sure refers To Yeshayahu's son. I am fully acknowledging this and you don't have to keep saying it. I am only adding that it CAN ALSO have the ability to prophecy of a virgin birth AT THE SAME TIME. The word for woman or wife in the Hebrew is Isha. The interpretation is that Yeshayahu specificaly used the word alma instead so that it could refer to both his newly wed wife, and a virgin birth. But Matisyahu does not spend much time on this and this certainly isn't one of the main reasons we believe that Yeshua is the Mashiyakh.
Concerning Emanu'el:
You still haven't answered the question. My question was not what will happen in the days of Maher Shalal Khash Baz. It was; In what way is Maher Shalal Khash Baz considered Emanu'el (Elohim with us)? Is Calling this question a "strawman" argument just a way to avoid the question?

"Your yeshua on the other hand, does not fit the context of this prophesy at all"
Notice that in chapter 7 the prophecy is without details:
"The Almah shall conceive"
"two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken."
But then In chapter 8, detail is given in the prophecy:
"the prophetess; and she conceived"
"the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Shimron shall be carried away before the king of Assyria."
The prophecy of 7 is left to interpretation, but that of 8 is not.
Also notice that 8 is not just partial fulfillment of 7, but is also a prophecy in and of itself.
I say "partial fulfillment" because in chapter 7 the son is commanded to be called Emanu'el, but in chapter 8, the son is comanded to be called Maher Shalal Khash Baz, and not Emanu'el.

"When Yisra'el was a child, then I loved him, and out of Mitsrayim I called My son."
Matisyahu is simply stating that Yisra'el coming out of Mitsrayim was a prophetic picture of Mashiyakh coming out of Mitsrayim. But once again, Your argument is simply a disagreement in the interpretations made by Matisyahu, and I have showed that it is possible for his interpretations to be accurate.

"It isn't a very strong convincer when someone uses passages that are not exclusive to the Messiah in order to try and prove that someone is the messiah."
Matisyahu is not using these scriptures to prove that Yeshua is Mashiyakh. He is adding his small commentary to certain parts of the witness that he is telling. (I do believe that his commentaries were inspired, but they are not his attempt to prove that Yeshua is Mashiyakh.

"Now you have weaseled the conversation over to Isaiah 53, while completely ignoring my rebuttal to your interpretation of Hebrews 9:22"
Every thing that I said under the quotations concerning Evarim 9:22 until the line that says,
"Mashiyakh, Ruakh Yeshua. Yeshua was slain from the beginning of the world." was all a response to your rebuttal concerning my interpretation of Evarim 9:22. You misunderstood parts of my interpretation obviously. I believe that ALL the servants and prophets of YHVH since the beginning of the world were all redeemed by faith in Yeshua and what he would do in giving his life for the sins of the world. The Peshitta says that Mashiyakh was slain from the foundation of the earth.
I in no way ignored you rebuttal. My interpretation does not contradict the text of the Peshitta. If you think it does still, please explain how.

Concerning Yeshayahu 53:
You insist this is Yisra'el, ignoring the fact that the subject of the chapter is described as Being the "arm of YHVH"
"Who has believed our report? And to whom hath the ARM OF YHVH been revealed?"
Yeshayahu 53:1
"And He saw that there was no man, and was astonished that there was no intercessor; therefore His own arm brought salvation unto Him; and His righteousness, it sustained Him;"
Yeshayahu 59:16
"And I looked, and there was none to help, and I beheld in astonishment, and there was none to uphold; therefore Mine own arm brought salvation unto Me, and My fury, it upheld Me."
Yeshayahu 63:5
The "arm of YHVH" is NOT Yisra'el!

Concerning Yekhzkiel:
"tisa et avonam" In Hebrew, this means, "thou shallt LIFT UP their transgressions" not BEAR their transgressions. The word used for "bear" in Yeshayahu 53 is "paga." The word used in Yekhezkiel is "nasa". The Hebrew word Paga means to fall upon, in the sense of killing or an evil occurent every time in the TaNaKh except for Yahoshua 19:34, where it is talking about land locations, and Yeshayahu 64:5 where it is speaking of a good occurrant. But it definitely does not mean the same as "nasa" in Yekhezkiel, which means to lift up. In English it was translated the same, but it's not the same at all in Hebrew.

Concerning Psalms 110:
I never used this verse as proof that Yeshua is Mashiyakh. look again. This is a Prophecy of Maskhiyah Ben David who has not come yet. I brought up this scripture to ask you a question which you did not answer. If you don't remember, I will post it again: Let me ask concerning Mashiyakh and who's son he is: It is said that Mashiyakh will be the son of David. IF HE IS THE SON OF DAVID, HOW IS IT THAT DAVID HIMSELF CALLS HIM LORD? For he said, "YHVH declares to MY LORD, "sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a stool for your feet. The rod of thy strength shall YHVH send from Tsiyon, rule thou in the midst of your enemies."
Tehilim 110:1-2.

"While we're on the topic, please explain to me how yeshua fulfilled Isaiah 53:10"
"HE SHALL SEE CHILDREN"
"Who were yeshua's children Yoshindo? Can you show me in your peshitta where yeshua had children? No?"
Why do you ask questions assuming I have no answer?
Yeshua has children. I am one of them, and so is everyone that is born of the Ruakh of Mashiyakh. We are his seed. You may disagree that this is not spiritual. But Elohim is Ruakh! His words that he speaks are Ruakh and they are Khayim!
This is what the Peshitta teaches.

"Concerning Moshiach ben Yosef, you are abusing the Rabbinic concept of Moshiach ben Yosef."
My Last argument concerning Daniel 9 was not insisting that Yeshua is Mashiyakh Ben Yoseph. I asked a question, and it is the third question that you have not answered. I will repeat it:
If this is not a prophecy foretelling the coming of Yeshua as Mashiakh, who indeed appeared EXACTLY to Daniel's prophecy, than who IS the Mashiyakh that fulfilled Daniel's prophecy? the specific time of the prophecy has long passed and YHVH's word can not be broken. What Mashiyakh appeared EXACTLY at 27 AD. besides Yeshua that fulfilled Daniel's prophecy?
I will emphasise: WHAT MASHIYAKH APPEARED EXACTLY AT 27 AD. BESIDES YESHUA THAT FULFILLED DANIEL'S PROPHECY?

(Obedyah does not refer to Mashiyakh ben Yoseph, he refers to "the HOUSE of Yoseph.")

Recap of questions:
-In what way is Maher Shalal Khash Baz considered Emanu'el (Elohim with us)?
-It is said that Mashiyakh will be the son of David. IF HE IS THE SON OF DAVID, HOW IS IT THAT DAVID HIMSELF CALLS HIM LORD? For he said, "YHVH declares to MY LORD, "sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a stool for your feet. The rod of thy strength shall YHVH send from Tsiyon, rule thou in the midst of your enemies."
Tehilim 110:1-2.
-WHAT MASHIYAKH APPEARED EXACTLY AT 27 AD. BESIDES YESHUA THAT FULFILLED DANIEL'S PROPHECY?
YehudaYisrael

Con

Isaiah 7:14 is the very first prophesy that matthew erroneously uses to try and champion yeshua as the Messiah of the Tanach. Now that you realize how weak of a position that matthew has, you now are trying to say that it is "not one of the main reasons why [you] believe yeshua is the Moshiach." Obviously matthew saw it as being extremely significant, as it is the very first prophesies of the Tanach he said to have been supposedly fulfilled by yeshua. Isn't matthew's purpose to try and prove yeshua as the Moshiach of the Tanach? Wouldn't it make sense for him to try and convince his audience using some of his best arguments to draw them in? Why would he open up with one of his weaker arguments for his case? It seems rather self defeating!

And I did answer your question in my last post, but I have more supporting evidence if you would like. In my last response, I emphasized that the immediate context of the birth of the son in Isaiah 7:14 concerned the son being a sign of the destruction of the two kings who King Ahaz dreaded. (Isaiah 7:16)

Isaiah 7:16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

I linked this time sensitive prophesy with Isaiah 8:3-4 which describes the same thing concerning the birth of Isaiah's own son. Here is the verse:

Isaiah 8:4. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."

Now here's the fun part!

II Chronicles 32:7-8 describes the events which occurred concerning the king of Assyria, during the reign of King Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz:

II Chronicles 32:7. "Be strong and of good courage; do not fear and do not be dismayed because of the KING OF ASSYRIA and because of all the multitude that is with him, because *HE WHO IS WITH US is greater than those with him.*

II Chronicles 32:8. With him is an arm of flesh, and WITH US IS THE LORD OUR G-D to help us and to wage our wars," and the people relied on the words of Hezekiah, king of Judah.

So lets put it all together: The birth of Isaiah's son was a sign for King Ahaz that the two kings who he dreaded would be destroyed by the king of Assyria. By after the king of Assyria defeated these kings, King Hezekiah (Ahaz's son) assured his kingdom that G-d WAS WITH THEM. Since King Hezekiah and Isaiah's son both lived during the same time as well, it is safe to conclude that the birth of Isaiah's son can be linked to King Hezekiah's understanding that G-D WAS WITH THEM, even though Assyria appeared to be a threat. Remember, this prophesy was TIME SENSITIVE and involved the two kingdoms being destroyed by the king of Assyria. This is how Isaiah's son is considered Immanuel. It's all linked together within the time frame.

And now you appear to be whitewashing matthew's abuse of Hosea 11:1 by excusing it as "commentary." Once again, this just makes matthew's case for yeshua as Messiah even weaker! You're saying first he uses a "dual prophesy" to try and prove yeshua as Messiah using Isaiah 7:14, and then he tries to make a "commentary"? When is matthew speaking about a true fulfillment of prophesy in a true tangible exclusive sense?! You seem to recognize the fact that matthew's arguments for yeshua's supposed "fulfilled prophesies" are extremely weak. But instead of acknowledging matthew's errors, you simply excuse them as "commentaries" and "dual prophesies." We're only up to the second chapter of matthew and so far we've been bombarded with supposed "fulfilled prophesies" which have nothing to do with the Moshiach in their immediate context. If matthew has to resort to "dual prophesies" in order to give credence to yeshua's supposed Messiahship, then that shows that he is desperate to come up with support for his position. So far, none of the prophesies that matthew discusses that yeshua supposedly "fulfilled" have any exclusivity to the Messiah! This makes matthew's case EXTREMELY WEAK at best and downright contextual abuse and lies at worst...

Concerning Hebrews 9:22, you have yet to respond to what I said concerning John 14:6, namely that your interpretation of Hebrews 9:22 flies in the face of the rest of your "peshitta" which states that "yeshua is the only way to the father." If you admit that there are other means of atonement for sin other than through the shedding of yeshua's blood, then yeshua's sacrifice was in vain! You admitted in your round 2 response that we did not need to believe in yeshua in order to receive forgiveness of sins during the first exile. Instead, we used prayer and repentance. If this is true, then why would we need yeshua now? Clearly, we don't, as you tacitly admit. Clearly, yeshua is not the "only way to the father," and he never was and never will be a way to receive forgiveness for our sins.

Concerning the "arm of the Lord," take a look at Isaiah 52:10

Isaiah 52:10. The Lord has revealed His holy arm BEFORE THE EYES OF ALL THE NATIONS, (goyim) and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.

Notice that the context concerns the arm of the Lord being revealed before the GOYIM. Why is this? Because Hashem's holy arm will redeem ISRAEL, G-d's servant who suffered at the hands of the goyim throughout all the generations. This is the context of Isaiah 53. Your yeshua is not the arm of the Lord either. Nor is he the suffering servant. The righteous remnant of Israel is, as demonstrated in my last post.

Concerning Israel being able to bear the sins of others, you completely ignored what I said concerning Isaiah 49:3-6, which makes it clear that Israel's role as a servant is to bring back the rest of besieged Israel and then to be a light unto the nations. Your semantic games with Ezekiel aren't doing you any favors either. If Ezekiel is able to "lift up" the sins of others through G-d, then why can't Israel, too?

Concerning Psalms 110 and your strawman question, David calls him "lord" because whoever is king at the time is usually described as "lord." For example David refers to King Saul as "lord" in I Samuel 24:9, but I don't see you making a big deal about that. I also find it ironic that you accused my interpretation of Abram being the subject of the Psalm as being faulty because he never "ruled as king" or was made a "priest." Well your yeshua never ruled as king either. At least Abram defeated four kings and met Melchizedek. Your yeshua never defeated any kings and never met Melchizedek at all. He doesn't fit Psalms 110 in the slightest.

You also made the absurd claim that Melchizedek was a "priest of the most High in the temple of the heavens." Can you show me in the Tanach where Melchizedek is described as being a priest of "the temple in the heavens?" The last time I checked, Melchizedek served as a priest and a king ON EARTH.

Genesis 14:18. And Malchizedek the *KING OF SALEM* brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God.

Salem is synonymous with Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a place here on earth. Nothing in the Tanach indicates that Melchizedek is a "priest of a heavenly temple" as you eisegetically assert. Can you please show me in Psalms 110 where it mentions that Melchizedek is in charge of a "heavenly temple"? Clearly not because it isn't there...Moreover, the Tanach mentions nothing of this Melchizedek priesthood involving blood atonement, which further estranges yeshua from this priesthood.

Concerning Isaiah 53:10, I find it amusing that you assume a "metaphorical" understanding of "offspring" in this verse, yet you demand a literal understanding of the servant "bearing the sins of others." If you are going to insist this verse referring to "metaphorical offspring," then why can't I take the position that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 represents a "metaphorical death?" or a "metaphorical bearing of sin"? You seem to have a bias and double standard concerning your interpretation of Isaiah 53.

Concerning Daniel 9, I already answered you that the word "moshiach" can refer to the Levitical High Priest in the Temple. It can also refer to the Temple itself, which was "anointed" as well. Your timeline is one of many arbitrary starting points and is not convincing in the slightest, considering the fact that these timelines are so hotly disputed. You conveniently started at a time which you knew would come out to the date you wanted. Since this prophesy is tied to the destruction of the Holy Temple, it is no surprise that with sufficient tweaking, you could come to a time which comes close to your yeshua's lifetime. I've seen multiple timelines which start at different points which seek to line themselves up with yeshua, just as you have done. Here is a more in-depth article exposing your tactic here:

http://jewsforjudaism.org...

And probably your weakest argument of them all is what you say here:

"(Obedyah does not refer to Mashiyakh ben Yoseph, he refers to "the HOUSE of Yoseph.")"

Here is my challenge to you Yoshindo. Please show me in the Tanach where "Mashiyakh ben Yoseph" is mentioned. Please find those exact words in the Tanach. If you cannot, then how do you come to the conclusion that a "Mashiyakh ben Yoseph" exists in the Tanach at all?! Seems to me that you have no idea what Moshiach ben Yosef is and you are simply abusing a Rabbinic concept and claiming it to be something related to yeshua. The very concept of Moshiach ben Yosef stems from Phariseaic Rabbinic Judaism. It has nothing to do with your "peshitta" or "notzarim" or any of that. Moshiach ben Yosef is described as an individual DESCENDED FROM JOSEPH from the tribe of EPHRAIM while Moshiach ben David is described as an individual DESCENDED FROM DAVID from the tribe of JUDAH. Are you trying to tell me that yeshua is from two different tribes? That makes no sense at all.
Debate Round No. 4
yoshidino

Pro

The purpose of Matisyahu's "b'sorah" was NOT to give his argument as to why he thinks Yeshua is Mashiyahkh. The purpose of his "b'sorah" was to givea testimony and a witness of yeshua's life and ministry. Yeshua said, "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field." Matisyahu 13:44
The witness of Yeshua's life and ministry was given to us, but he left it to us to search the scriptures and find where he was spoken of.
I asked the question concerning Maher Shalal Khash Baz because, altough I Believe that Yeshayahu is a double prophecy, I did not know how the "Emanu'el" part fit in with Yeshayahu's son. But you gave a good answer, thank you. But there is still the fact that Yeshayahu's son was not commanded to be called "Emanu'el," but rather "Maher Shalal Khash Baz.
I want to recap again: MATISYAHU'S B'SORAH IS NOT PURPOSED AS HIS ARGUMENT AS TO WHY YESHUA IS MASHIYAKH. IT IS PURPOSED TO GIVE A TESTIMONY AND A WITNESS OF YESHUA'S LIFE AND MINISTRY. Matisyahu was not a debater, he was Yeshua's witness.

"Concerning Hebrews 9:22, you have yet to respond to what I said concerning John 14:6, namely that your interpretation of Hebrews 9:22 flies in the face of the rest of your "peshitta" which states that "yeshua is the only way to the father."
This statement of yours I have to admit has made me quite irritated. I have answered this twice now, and you ignore it. I will try again to clear up my interpretation so that you do not misunderstand me:

"I believe that ALL the servants and prophets of YHVH since the beginning of the world were all redeemed by faith in Yeshua when they prayed and made suplication, (with or without a sacrifice) and what he would do in giving his life for the sins of the world. The Peshitta says that Mashiyakh was slain from the foundation of the earth."
"I believe that this Is Yeshua, and that he is the ONLY WAY to the father, and the ONLY WAY to, not atone (kipur or cover) our sins, but wash us clean completely. An atonement only covers the sin until the next year when another offering of atonement would be made. Never was there give a sacrifice, according to the Levi priesthood, that could completely wash our sins away. If there was, than they would not have to continue to offer for sin, because they would no longer have it. Yeshua, on the other hand, was the perfect sacrifice prophesied by Yeshayahu in chapter 53 that is able to take away our transgressions. It is Impossible for the whole of Yeshayahu 53 to be speaking of Yisra'el. Yisra'el does not have the ability to "justify" anyone or "bear their transgressions." But rather it specifically states, "for the transgression of MY PEOPLE (Yisra'el) to whom the stroke was due."
Mashiyakh has ALWAYS BEEN the means for justification, by faith, like Avraham. Before Even Avraham was, the Spirit of the anointing (Ruakh haMashiyakh) Lived. It is by this Ruakh that Avraham, Moshe, and all the other prophets were justified. (when the made prayer and suplication) Ruakh Mashiyakh, Ruakh Yeshua. Yeshua was slain from the beginning of the world."

Notice that the entire passage above is in quotations. It's because I already said it all. All I did was copy and past. My interpretation of Evarim 9:22 agrees completely with the rest of The Peshitta.

Yeshayahu 52:10 supports my argument and not yours. In fact, almost your entire post about Yeshayahu 52:10 sounded exactly like Yeshua. The only part that contradicted was when you said, "G-d's servant who suffered at the hands of the goyim THROUGHOUT ALL GENERATIONS." You added "through all generations to the text. If I take this out of your explanation it reads like this:
"Notice that the context concerns the arm of the Lord being revealed before the GOYIM. Why is this? Because Hashem's holy arm will redeem ISRAEL, G-d's servant who suffered at the hands of the goyim."
This is a perfect description of Yeshua. HE is the one that suffered at the hands of the goyim. (the Romans) The redemption of Yisra'el is through is shed blood, and by no other means will Yisra'el be redeemed. The day is coming when this prophecy will be fulfilled in Yisra'el:
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; AND THEY SHALL LOOK UPON ME WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born."

I ignored you posts about Yeshayahu 49 calling Yisra'el his servant because it holds no merit in the argument due to that fact that Yeshayahu 53's "sevant" and "arm of YHVH" can NOT be Yisra'el, because Yisra'el is not able to bear Anyone's transgressions, and because the "arm of YHVH" is clearly not Yisra'el when described in Yeshayahu:
"And He saw that there was no man, and was astonished that there was no intercessor; therefore His own arm brought salvation unto Him; and His righteousness, it sustained Him;"
Yeshayahu 59:16
"And I looked, and there was none to help, and I beheld in astonishment, and there was none to uphold; therefore Mine own arm brought salvation unto Me, and My fury, it upheld Me."
Yeshayahu 63:5
The "arm of YHVH" is NOT Yisra'el, therefore, Yeshayahu 53 is NOT about Yisra'el.
"Your semantic games with Ezekiel aren't doing you any favors either. If Ezekiel is able to "lift up" the sins of others through G-d, then why can't Israel, too?"
I am not playing semantic games, I am simply taking the scripture back to its original Hebrew text. In Hebrew, it doesn't say the same thing at all. You calling it a "semantic game" is a cop out because you know that, in Hebrew, it indeed does say something completely different.
YIsra'el can "lift up" (nasa) the sins of others (in prayer and supplication towards Elohim like Yekhezkiel). But this is completely different from "bearing" (paga) the transgressions of Yisra'el.

Your answer to my question concerning Tehillim 110 is almost good. But the problem is that David was the one that was king at the time, Not "Mashiyakh haba."
Tehillim 110
"Well your yeshua never ruled as king either, He doesn't fit Psalms 110 in the slightest."
You make the same mistake over and over again. In English, that is called, "insane."
No, Yeshua has not fulfilled this scripture in Tehillim, YET. You again full well ignore the testimony of Yeshua, that he is alive, and not dead. He said that he will come back and destroy all of his enemies with the breath of his mouth. (word of YHVH).
This is being prophesied to happen by David here concerning Mashiyakh. Avraham died and is still dead. He never became a king over anyone. Like I said, he was a wanderer in the land of Cana'an till the day of his DEATH. Unlike Avraham, Yeshua lives on, and is going to fulfill ALL prophecies concerning Ben David. But I say again, My question concerning Tehillim 110 was not to prove the My Yeshua is Mashiyakh. It was concerning the character of Mashiyakh, and who he is.

Melkhi Tsedek:
There is now where where Melkhi Tsedek is DIRECTLY called the Priest of the temple in the heavens. I come to this conclusion by connecting of verses concerning Melkhi Tsedek and the temple.
Salem is not Synonymous with Yerushalayim. When Mekhi Tsekek met Avraham and was called the priest of El Elyon, Yerushalayim was occupied by the Cana'anim, and not YHVH and his temple. In fact, there was no temple made dedicated to YHVH in the earth anywhere. When Moshe was in building of the first temple in the wilderness, he was commanded of Elohim, "And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount."
Shmot 25:40.
"Then went up Moses, and Aharon, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Yisra'el;"
"and they saw the Elohim of Yisra'el; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness."
When they went up into the mount, they entered the temple of the Almighty in the heavens.
This leaves only the possibility of the temple in the heavens being the location of Melkhi Tsedek's priesthood. If you think that Melkhi Tsedek was a mere man, let me ask you this:
Who was his father?
Who was his Mother?
When was he born?

"Concerning Isaiah 53:10, I find it amusing that you assume a "metaphorical"
I'm going to stop you right there. I did not say "metaphorical," I said Spiritual. Spiritual is not metaphorical. Metaphorical means not literal. I am LITERALLY born of The spirit of Mashiyakh. It happened in the year 2008 on the first night of Sukkot when the Ruakh of Elohim fell on me and made me a new man. If you thing that "spiritual" synonymous with "metaphorical" than you would have to say that Elohim himself is just a "metaphor" because he is Spirit. But no, Elohim is Spirit, and is very literal and real.

Daniel 9
"Your timeline is one of many arbitrary starting points and is not convincing in the slightest"
Let's leave whether or not it is convincing to the readers.
I gave the historical and scriptural facts, and then did very simple math. The start point is the historically recorded year when the commandment went forth to build Yerushalayim. I did not pick it.
"with sufficient tweaking"
I did no tweaking whatsoever. I only gave facts.
"comes close to your yeshua's lifetime."
It doesn't just come close, but EXACT!
A brief history concerning the commandment to rebuild Yerushalayim.
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com...
Also notice that the dates that I give do not even match that of the Christians. The Christians are wrong Concerning The year(s) of Yeshua's ministry because they are reading from the Greek. They have to twist history a little because it does not exactly fit their conceived dates. But using the Aramaic text of the Peshitta, history fits exactly, as I showed you in detail.
YehudaYisrael

Con

Are you seriously claiming that Matthew was not arguing in defense of yeshua's supposed messiahship? It's pretty hard to take you seriously when Matthew begins his testimony stating that yeshua is the Messiah, and then uses a genealogy to try and prove (unsuccessfully) that yeshua has a "Messianic pedigree." Why would he go through all the trouble of trying to link yeshua's lineage to King David if he was not trying to convince his audience that yeshua was Moshiach ben David? The very first verse of the peshitta flies in the face of your position on this matter:

Matthew 1:1 This is the record of the genealogy of yeshua hamoshiach, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Note that Matthew does not introduce yeshua as "the son of Joseph." This also flies in the face of your argument that yeshua was understood to be "Moshiach ben Yosef" during his supposed "first coming." Clearly, Matthew doesn't see it this way.

Concerning the Immanuel issue, you are making the same double standard argument that christians make. No one was every commanded to name the son of mary "Immanuel," so your gripe about this does nothing but hurt your own position. As Matthew 1:21 states:

1:21 She will give birth to a son and you will name him yeshua, because he will save his people from their sins."

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones ;-)

Concerning your defense of Hebrews 9:22, your answer is self contradictory. On the one hand, you admit that Israel was able to receive forgiveness of sins without yeshua's death during the first exile. On the other hand, you use circular reasoning to argue that "yeshua was slain from the foundation of the earth." Think about how ridiculous your argument is: If yeshua was "already slain" before he was nailed to the cross during the Second Temple period, then what on earth did his death on the cross accomplish?! You have literally destroyed the entire foundation of your theology by arguing from such an absurd, circular position.

You also argue that Abraham's "faith in the messiah" is what justified him. Even if this were true, Abraham was not given any revelation that he must believe that G-d has a supposed "son" named "yeshua" who was "slain from the foundation of the world whose death atones for the sins of the world." Moses was not given this revelation either, and nor was any other prophet in the Tanach. Thus, your argument is completely eisegetical and has no foundation within the Tanach.

Concerning Isaiah 52:10 and my explanation, I find it ironic that you claim that "this is a perfect description of yeshua." Isn't it your position that Israel is the speaker in Isaiah 53 and not the gentile nations? Remember, it is YOUR understanding that Israel is the one who "despised the servant" and "esteemed him not."

Moreover, it is YOUR PESHITTA which actually ACCUSES THE JEWS OF KILLING yeshua!

I Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in yeshua hamoshiach, that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews,

I Thessalonians 2:15 who both killed the Lord yeshua and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men,

So on the contrary, your peshitta accuses Jews of killing yeshua as well. The fact is, the collective Jewish people have been suffering under the gentiles to a far greater extent and over a far longer period of time than yeshua. The Jewish people fit the bill better than yeshua ever could for being the suffering servant of Isaiah 53!

Concerning Zechariah 12:10, note that the individual who is "pierced" is not mentioned as being of the House of David. The verse states that the House of David will be the ones looking on the one who is "pierced." Since the "one who is pierced" is not described as being "of the House of David," how can you say that this "one who is pierced" refers to the Messiah son of David? You cannot. Thus, this prophesy is not about the Messiah son of David being "pierced," and it certainly has nothing to do with yeshua.

I think we both know why you ignored my argument concerning Isaiah 49:3-6 referring to the righteous remnant of Israel's role in justifying not only the besieged of Israel, but also the gentile nations. My argument destroys your position that Israel cannot justify the gentiles. It's written plain as day in Isaiah 49:3-6! We both agree that the role of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is not only to justify Israel, but also the whole of the nations! Well there's your servant, name and face in Isaiah 49:3! The servant is the righteous remnant of ISRAEL.

Isaiah 51:7. Hearken to Me, you who know righteousness, a people that has My Torah in their heart, fear not reproach of man, and from their revilings be not dismayed.

This is yet another verse which highlights the suffering of G-d righteous servant, Israel. Isaiah 54 even refers to the "SERVENTS of the Lord"!

Isaiah 54:17. Any weapon whetted against you shall not succeed, and any tongue that contends with you in judgment, you shall condemn; this is the heritage of the SERVANTS OF THE LORD and their due reward from Me, says the Lord.

Isaiah 52:15 describes the gentiles kings who will shut their mouths because of their astonishment of Israel's vindication by Hashem. Micah 7:16-17 echoes this sentiment:

Micah 7:16. Nations shall see and be ashamed of all their might-they shall place a hand upon their mouth; their ears shall become deaf.

Micah 7:17. They shall lick the dust as a snake, as those who crawl on the earth. They shall quake from their imprisonment; they shall fear the Lord, our God, and they shall fear you.

And concerning Ezekiel 4 and the "nasa" vs "paga" debate, take a look at Isaiah 53:4!

Isaiah 53:4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed.

The Hebrew says, "Achein Chalanu hu NASA" or HE BORE OUR ILLNESSES. So you were incorrect on this point anyway, so either way, your semantic games aren't helping you.

And concerning Psalms 110, you admit that yeshua did not fulfill this Psalm during his lifetime. I understand that you believe he will fulfill it later, but the very fact that you brought it up in the first place is puzzling. You appear to be doing "damage control" now that I have exposed the fact that yeshua didn't fulfill this Psalm in the slightest. You are using circular reasoning to assume that yeshua "still lives," but you have no tangible way of demonstrating this is true. That's your personal belief, but nothing in the Tanach indicates that "yeshua still lives." This makes your argument far less than compelling.

Concerning Melchizedek, your explanation of how you came to your conclusion is extremely poor. For one thing, Salem is synonymous with Jerusalem, as Psalm 76:2 explicitly states:

Psalm 76:2 His tabernacle is in Salem; His dwelling place in Zion.

Salem=Zion=Jerusalem, so you are incorrect in your assertion that Salem is not synonymous with Jerusalem.

Moreover, the verse you quoted from Shmot mentions nothing of Melchizedek or any sort of "heavenly priesthood" at all.

You now ask me who Melchizedek's parents were and where he was born. First of all, I find the argument that Hebrews 7 makes on this extremely poor. There are plenty of people in the Tanach who do not have genealogies explicitly mentioned. Does this make them "like yeshua," too? For example, Adonizedek is mentioned as being the King of Jerusalem in Joshua 10:1. an you tell me who his parents were? Can you tell me where he was born? No? Well then, does that make him "like yeshua," too?

Also, keep in mind that Melchizedek is not a literal name. It is a title which means "righteous king." The Talmud explains that Melchizedek is Shem, the son of Noah. Even if you deny this, there is much more support in the Tanach for this than your explanation, as Shem was given the best blessing by Noah among his brothers. Shem also outlived Abraham, which makes it plausible that they encountered each other during their lifetimes.

Concerning Isaiah 53:10, you are playing semantic games again. Why do you assume that Hashem meant "spiritual offspring" as opposed to physical offspring here? You take the first half of the verse hyper literally, demanding that the verse can only be referring to one person who was literally killed and that his death literally atones, but when it comes to the second half of the verse, that becomes a "spiritual" fulfillment at your convenience.

Also, you have effectively destroyed your credibility in arguing objectively, as your own personal subjective "spiritual" experience does not prove anything concerning whether or not yeshua is the Moshiach according to the Tanach.

Your explanation of Daniel 9 is shoddy and incoherent. You have given no evidence to prove that yeshua is the individual being described as the "moshiach" in verse 26. Moreover, the promises of Daniel 9:24 have yet to be fulfilled as transgression has not ended. Remember, you're the one who claims the blood of yeshua "atones for the sins of the world." However, none of the promises of Daniel 9:24 have come to pass! There is still sin in the world! So why do you link yeshua's death to the expiation of sin?! Clearly, you have no basis for making this claim other than your own subjective bias.

Thank you for the debate Yoshindo. I strongly encourage you to reconsider your belief in yeshua as the Moshiach. I believe your position has been soundly refuted in this debate. I am not sure if you worship yeshua or not, but if you do, I urge you to stop as it is idolatrous for a halachic Jew to do so.

I've noticed that your arguments were nearly identical to those who identify as christians. I know you don't call yourself a christian, but honestly you really don't seem to be different than them except for semantic differences. I hope you have a good Shabbos. Lehitraot!
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
Concerning the video that you posted:
It makes me SO sad what the Christians have done in defiling the name of Yeshua, making him an abomination to all of Torah v'hanavi'im. Because of the Christians, Yeshua, now called Jesus by Christians, Yehudim have NO IDEA who Yeshua really was and what he taught. Yeshua did not come to start the Anti-semitic Christian abominable religion. He came as a Yehudi to Teach Torah, and to Redeem the house of Yisra'el.
"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Matisyahu 15:24
" Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matisyahu 5:17-19

The Christian religion was not started by Yeshua, it was started by Constantine the Great, the Roman Emperor. Constantine was a son worshiper to the day of his death. He took the teachings of the Netsarim concerning Yeshua, and mixed it in with Greek/Roman Paganism. THIS was the birth of Christianity, not Yeshua. Yeshua loved the Yehudim and all of Yisra'el with all of his heart, even unto death.

Oh! That Yisra'el would see The true name and identity of Yeshua ha'Netsari!!
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
I was not able to post concerning my usage of "Mashiyakh Ben Yoseph" because of character limit.
So real quick:
I use the term "Mashiyakh Ben Yoseph" because it fits the description of Yeshua as a suffering servant. I do not agree with the Rabbinic Ideas concerning their "Mashiyakh ben Yoseph" (OBVIOUSLY. I believe he is Yeshua, they don't.)
I also didn't have enough room to explain concerning your statement, " I already answered you that the word "moshiach" can refer to the Levitical High Priest in the Temple."
A "Mashiyakh" has to be specified as such to be Mashiyakh. And Daniel is clearly speaking of a special Mashiyakh, not just some random High priest. In fact, the verse, "And after 62 weeks shall Mashiyakh be cut off, but not for himself" refers back to Yeshayahu 53; "for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due."

I also didn't have room to speak of Obediah.
If You didn't make me repeat my explanation on Evarim, I would have had a lot more room for other things.... It was kind of irritating.

There is a lot that I was unable to post due to character limit.
Posted by YehudaYisrael 2 years ago
YehudaYisrael
Here's a video exposing the lies of the video you posted Yoshindo. It has a testimony from Yitzchak Kaduri's own son.

https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
https://www.youtube.com...
Just some interesting facts concerning Rabbi Yitskhac Kiduri for anyone who is interested. Please forgive the Christian Narrative.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
The seven things in 24 happened through Yisra'el's captivity and the suffering of Mashiyakh. all within 490 years (70 prophetic weeks).
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
I am not a part of this "church" you are talking about. You are wrong to say that I only refer to scripture in the "mystical" sense, because I do not. But the times that I do are justified. Elohim is Ruakh; his words are Ruakh and they are life.
Posted by Blasater 2 years ago
Blasater
Yoshi --a couple of observations.

1) You are not reading Daniel 9 properly. Before you get to the counting issue in 25-26, you first have to get past the Churches error in 9:24, which claims that Jesus fulfilled those 6 tasks. The problem is, that those tasks are not for messiah. Those tasks were specifically for the "people and your holy city" to perform. And of course, Jesus did not perform them anyway, but the important part is that they were not decreed for him to accomplish in the first place.

2) Every scripture you have posted involves a mystical event. I always find it striking that the church can only make their case for Jesus in the mystical or "dark" passages of Tanakh and the Jewish faith is fundamentally found in the clear and unambiguous scriptures. The Jewish understanding is hermeneutically proper and the church case is improper. The Jewish methodology uses scriptures in the light, straight forward and clear, to shed light on those mystical events in the dark. The church shoe-horns Jesus into the mystical events and then tries to explain the clear passages in light of the mystical. That is a fatal flaw of church dogma.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
I will try to get to my argument tomorrow.
No votes have been placed for this debate.