The Instigator
yoshidino
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Is Y'shua the Mashiyakh?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,208 times Debate No: 65509
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (45)
Votes (1)

 

yoshidino

Pro

This debate is NOT about the christian Jesus, It is only about the Yehudi, Y'shua of Nazareth accounted for in the Aramaic writings of the "shlikhim" (sent out ones) of Y'shua. Of couse I will not use these writings to support the validity of them. I will only use the TNk to support the writings. So the subject question: Y'shua, Is he or is he not the Mashiyakh?
Emilrose

Con

Thanks to Yoshidino for sending this debate and for selecting me as his opponent.

As there's a total of five rounds, I will use this one as acceptance and outline my opening argument in the second.

To clarify my position: I will be arguing that Y'shua is not the Mashiyakh (Messiah) and that the Tanakh (OT) does not support him as being so.
Debate Round No. 1
yoshidino

Pro

Ok, so there might be a lot of Hebrew words used, although I know you can go read the Hebrew anyways... English just doesn't do justice.
Yeshayahu 52:13 - 53:12;
Hineh! my servant shall deal prudently, yarum v'nasa v'gvoah meod. As many were astonished at at thee; kain mishkhat m'ish m'raeho, and his form more than the sons of men. kain yaza go'im rabim; the kings shall shut their mouths at him. For which had not been told them shall they see; and which they had not heard hitbonanu.
Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of YHVH revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground. He hath no to'ar nor hadar that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of makobot, v'yadoa kholi. And we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, v'lo khashvaneihu. Surely he hath borne our sickness, and carried our our pain. Yet we thought him stricken, smitten of Elohim, and afflicted. v'hu m'khalal for our transgressions, m'daka for our iniquities: The chastisement of our peace was upon him, ub'khavuroto we are healed. All we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and YHVH hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: He is brought like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgement: and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off from the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death. Because he had done no violence, neither was deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased YHVH to break him and make him kholi. When thou shalt make his soul an asham he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, v'khefets YHVH b'yado yitslakh. He shall see the travail of his soul. He shall be satisfied. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him 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, vl'psha'im yiphagia.

This is my opening argument: Yeshua, born of the almah Miriyam bat Yoseph, was this man. I believe that he was the servant and arm of YHVH as mentioned in the above passage. Yeshua ha'netsari was stricken and smitten of the Roman soldiers. The Yehudim despised and rejected him. hu kain hayah ish makobot v'yadoa kholi. His face was destroyed and marred more than any man. hu kain m'khalal vm'daka. He was oppressed and afflicted, And when bought before the kohenim and the Roman emperor, he didn't open his mouth to their questions as they asked, but he kept silent. He was numbered with the transgressors (with thieves) While hanging on the tree.

While hanging on the tree, Yeshua cried out in Aramaic, "Elahi, Elahi, Lama sabakhtani!?" The Hebrew equivalent is, "Eli, Eli, lameh azavtani!?" To following our Yehudi tradition, we should go look at the ketuvah that starts with, "Eli, Eli, Lame asavtani?"
Tehilim 22: Eli, Eli, lameh asavtani? rakhoq mishuati, divrei she'agati? Elahi, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and at night, and am not silent. v'atah qadosh, that inhabiteth the tehilot Yisra'el. Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou dids't deliver them. They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not ashamed. V'anokhi tola'at v'lo ish, kherfat adam v'bazoi am. All they that see me mock me, yifatiru b'safah, they shake the head. "gal el YHVH, yiflatehu, yatzilehu ki khafatz bo." But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou dids't make me hope upon my mothers breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: from my mother's womb, Eli atah. Don't be far from me, for tzara is near; for there is no helper......" 14, "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strenghth is dried up like a kheres; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaw; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death." Notice this next part: 16, "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I will count all of my bones: they stare and look at me. they divide my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

As Yeshua was hanging on the tree, this is what the Yehudim were quoting in their minds as they watched it all play out in front of them.
Why Would it be Mashiyakh that would have to suffer like this? Ha'lo Mashiyakh ben David?:
Yeshayahu 46:13; "I bring my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Tsion for Yisra'el my glory."
51:5; "My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people."
42:1- 4; "Behold my servant, I will uphold him, my chosen one; ratstah nafshi. I have put my ruakh upon him, mishfat l'go'im yotsia. He shal not cry, nor lift up, v'lo yish'miya b'khuts qolo. A crushed read shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: l'emet yotsia mishfat. Lo yikaheh v'lo yaruts ad yasim ba'erets mishfat, and the isles shall wait for his Torah."
63:5; "And I looked, and there was no help; and I wondered that there was none that upholds: v'tosha li zarai..."

Adonai Makes it clear in scripture that he himself shall bring righteousness and salvation. For he looked on the earth, and there was none the brought righteousness, no not one. Mosheh describes the righteousness of the Torah saying,"Ye shall gaurd my statutes and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: Ani YHVH.
Vayiqra 18:5.
But then Yeshayahu says, "All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way."
Tehilim 14:3; "They are all gone aside, they are together become morally filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
But Mosheh says in Davarim 27:26; "aror asher lo yaqim et divrei ha'Torah ha'zot l'asot otam." v'amar kol ha'am, Amen."
So then a curse is laid upon us because none of us have fully kept the Torah to do all the commandments. we have all failed at some point. In the Torah, Elohim gave us the ordinance of shedding the blood of animals to cover our sins:
But the Torah, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereto perfect. If they could, would they not then cease to be offered? Because the worshipers, once purged, should have had no more consciousness of sin. But in those offerings there is made a remembrance again of sins every year.
Ki katuv b'tehilim 40:6; "zebakh v'minkha lo khafatsta, ozenim karita li, olah v'khata'a lo sha'alta. then said I, behold, I come b'miglat sifer katuv alai."
As I said, a curse is laid on us, because we have broken the Torah in some way. There then is required a removal of these sins, which could not be done perfectly by the blood shed of animals year by year. For Adonai said himself, "I will establish righteousness," and, "My own arm brought me salvation."
In Yeremiyahu 31:31-33; "Behold, the days come, saith YHVH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Yisra'el, and with the house of Yehudah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day I took them my their hand to bring them out of the land of Mitsra'im, which my covenant they broke, although I was a ba'al to them, na'um YHVH. For this is the covenant that ekrat iyt beit Yisra'el after those days, na'um YHVH, I will put my Torah inside of them, and upon their hearts I will write them. v'hayiti lahem la'Elohim, v'hemah yihayu li la'am."
How then is any covenant ever "karat" but by the shedding of blood? and in every offering made by Torah, the priests would lay their hand on the animal, symbolically passing the sin of the people to the animal. So then it is then the animal that bears the sin and not the people. How then would the servant of Adonai take upon himself the curse due to us, which would have to be done to bring righteousnes.
Hineh, katuv b'devarim 21:23; "qelelat Elohim taloi talah" (cursed is he who hangs on a tree)
And the briyt khadasha could only be "karat" by the shedding of blood. And not the blood shed of just any, but only of one that is "tamim." Not the blood shed of bulls and goats, which the scriptures makes clear, are not perfect to take away sin, but the shed blood of a perfect man, even Mashiyakh himself. It is seen then, that before Mahiyakh come as Ben David, He first must come as Ben Yoseph, the suffering servant. Mashiyakh, the Servant of El Elyon, must have suffered in order to take away the sins of his people to establish his righteousness in us and bring salvation to Yisra'el.
Emilrose

Con

While Pro notes in round one that this debate is "not" about the Christian Jesus, it should be acknowledged that Yeshua (through non-Christian sources or not) is an intrinsic part of Christianity.

Opening Argument

Concerning Pro's use of Yesha'yahu 52:12-13, it is not definitive that it actually is referring to Mashiach, particularly Yeshua (Jesus) the Mashiach. While the chapter of Yesha'yahu 53 is somewhat considered as Messianic in some areas; the verses of 53:12-13 may very well not be Messianic. In fact, within Judaism the "suffering servant" outlined by Yesha'yahu is also regarded as Israel itself--and in many ways, such a prophesy: being despised and rejected of men, being thought of as stricken, smitten of Elohim (G-d) and ub neh (afflicted) coincides much more with the future mistreatment of the Jewish people rather than what may happen to the Mashiach. Very little evidence is presented within Jewish scripture such as Tanakh to suggest that the Mashiach will be an afflicted man who will have to endure great sufferance; on the contrary, he is largely outlined as a king and as a savior for the Jewish people and someone who will bring not only peace to them--but peace to the entire world. Moreover, this is all of course within the duration of one lifetime.

It's also correct that while being persecuted for "inequities" within gentile nations, the Jews were largely victims--not guilty of the crimes that they had been accused of. Which again, corresponds fully with verse 53:12-13. Throughout the Tanakh the nation of Israel and the Jewish people is also regularly termed in singular form. .

Considering the context of this debate it should be highlighted that even the disciples of Yeshua and authors of the B'rit Hadasha did not include any specification of Yesha'yahu 53 being a messianic prophesy; as they clearly did with other verse from the Tanakh.

In verse 53:10 it states: "Yir'eh zera ya'arich yamim; vechefetz adonai, beyado yitzlach. Vaihvah chafetz dakke'o, hecheli--'im-tasim asham nafsho."

Which translates as:


"Yet it pleased the L-rd to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the L-rd might prosper by his hand."

The interpretation of G-d being ha pes (pleased) by breaking the Mashiach is also highly questionable, particularly consider His purpose for the Mashiach. Rather, upon exile by the Romans the Jewish people were scattered throughout the lands and became oppressed and afflicted, and more to the point: nib neh l sim (despised of men). While one can easily interpret the verse as connect to Yeshua upon further inquiry it becomes more suggestive of a prophesy for the entire nation of Israel. Additional verses by Yesha'yahu in Chapter 53 also strongly support that argument:

The ancient Midrash Rabba also states about 53:12: “I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey” (Song of Songs 5:1): because the Israelites poured out their soul to die in captivity, as it is said, “Because he poured out his soul to die.”

The first book of the Talmud, Berakoth 5a, also applies Yesha'yahu 53 to the nation of Israel:

"If the Holy One, blessed be He, is pleased with Israel or man, He crushes him with painful sufferings. For it is said: And the Lord was pleased with [him, hence] He crushed him by disease (Isa. 53:10). Now, you might think that this is so even if he did not accept them with love. Therefore it is said: "To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution"(Ibid). Even as the trespass-offering must be brought by consent, so also the sufferings must be endured with consent. And if he did accept them, what is his reward? "He will see his seed, prolong his days"(Ibid). And more than that, his knowledge [of the Torah] will endure with him. For it is said: "The purpose of the Lord will prosper in his hand"(Ibid). It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai says: The Holy One, blessed be He, gave Israel three precious gifts, and all of them were given only through sufferings.. These are: The Torah, the Land of Israel and the World To Come."

Within his closing arguments to round one Pro again includes verse and relates it directly to Jesus; without any given foundation.

The verse has in fact long been considered as being a prophesy for Israel.

The fact that Yeshua is claimed to have stated a verse seemingly corresponding with the verse of Tehillim 14:3 does of course still not prove that he is the Mashiach, or indeed that it was him being referenced in Yesha'yahu 53. Tehillim 14:2 states:

"D halo yade'u, kol-po'alei-'aven. ochelei ammi, achelu lechem; adonai, lo karav."

Which would translate as: "Shall not all the workers of iniquity know it, who eat up My people as they eat bread, and call not upon the L-rd."


As a Jew, particularly one claiming to the Mashiach, it's likely that Yesha'yahu was learned in the Hebrew bible and was thus influenced by much of the verse: again, this does still not mean that he was the Mashiach. Likewise the saying of Moshe in Devarim 27:16 (as valid as it is) and Yermiyahu 31:31-33 are still not evidences--or even indication of Yeshua being the Mashiach.

Here I will continue with outlining my own reasons on as to why Yeshua is not Mashiach:

The first example being the very significant fact that Yeshua did not fulfill the personal qualifications and requirements outlined in the Tanakh for Mashiach.

The Mashiach will be second only to Moshe in becoming the greatest prophet (Yesha'yahu 11:2) Yeshua is claimed to be prophet--however, the issue exists with him appearing approximately 350 years after this prophecy had ended.

A large portion of Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh also speak of Mashiach being a human leader, or rather "king" being in the line of King David. Such suggestions can easily be found within the verses of (Yesha'yahu 11:1-9;) (Yermiyahu 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; 34:11-31 37:21-28) and (Hoshea 3:4-5). All Jewish sources outline Mashiach as being a human man born to two human parents; thus adding further contradiction to the idea of Yeshua as Mashiach.
Torah observance also plays a a considerable part in the coming of Mashiach, as he will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. A passage in the B'rit Hadasha (Yohanan (9:14) describes Yeshua as having violated the Shabbat, causing the Pharisees to exclaim: "He does not observe Shabbat!", adds further indication that Yeshua was not entirely observant of Jewish law as explained within the Torah, which to highlight: was delivered by G-d himself. The Mashiach will not only be observant of this law but will also teach it to the people.

To expound further, the teachings Yeshua deviate from the Jewish belief system and the fact that Judaism and Jewish identity is significantly based on national identity (As received by G-d). This is something that Sephardi Rabbi Maimonides outlines:

"The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.

What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as it says, "Face to face, G-d spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "G-d did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us; who are all here alive today."(Dev. 5:3)

Relating to Mashiach qualifications, Yeshua also failed to rebuild the temple; which is explicitly outlined in the Tanakh as being an expectation for Mashiach.

Sources:

(1.) http://outreachjudaism.org...

(2.) http://jewsforjudaism.org...

(3.) http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org...

(4.)http://www.aish.com...

(5.) http://www.jewfaq.org...

Debate Round No. 2
yoshidino

Pro

"While Pro notes in round one that this debate is "not" about the Christian Jesus, it should be acknowledged that Yeshua (through non-Christian sources or not) is an intrinsic part of Christianity."
Christianity is the mixture of some Yehudi ideas withing Greek/Roman paganism that took the Yeshua that existed, polluted his name turning it into "Jesus," taught that the Torah is "Shakhit" and then mixed him in with sun worship. All this done By Roman Emperor Constantine The Great. I am NOT Christian, nor does my Yeshua resemble Christianity. The Christian "Jesus" (which never existed) is not my Mashiyakh.

Yeshayahu 52:12-53; I will not necessarily disagree with you that some of the verses within this text can very well relate to Yisra'el as a people. I will however remind you of our four levels of scripture interpretation: Pashat, Remez, Drash, and Sod.
While the third level of interpretation "Drash" can be used to see prophecy of persecution of the Yehudi people, the "Pashat" text simply refers to one servant. This servant and arm of YHVH is described in the text to have the ability to "Justify many." Who can Justify, but Elohim himself?

"The interpretation of G-d being ha pes (pleased) by breaking the Mashiach is also highly questionable, particularly consider His purpose for the Mashiach. Rather, upon exile by the Romans the Jewish people were scattered"
Have you not read; "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."
Not only were the Yehudim scattered upon exile by the Romans, but also, after Yeshua died, great persecution arose against the Shlikhim that drove them out of Yerushalaiyim (not all). Yeshua taught that he was the good shepherd that cared for the flock of Yisra'el. If this was true, than his sheep had to be scattered when he was smitten in order to fulfill the prophecy.

I also want to let you know that I too hold the hope of the coming of Ben David, Melekh ha'Yehudim. In the witness of the Shlikhei Yeshua ha'netsari, we see that, although Yeshua was put to death, but three days later rose from the grave and lives "le'olam va'ed." As the prophet Yonah said, "mibeten sh'ol shiva'ti shamata koli." Yonah 2:3 (as Yonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so also was Yeshua three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.)
And as the prophet Yeshayahu said, "maitser umi'mishpat Lukakh." (he was taken from oppression and judgment)
And, "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.)
This is not refering to Yisra'el, as it is the transgression of Yisra'el that he is taking upon himself. Here it is seen in the Pashat level, that the savior of Yisra'el would have to die in order to bear the transgression of Yisra'el.

"Considering the context of this debate it should be highlighted that even the disciples of Yeshua and authors of the B'rit Hadasha did not include any specification of Yesha'yahu 53 being a messianic prophesy."
Although the Shlikhim did not specifically mention this passage, it is still written that, after rising from the dead, Yeshua expounded to his Shlikhim all things in the Torah and Navi'im that told how Mashiyakh would first have to suffer and be rejected of his people (as Ben Yoseph) before concurring Yisra'el and reigning as Ben David. None of these scriptures are specified, but it is left to the student of Torah to go and search it out themselves.
Please also note that in reality, not many prophecies widely excepted by the Yehudim to refer to Mashiyakh haba such as Yeshayahu 11:10; " a root of Ishai" and many other alike do not actually specify that he is Mashiyakh. It is left to the reader to uderstand that both, melek Yisra'el, and ebed Adonai are both one in the same, and interpreted as haMashiyakh.

"As a Jew, particularly one claiming to the Mashiach, it's likely that Yesha'yahu was learned in the Hebrew bible and was thus influenced by much of the verse:"
Though, of course, Yeshayahu was learned in the Torah, when he prophesied he spoke moved by the Ruakh ha'qodesh.
As States Mosheh in b'midbar 11:25; "And YHVH came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him (Mosheh), and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease."

"The Mashiach will be second only to Moshe in becoming the greatest prophet (Yesha'yahu 11:2) Yeshua is claimed to be prophet--however, the issue exists with him appearing approximately 350 years after this prophecy had ended."
I am confused at this statement. Please expound on what you mean by, "after this prophecy had ended."
I would like to point out though, that This prophet to come was not specified to be second to Mosheh in greatness, only in time period.

I also believe that Mashiyakh Ben David will be human and reign as king. As you said, this is easily found in the "ketuvim qadoshim" But I fail to see where it specifies him to be born of two parents. Yeshayahu tells us that Mashiyakh will be born of an "almah" which can mean either a virgin or just a young woman, and he states that Mashiyakh will rise from the root of Ishai of the seed of David; but never is specified a male parent helping to give birth to Mashiyakh. Miriam the "betulah" (virgin) was of the direct lineage of King David through her father, Yoseph.

"Torah observance"
As I mentioned Earlier, Yeshua NEVER taught against Torah. Rather he taught it to its full! In Yokhanan 9:14 when Yeshua Heals the blind man; in no instance did Yeshua break a direct commandment of Torah. He only broke the "Talmud" instruction made by the Yehudim (not Elohim). If you disagree, please show me a place where Torah forbids the washing of eyes on the shabbat. Even Yehudim washed on shabbat (washing of the hands before eating). Also is it no where found in Torah that forbids the "healing of eye sight" on the shabbat.

Miracles:
We, like with Mosheh, do not believe Yeshua because of any miracles that he did. Rather we believe him because we witnessed him risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, and also the three leaders, Kepha, Yokhanan, and Ya'akov all witnessed him in his glory with Elohim (like Mosheh) On The high mountain. He did not show himself to all of Yisra'el at that time because, as we both agree, Mashiyakh's time has not yet come to shew himself to Yisra'el and reign as king. The only difference between you and I concerning the reign of Mashiyakh is that you believe he is coming to reign, and I believe he is coming BACK to reign. As the scripture says, "they shall look on me who they have pierced." You see, according to the witness, Yeshua is still verry alive and very human, and sits at the Right hand of Elohim. But not mortal human, but made immortal glorified of Elohim, Just like we will be glorified at the resurrection of the last day. Surely you know about the resurrection taught in Torah and the Prophets? I guess I should ask if you are more pharisee or Sadducee?

"the teachings Yeshua deviate from the Jewish belief system and the fact that Judaism and Jewish identity is significantly based on national identity (As received by G-d)."
This is not true... Yeshua specifically said in Matisyahu 15:24; "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Yisra'el."
Although, later, it is told that he appeared to Shaul and sent him to "B'sor" the coming of Mashiyakh to the go'im. Thus fulfilling the prophecy, "And he said, it is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Ya'akov, and to bring back the "netsiri" of Yisra'el: I will also give thee for a light to the go'im, to be my salvation unto the ends of the earth." Yeshayahu 49:6

Rebuilding of the temple:
Have you not read in 1 Malkhim 8:27; "For in truth, will Elohim dwell on the earth? Behold, the heavens and the heavens of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?"
Again, in Yeshayahu 66:1-2; "Thus saith YHVH, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is a stool for my feet: where is this house that ye will build for me, and where is this place of my rest? All of these have mine hand made, and all of these have been, Na'um YHVH. Upon this will I look: To he who is "ani unkhai ruakh, v'kharaid al d'vari." (of a poor and contrite spirit and trembles at my word.)
Mashiyakh is not coming to build a temple made with hands, rather to build his temple in our hearts. Elohim wants a house made with the hearts of men, not stones of earth. It's all about "ahavah" Miss Emilrose. As in the Sh'ma; "Sh'ma Yisra'el, YHVH Eloheinu, YHVH ekhad. V'ahavta et YHVH Eloheikha b'khol levavekha, uv'khol, nafshekha, uv'khol me'odekha."
Devarim 6:4-5
This is the first and greatest commandment. Abba Yah wants our hearts to be fully in love with him, and this is better than any temple made with hands.
(ps. It doesn't require a Mashiyakh to build a temple made with hands. Mosheh made one in the desert, Shlomo made one is Yerushalayim, and So did the people in the time of Nekhamiyah and Ezra.)

We love Adonai Elohim, isheinu (our husband) because he has saved us from our sins.
Hoshea 2:16; " And it shall come to be at that day, Na'um YHVH, you shall call me "Ishi" and you shall no more call me "Ba'ali."
Yeremiyahu 3:14; "Turn, backsliding children, Na'um YHVH, for I am married unto you: and I will take you one from a city, and two from a family, and I will bring you to Tsiyon."
The gathering of the outcasts of Yisra'el is the rebuilding of the temple. Yisra'el has been Scattered (destroyed) But Elohim will Bring us all together (rebuild us) again in Tsiyon Halellu-YH! Barukh shemo! This interpretation can easily be found in the Drash level.
Emilrose

Con


Firstly, I'd like to highlight that the name of Yeshua wasn't actually "polluted" or "turned into Jesus"--rather this is merely the Greek translation for it.

The very fact is that regardless if one (believes) they are following a Hebrew Yeshua; he is still associated with Christianity and still resembles his image as portrayed within it. The NT outlines that it was Yeshua who referenced himself as "the Christos" in Greek--which is thus where got its name from.

Yesha'yahu 53 of course references Israel; while some of the chapter is Messianic--much of it is actually providing future prophecy for the Yehudim.

Pro notes: "Not only were the Yehudim scattered upon exile by the Romans, but also, after Yeshua died, great persecution arose against the Shlikhim that drove them out of Yerushalaiyim (not all). Yeshua taught that he was the good shepherd that cared for the flock of Yisra'el. If this was true, than his sheep had to be scattered when he was smitten in order to fulfill the prophecy."

Which doesn't exactly answer my initial question. If the verse is a prophecy for Yeshua (as Pro claimed it to be) then why would G-d decide that the Mashiach (His Mashiah) be ha pes (pleased) with breaking him? The point about the Yehudim--which I also originally outlined--is entirely agreed upon, however, it doesn't provide a satisfactory answer for Mashiach being the one "broken"; and for G-d being pleased with it.

"I also want to let you know that I too hold the hope of the coming of Ben David, Melekh ha'Yehudim. In the witness of the Shlikhei Yeshua ha'netsari, we see that, although Yeshua was put to death, but three days later rose from the grave and lives "le'olam va'ed." As the prophet Yonah said, "mibeten sh'ol shiva'ti shamata koli." Yonah 2:3 (as Yonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so also was Yeshua three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Again, there's no real evidence that Yeshua did indeed rise from the grave within three days, aside from B'rit Hadasha scripture and other predominantly Christian sources. Having a Mashiach that would come twice was not a largely upheld expectation.

The additional verse from Yesha'yahu (which admittedly in the latter part, would seem as a non-prophecy for Israel) does still not outline enough suggestion that Yesha'yahu was the Mashiach. The beginning part of the verse: "maitser umi'mishpat Lukakh." (he was taken from oppression and judgement) is disputable in context as though while Yeshua was judged--he was not exactly "oppressed"; again this bares more relevance to the people of Israel.

"I also believe that Mashiyakh Ben David will be human and reign as king."

In that case, how exactly can Yeshua be Mashiach? Your point about Mashiyakh ben Yosef and Mashiyakh ben David is taken into account--however, even if there is in fact two comings (which is disputable) there's still very limited evidence that Yeshua is Mashiach ben Yosef or will be Mashiach ben David. In addition, reigning as an actual king and leader does not fully coincide with the B'rit Hadasha portrayal of Yeshua. More than anything, he is expressed as a healer--and once more, someone whom can perform miracles; not necessarily someone who will ever "lead" or become "king" of the land of Israel.

"Yeshayahu tells us that Mashiyakh will be born of an "almah" which can mean either a virgin or just a young woman, and he states that Mashiyakh will rise from the root of Ishai of the seed of David; but never is specified a male parent helping to give birth to Mashiyakh. Miriam the "betulah" (virgin) was of the direct lineage of King David through her father, Yoseph."

The term "almah" almost exclusively means "young maiden", not "virgin", which as you include; is "betulah" in Hebrew.

Most importantly, Yesha'yahu 7:14 is far more likely a prophecy for himself, *not* the Mashiach. When studying the additional context, this actually becomes fairly evident.

Here I will provide some examples:

"Harah veyoledet ben, vekarat shemo, immanu el lachen yitten adonai hu, lachem--'ot. Hinneh ha'almah." (Yesha'yahu 7:14)

In English: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

The chapter then proceeds with--

"Battov. Chem'ah udevash, yochel--leda'to ma'os bara', uvachor." (7:15)

"Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good."


Naturally this particular verse cannot apply to Yeshua as he would not have to learn how to "reject bad and choose good".

"Te'azev ha'adamah asher attah katz, mippenei shenei melacheiha. Ki beterem yeda hanna'ar, ma'os bara'--uvachor battov". (7:16)

"Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken."

Once again, not suggestive of Yeshua. The prophecy to Yesha'yahu himself becomes in fact more evident in the next chapter, 8:3.

"Adonai elai kera shemo maher shalal chash baz va'ekrav el hannevi'ah vattahar vatteled ben vayomer."

"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.".

So, it was not Mashiach but rather a prophecy for the "Almah" of Yesha'yahu.

Torah Observance

There is both verse within both Christian and earlier Jewish source to suggest, even explicitly that Yeshua did not fully observe the Torah; and certainly did not "teach it to its full". For example, Saul (Paul) one of the main writers of B'rit Hadasha states in (Ephesians 2:15) that Yeshua "abolished the law, with all its commandments and ordinances".

While the Talmud was established by the Yehudim, it was still (as continues to be) upheld as a significant scripture and an important part of Jewish law--something obviously not recognized by Yeshua.

As for miracles, again, a large part of the identity of Yeshua is based upon performing miracles and throughout history this is evidently been one of the main attractions in following him.

Moses and Shlomo both made temples in different circumstances. As Yechezkiel outlines in his verse of the third temple, it will be a building (as in a non-spiritual sense) and built by the Maya himself; something again that Yeshua failed to do.




Debate Round No. 3
yoshidino

Pro

When a Yehudi's name is turned greek, we call that Hellenistic. This is pollution of a Yehudi name. But moving on...

lol! Yeshua NEVER refered to himself as 'the christos." He was not Greek, He was Hebrew. He called himself "Mashiyakh." And I know that you would agree, when Mashiyakh comes as King, he will call himself "Mashiyakh." The Greeks may translate that into christos, But he will be Mashiyakh to us.

Yeshayahu 53;
Within this whole chapter, the subject (arm of YHVH) never changes. everything said is referring to the "arm of YHVH."

"If the verse is a prophecy for Yeshua (as Pro claimed it to be) then why would G-d decide that the Mashiach (His Mashiah) be ha pes (pleased) with breaking him?"
Here you simply question Elohim saying, "why?" I also have a question. Why does Elohim tarry so long to send King Mashiyakh? Why didn't he come at the time of the Holocaust? There are many things we can question why. But Yeshayahu says in 55:8-9; "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways, Na'um YHVH."
But we know that Elohim DID take "khefets" in smiting his own arm.
The reason that this passage is considered to be speaking about the Yehudim by many rabbis (not all) I believe is because if they admit it is Mashiyakh here, than they know that Yeshua fulfilled it to perfection. And If Yeshua is the Mashiyakh, than they would be the sons of the ones that killed their Mashiyakh, which is unbearable to consider by most Rabbis. I say most, because there are a considerable amount that do believe that Yeshua IS the Mashiyakh. A friend of mine named Mike Winger went to Yisra'el one time with a man named Jim Barfield who has found where the lost treasure of Shlomo's Temple in Qumran. So they presented it to the Rabbis. While there, Mike Winger, being a believer in Mashiyakh Yeshua, asked a fellow Rabbi that believed in Mashiyakh Yeshua, "which of all these Rabbis believe is Yeshua as Mashiyakh?" The Rabbi tells him that he will walk next to certain Rabbis, and if the Rabbi turns and smiles at him, it means he believes that Yeshua is the Mashiyakh. (Those that do believe he is Mashiyakh have to keep quiet about it so they don't get shunned.) So The Rabbi walks over to several different Rabbis, and as he does, many turn back and smile at Mike. Many Yehudi Rabbis DO believe Yeshua is Mashiyakh. They are keeping quiet because they know the persecution they will face from the community if they voice this.

"Again, there's no real evidence that Yeshua did indeed rise from the grave within three days, aside from B'rit Hadasha scripture"
What evidence do you have that YHVH really spoke to Mosheh besides the TANAK?

"as though while Yeshua was judged--he was not exactly "oppressed"; again this bares more relevance to the people of Israel."
Yeshua WAS taken from "otser" (which means oppression or restraint.) He was put in the grave, and three days later came out. Another place in the "Briyt Khadasha" says that, while he was dead, he went to "b'sor" to the souls in She'ol. Then three days was taken out.

"there's still very limited evidence that Yeshua is Mashiach ben Yosef or will be Mashiach ben David."
I have given you many scriptures that prophecy of a suffering servant Mashiyakh and showed how Yeshua fulfilled these prophesies perfectly. The Scriptures make it clear that Mashiyakh will bring righteousness. But then it says that it is his servant that will suffer in order to bear our transgressions to bring righteousness. Elohim says that iniquity is only purged by his servant's suffering in our place. Just like the commandments concerning temple sacrifice. "tamim" animal was brought to the slaughter to put away the sins of Yisra'el. Not perfectly purge though, because if the sacrifice did a complete purging of sins, than they would not have to continue offering for sins because they would no longer have consciousness of sin, being purged of it from the first offering. But if Elohim's perfect or "tamim" servant Mashiyakh came and offered up himself a sacrifice to bare our transgressions as said in Yeshayahu 53, than according to Yeshayahu's prophecy, this would be a proper sacrifice able to justify us. We know that he offered himself to this suffering because it says, "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."
"reigning as an actual king and leader does not fully coincide with the B'rit Hadasha portrayal of Yeshua."
John 18:36-37; "Yeshua said to him, "My kingdom is not of this world, This my kingdom, if it was of the world, my servants would have fought or else I would be delivered to the Yehudim now. But my kingdom is not from here." Peelatos said to him, "therefore you are a King." Yeshua said to him, "You have said that I am a King. For this I was born and for this I have come into the world that I might testify concerning truth. Everyone that hears truth hears my voice." Mashiyakh's kingdom is given him by Elohim, not man. therefore his kingdom is not of this world, it is from heaven. Revelation says that he is coming back as king. And of course, If Yeshua is Mashiyakh, than all the king prophecies apply to him. But when he came the first time, it was not to be King David, but Ben Yoseph. According to Scripture, Elohim only has one Mashiyakh. Mashiyakh is never referred to in the plural.

"Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good."
"Naturally this particular verse cannot apply to Yeshua as he would not have to learn how to "reject bad and choose good."
The verse does not say that he will "learn" to reject bad and choose good, it says that he will know to do so. Of course Mashiyakh will know to reject the bad and choose the good. Besides this, in the next verse, "for before the child shall know to reject the bad and choose the good," this is an idiom that means "before he is old enough to have moral discernment." Meaning he is young. Just like in the next chapter, it says, "For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother." restating the idiom in different words. It never mentions anything about learning.
Also often things happen to prophets prophetically, signifying something to come.

Torah observance:
Give me one place where Yeshua brakes a direct commandment of Torah.
"and certainly did not "teach it to its full."
Matisyahu 5:17-19 Yeshua says that he didn't come to loosen us from Torah or the Prophets, but to fulfill them. And, "For truly I say to you that until heavens and earth pass away not one yod or one stroke will pass from the Torah until everything is fulfilled." He also says that everyone that teaches against Torah will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever preaches Torah will be called greatest. You can not say that Yeshua broke Torah when you have never read the witness accounts.
Sha'ul:
"abolished the law, with all its commandments and ordinances." is taken COMPLETELY out of context. He is talking about the Law of commandments and ordinances made by the Yehudim that forbids someone of the gentiles to be a part of Yisra'el, which completely contradicts Torah. A man of the gentiles is allowed to commune with Yisra'el if they embrace the Elohim of Yisra'el and his Torah. This is what the Torah says. Read it in the context in order to understand what is being said.
"While the Talmud was established by the Yehudim, it was still (as continues to be) upheld as a significant scripture and an important part of Jewish law--something obviously not recognized by Yeshua."
You say that when Mashiyakh comes, he will teach Torah to its full. If the Yehudim with their Talmud and other Rabbinic writings already understood Torah to its full than why would Mashiyakh have to teach it to its full. The fact that he will teach it to its full suggests that, when he comes, the Yehudim will not understand it properly. So therefore, teaching by example, he would automatically brake the Yehudim's "wrong" interpretation of Torah. I'm not saying that they were wrong in all parts, but at least enough that Mashiyakh would contradict them to "rightly" interpret it.

Miracles:
Yes, Yeshua did miracles, as did Mosheh.
"Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing." Yeshayahu 35:5-6
The Yehudim questioned Yeshua concerning his miracles, that he did them with the help of devils. But as Yeshua said, a man can not cast out a devil using a devil because then satan's house would be divided against itself and therefore would not stand. But again, WE do not believe him because of the miracles themselves, but because he fulfilled prophecy. We know that he rose from the dead because the prophecies that say that the servant will suffer also say that he will rise again. And the witnesses tell us that it is true just like the witnesses tell us that YHVH talked to Mosheh.
The Shlikhim did miracles as well, but the focus was never on the miracles, but rather teaching people that they should repent and turn to Torah.
My Argument:
Daniel 9:25; "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Yerushalayim unto the Mashiyakh the prince is seven weeks, and sixty two weeks:" (In a prophetic week, a day is a year.)
The commandment to rebuild the temple was sent in 457 BC. so we count forward 69 weeks (483 years). This brings us to 27 AD(there is no 0 BC.) Through study, we see that Yeshua was born in 3 BC during the "mo'ed Sukkot" and started his ministry at 29 1/2 years old. Counting from 3 BC 29 1/2 years brings us to exactly 27 AD, which is exactly when Daniel prophesied Mashiyakh to appear. This is a very good reason to believe that Yeshua is in truth the Mashiyakh.
You say That Yeshua failed to fulfill all prophecies, but I say he's alive and not done.
Emilrose

Con

There's a considerable possibility that Yeshua actually spoke Greek; if so, he may well have used the term "Christos". Such language is used all over the B'rit Hadasha, which was written in Greek and not Hebrew.

"Here you simply question Elohim saying, "why?" I also have a question. Why does Elohim tarry so long to send King Mashiyakh? Why didn't he come at the time of the Holocaust? There are many things we can question why. But Yeshayahu says in 55:8-9; "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways, Na'um YHVH."
But we know that Elohim DID take "khefets" in smiting his own arm."

The question is not merely "why"? But rather: why would Elohim be pleased with breaking the Mashiach? A Mashaich, that was outlined with the Tanakh as a figure of whom would bring peace. The comparison with the Holocaust fails to meet as the Mashiach is not the people of Israel themselves, rather he is the Mashiach--with a very specific purpose for G-d. Ultimately being rejected, refused as the Mashiach, and being sentenced to death; entirely contradicts the reason for which he is the "Mashiach". On the contrary to enduring sufferance, the Mashiach is supposed to end it, and unlike being rejected and having fellow Yehudim believe that he is not Mashiach, he is supposed to be accepted; by all.

"And If Yeshua is the Mashiyakh, than they would be the sons of the ones that killed their Mashiyakh, which is unbearable to consider by most Rabbis. I say most, because there are a considerable amount that do believe that Yeshua IS the Mashiyakh."

Pro makes this assertion without providing any evidence or source to support it, therefore making it unproved that a "considerable amount" of Rabbis that believe Yeshua is Mashiach. A large number of Rabbis in fact contend continuously that Yeshua is not Mashiach--far more than any that have ever come out in support of him, and quite likely more than those who may have a "secret" belief in him. Examples of Rabbinical attitudes towards Yeshua can be evidenced in the general approach towards members of Jewish congregation that confess a belief in Yeshua. As the official and historical stance of Judaism is that he is not Mashiach, potential belief is absolutely discouraged; by the vast majority of Rabbis.

As curious as the outlined story with the Rabbis is, there is once again no proof presented. To expound further: just because other Rabbis may smile to the Rabbi as spoken to by your friend; it's not definitive (or even suggestive) evidence that they do in fact believe in Yeshua.

"Many Yehudi Rabbis DO believe Yeshua is Mashiyakh. They are keeping quiet because they know the persecution they will face from the community if they voice this."

Again, Pro makes the claim that "many" Rabbis maintain this belief; but offers nothing to substantiate it. While I could very easily provide numerous examples of Rabbis speaking out against Yeshua and outlining reasons why he does not fulfill the role of Mashiach.

Concerning resurrection of Yeshua: "What evidence do you have that YHVH really spoke to Mosheh besides the TANAK?"

The Tanakh is the foundation of Jewish belief and is the direct word of G-d, Jewish people don't require additional "evidence" that G-d spoke to Moshe as this is precisely how the commandments were received and how they were later written down; the fact that we even have commandments as presented by G-d is enough evidence that one really needs. Whereas the only source for Yeshua rising from the dead is found in the B'rit Hadasha and there is no following action proceeding it. Whereas with G-d conversing to Moshe (specifically in the case of Har Sinay) you have the Torah--and the commandments--that continue to practiced. In addition, G-d also spoke to the Hebrew people when the enduring journey was eventually made, not just Moshe himself.


"I have given you many scriptures that prophecy of a suffering servant Mashiyakh and showed how Yeshua fulfilled these prophesies perfectly. The Scriptures make it clear that Mashiyakh will bring righteousness. But then it says that it is his servant that will suffer in order to bear our transgressions to bring righteousness. Elohim says that iniquity is only purged by his servant's suffering in our place. Just like the commandments concerning temple sacrifice. "tamim" animal was brought to the slaughter to put away the sins of Yisra'el. "

While Pro has outlined verse relating to Yesha'yahu 53, there is still very little indication that Yeshua "fulfilled these (the) prophecies perfectly". As I previously highlighted, much of the chapter applies to the nation of Yisra'el--not only singular context but also when terms such as "suffering servant" are used, one can easily see the potential connection to Yisra'el in other verse where G-d refers to it as "servant". Such as the previous chapter of Yesha'yahu 41:8:

"Zera avraham ohavi. Ch Ve'attah yisra'el avdi ya'akov asher becharticha."

("But you, Israel My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, who loved Me".)

Yesha'yahu 49:3 also outlines verse in which Yisra'el is the "servant":

"Vayomer li, avdi-'attah--yisra'el, asher-becha etpa'ar."

("And He said unto me: 'Thou art My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.")

"Eved-li attah, yisra'el lo tinnasheni. zechar-'elleh ya'akov, veyisra'el ki avdi-'attah; yetzarticha".

("Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for thou art My servant; I have formed thee, thou art Mine own servant; O Israel, thou shouldest not forget Me.")


As can clearly be seen, the "servant" very much applies Yisra'el as a nation. Making it entirely plausible that Yisra'el IS the "suffering servant" as described in Yesha'yahu 53, and as alluded to in my initial argument.

"We know that he offered himself to this suffering because it says, "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."

I'd like to again highlight that there's platform in concluding that the "suffering servant" is definitively Yeshua, and that he was the one as prophesied in becoming "oppressed" and "afflicted". The prophecy has long been regarded as an exclusive Messianic prophecy relating to Yeshua; as it seemingly coincides with his story, however, within Judaism the verse is much debated and as has long been upheld by many Jews; the verse is referencing Yisra'el. One thing that should be pointed out is that the verse (when assessing the context) is more so referring to a sustained form of affliction and oppression, something that was once more experienced by Yisra'el.

"Mashiyakh's kingdom is given him by Elohim, not man. therefore his kingdom is not of this world, it is from heaven. Revelation says that he is coming back as king. And of course, If Yeshua is Mashiyakh, than all the king prophecies apply to him. But when he came the first time, it was not to be King David, but Ben Yoseph. According to Scripture, Elohim only has one Mashiyakh. Mashiyakh is never referred to in the plural."


Indeed Elohim does have only one Mashiach, which does rather make it a contradiction that this is "Mashiach" will come twice--when in reality, he should only come once. The majority of Jews would agree that Mashiachs kingdom is is also given from G-d, but the main point is that the kingdom has not yet arrived to the world and was more importantly: not brought by Yeshua.

As much of this post has centred around rebuttals, here I will summarize further on as to why Yeshua is not Mashiach.


(1.) Failure to build the third temple, as promised in (Yechezkel 37:26-28).

(2.) Failure to gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Yesha'yahu 43:5-6).

(3.) Not establishing an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. Such as when Yesha'yahu states: in 2:4 "Goy el-goy cherev, velo-yilmedu od milchamah. charvotam le'ittim, vachanitoteihem lemazmerot--lo-yissa veshafat bein haggoyim, vehochiach le'ammim rabbim; vechittetu."

("And He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.")

(4.) Not spreading the knowledge of the G-d of Yisra'el universally, which will unite humanity as one. As it predicts in Zkaryah 14:9: "Yihyeh adonai echad--ushemo echad vehayah adonai lemelech, al-kol-ha'aretz; bayom hahu."

("And the L-rd shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the L-rd shall be One, and His name one.")

(5.) Not being a descendant of King David. Verses such as: (Yesha'yahu 11:1-9; Yirmeyahu 23:5-6-30:7-10, 33:14-16; Yechezkel 34:11-31-37:21-28; Hoshea 3:4-5) all state that the Mashiach will be from the line of King David. As this line can only come from the fathers side, example: (Yesha'yahu 11:1-9; Yirmeyahu 23:5-33:17; and Yechezkel 34:23-24). As Yeshua is explicitly outlined as being born of a virgin, naturally this cannot be him. Additional Jewish sources also state that the Mashiach will be born of human parents.

Sources:

(1.) http://www.beliefnet.com...

(2.) http://www.beingjewish.com...

(3.) http://judaism.about.com...

Debate Round No. 4
yoshidino

Pro

Yeshua NEVER SPOKE GREEK! Anybody that thinks that knows absolutely nothing of which the culture and people that he was living and talking with. (Yehudim) Did the Yehudim speak Greek in the 27th century? No, all Yehudim speaking Greek would have been considered Helenists. The Yehudim of the 27th century spoke Aramaic. A sister language to Hebrew. THe Aramaic word for "anointed one" is Mashiykha. NOT Cristos. So you can stop defending the Greekness of Yeshua, he Was not Greek, he was Hebrew and spoke Aramaic. Such language is not all over the Aramaic Peshitta Briyt Khadasha, only in the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament.
"Ultimately being rejected, refused as the Mashiach, and being sentenced to death; entirely contradicts the reason for which he is the "Mashiach". "and unlike being rejected and having fellow Yehudim believe that he is not Mashiach, he is supposed to be accepted; by all."
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."
Mashiyakh is this stone: Though he be rejected, he will become the head corner stone in the house of Yisra'el.

"just because other Rabbis may smile to the Rabbi as spoken to by your friend; it's not definitive (or even suggestive) evidence that they do in fact believe in Yeshua."
You misunderstood. The Rabbis would turn around and smile at Mike Winger, the one that is not talking to him, not the Rabbi that is talking to him. This was the sign given by the Rabbi that showed who believed in Yeshua as Mashiyakh. You mention no proof, but it was a story. If you are around a fire and one is telling you a story you do not ask him for proof that the story is true, you simply decide whether or not he is trustworthy and judge the validity of the story accordingly. Just like we are not questioning the validity of the stories written in our TANAK.
You simply have to take my stories and decide whether or not I am lying. They are not meant to PROVE anything. Notice the words, "I believe" written before these stories. The stories are meant to explain why I "believe" Yeshayahu 53 is mass excepted as being the people of Yisra'el even though this "arm of YHVH" is described to have the ability to "bear our transgressions" and "justify many" and other such things.
"I say most, because"
I was simply explaining the reason for my certain word usage. again, not meant as PROOF, I us the Torah and Prophets to shew that Yeshua is the Mashiyakh, not stories of what Rabbis think.

"The Tanakh is the foundation of Jewish belief and is the direct word of G-d, Jewish people don't require additional "evidence"
So also is the Briyt Khadasha the foundation for everything we know about Yeshua as the direct Word of Elohim, and we Yehudim neen no further "evidence." For it is written, From the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. We have four witnesses.
"Whereas the only source for Yeshua rising from the dead is found in the B'rit Hadasha and there is no following action proceeding it. Whereas with G-d conversing to Moshe (specifically in the case of Har Sinay) you have the Torah--and the commandments--that continue to practiced. In addition, G-d also spoke to the Hebrew people when the enduring journey was eventually made, not just Moshe himself."
This is incorrect. After Yeshua rose from the dead, he sent his Ruakh to guide us in all truth. Even now his Ruakh speaks to us and guides us in his Torah. As it is written, "He shall teach us Torah."
We have the following action of the Power of his Ruakh inside of us. As it is written, "Would that all YHVH's people were prophets, that YHVH would put his Ruakh upon them." B'midbar 11:29. And, "And it shall come to pass aferward, I will pour out my Ruakh upon all flesh, and your son's and your daughters shall prophecy, your old men shall dream dreams and your young men shall see visions." Yo'el 3:1.

Yeshayahu 53:
The subject of the chapter is not "servant" but "the Arm of YHVH."

"Indeed Elohim does have only one Mashiach, which does rather make it a contradiction that this is "Mashiach" will come twice--" If I came to your house for a visit, left, and then came back, You would not think I was two different people. There is Nothing In the TANAK that says that Mashiyakh will only come once. This is simply an assumption that I believe to be wrong because there are prophecies of seemingly two different types of Mashiyakh (Ben Yoseph and Ben David) that cannot possibly fit into just one coming of Mashiyakh, but two. (not two Mashiyakhim, but two comings.)

"As much of this post has centred around rebuttals, here I will summarize further on as to why Yeshua is not Mashiach."

Everything you mentioned concerning this is simply a list of things that Mashiyakh has not done yet except for your number 5. I have already told you that the belief that Yeshua is the Mashiyakh is not to say that he fulfilled all of prophecy at one time, but that he is coming back to finish.
You number 5 reason:
None of your example verses in Yeshayahu, Yermiyahu, or Yekhezkiel mention that Blood line is only past from the male parent. Give me A verse that mentions this explicitly.
Yeshua was born of a woman that was a direct decedent of Melekh David.
As 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.

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 suffering and death and resurrection of Mashiyakh is well supported be the Torah and Prophets.
Not only is Mashiyakh to save us from our enemies, but also to save us from our sins, and the stroke that is due to us because of our iniquities.

You put so much stock in what the Rabbis believe and how they preach Torah. Let me ask you, Which would you rather to teach you Torah? The Rabbis or Mashiyakh? If the Rabbis, than stop waiting for Mashiyakh. If Mashiyakh, than search the Torah and Prophets for yourself and find Mashiyakh. Get on your knees and ask Elohim for truth. Is not Elohim capable of speaking to a daughter of Avraham?
Emilrose

Con


Further Rebuttals

"Yeshua NEVER SPOKE GREEK! Anybody that thinks that knows absolutely nothing of which the culture and people that he was living and talking with."

My assertion was not that Yeshua definitively spoke Greek but that it may have been a possibility--that he at least may have known a select number of words in Greek. Pro claims that absolutely no Yehudim at that time spoke Greek, which, as some Yehudim travelled around and even lived in Greece; is incorrect. One B'rit Hadasha scholar Richard Bauckham when discussing the lingual ability for Greek in Yeshua's disciples noted that: "Peter (Shimon) was surely able to speak Greek". Basing the prospect largely on the fact that he grew up within Bethesda, a place with gentile influence.


Also stating that: “On the other hand, it is worth noting that Philip, also from Bethsaida, and Peter’s brother Andrew, rather than Peter himself, are regarded as the disciples most proficient in Greek in John (Yonotan) 12:21-22.” --in which it records how some Greek speakers went to see Yeshua and speak directly to brother of Shimon to grant them this wish. It's also generally upheld by scholars that Shimon preached in Greek in Acts 2, it is also noted as being the most widely understood languages by Jews from many different countries at that time. It's entirely agreed that Aramaic and Hebrew would've been the predominant languages with Yisra'el, but as displayed above, that doesn't mean that Greek would not have been spoken by certain Yehudim.

"THe Aramaic word for "anointed one" is Mashiykha. NOT Cristos. So you can stop defending the Greekness of Yeshua, he Was not Greek, he was Hebrew and spoke Aramaic."

Note to Pro that I have in no way implied that Yeshua himself was Greek; only that he may have spoken in *some* Greek. I would also agree that he was Hebrew (obviously) and that he would've spoke Aramaic as his main language. The was based on the fact that the B'rit Hadasha, which still constitutes as the New Testament, was composed in Greek.

"The Rabbis would turn around and smile at Mike Winger, the one that is not talking to him, not the Rabbi that is talking to him. This was the sign given by the Rabbi that showed who believed in Yeshua as Mashiyakh. You mention no proof, but it was a story. If you are around a fire and one is telling you a story you do not ask him for proof that the story is true, you simply decide whether or not he is trustworthy and judge the validity of the story accordingly. Just like we are not questioning the validity of the stories written in our TANAK."

Again, I wouldn't exactly compare an individual story to stories that are outlined with the Tanakh, namely because the Tanakh is holy scripture and the word of Elohim. While a story or "reference" to a story is something that comes directly from the person. By mentioing the lack of proof I was simply adhering to the general protocol within the debating system. If someone makes an assertion or introduces something in support of their argument--the use of source or evidence is usually used to substantiate what they state.


Though I do believe Pros story; as an observer, it's not "definitive" for me whether these Rabbis in Yisra'el winked to his friend in indication of believing in Yeshua as Maschiach. Within the context of a general conversation such a thing bares little importance, but within a debate it does.

"I was simply explaining the reason for my certain word usage. again, not meant as PROOF, I us the Torah and Prophets to shew that Yeshua is the Mashiyakh, not stories of what Rabbis think."

Agreed that verse from the Torah and the prophets have been mainly used. Something that I'd likewise apply to my own arguments.

In relation to Yeshua and the Torah:

"So also is the Briyt Khadasha the foundation for everything we know about Yeshua as the direct Word of Elohim, and we Yehudim neen no further "evidence." For it is written, From the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. We have four witnesses."

For a believer in Yeshua, evidently the B'rit Hadasha would be the foundational source for information about him. However, this still doesn't necessarily prove that he did indeed have a resurrection. The point of displaying differences with the Torah is that we can clearly see "evidence" for Moses receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai in the fact that the commandments within that Torah are still upheld and practiced by many Jews. One can believe that Yeshua rose again, but there's much less to in present time to really show, or even suggest, that he did. The commandments and the continuous recognition of them substantiates the event of Mount Sinai--but the same can simply not be said for Yeshua and the B'rit Hadasha description of him as rising from his tomb.



"There is Nothing In the TANAK that says that Mashiyakh will only come once. This is simply an assumption that I believe to be wrong because there are prophecies of seemingly two different types of Mashiyakh (Ben Yoseph and Ben David) that cannot possibly fit into just one coming of Mashiyakh, but two. (not two Mashiyakhim, but two comings.)"

It does not state explicitly that the Mashiach will only come once, the same is also said for the Mashiach coming twice. The fact is that the overall message that the Tanakh provides of the Mashiach does not adequately correspond with the character of Yeshua; and more importantly: prophecy, which is paramount in determining the Mashiach, was not fulfilled by him. Pro relates this to Yeshua initially assuming the role of ben Yosef, which is again lacking in evidential support. While Mashiach ben Yosef was predicted to die, it gives no suggestion that this will be in accordance with the way Yeshua did, or even in the time that Yeshua did.


In fact, the Talmud states that Mashiach ben Yosef would be more likely in a future battle and suggests that this would take place within end times.

Referring to him as Mashiach bar Ephraim: "Then the Messiah son of Ephraim will go to battle with Gog uMagog and will be killed at the gates of Jerusalem.”

It's acknowledged that this is an interpretation, but it still alludes to the fact that concerning Mashiach ben Yosef (or Ephraim) and Mashiach ben David, there are varying concepts. Suggestion of Yeshua being Mashiach ben Yosef is limited in there being contradictory times of when ben Yosef will exist. There's also a question on whether the period of the arrival of Mashiach ben Yosef will differ that significantly to coming of ben David.


As for verse relating to the parentage of Mashiach, Yehudim interpretation very much outlines that the verses of (Yesha'yahu 11:1, Yirmeyahu 23:5-33:17 and Yechezkel 34:23-24) suggest that the line of Mashiach will come from his father.

"Yeshua was born of a woman that was a direct decedent of Melekh David."

I'd also like to note to Pro that nowhere does it state that Miriam (the woman of whom Yeshua is born to) is from the line of David. Verse from the B'rit Hadasha would rather show on the contrary, it was definite that Yosef would've been likely to be from the house of David as he originated from Nazareth. In documenting the genealogy of Yeshua the disciple
Mattityahu primarily provides examples of Yosefs ancestry, and that's where a possible connection to Melekh David comes from--but since Yeshua is described as being born of a betulah (virgin) any relation is again contradicted.

*Closing Argument*

I'd like to again thank Yoshidino for giving me the opportunity to debate this topic with a fellow Yehudi. It's evidenced that our opinions regarding the Mashiach differ but I would state that his coming is very important to me too, and that I would of course rather be taught the Torah and all the many words and teachings of Elohim by the Mashiach himself.
Debate Round No. 5
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YehudaYisrael 2 years ago
YehudaYisrael
I accepted the debate, Yoshidino. Now we'll see just how similar your views are to christianity.

That's not the debate topic, but I guarantee you that your views are virtual identical to those who identify as christians.

Shalom
Posted by Vern99 2 years ago
Vern99
And I don't speak jew so go easy on all these words
Posted by Vern99 2 years ago
Vern99
Why you guys gotta be so hard on the NT
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
When did that become the definition of Christian?
Well peace out dude.
Posted by YehudaYisrael 2 years ago
YehudaYisrael
When Moshiach ben David comes, I will not become a "christian" because I know that jesus/yeshu/whatever you want to call him, is not the Messiah.

You are a "christian" because you believe specifically that the man called "jesus/yeshu/whatever" is the messiah. You accept the NT teachings as part of scripture. That is what makes you a christian.

I'm here to tell you that the NT writings are false and that jesus/yeshua/whatever you want to call him, is not the Messiah son of David who is spoken of in the Tanach.

Shalom
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
Forgive me, I forgot that I did mention Yeremiyahu's covenant. I am not unwilling to answer questions, I just feel like your messages seem very angry and demanding. This is not a way to treat a brother Yehudi. Simple Question for you: When king Mashiyakh Ben David comes and you submit yourself to his rule, will you then automatically be a Christian because you believe that Mashiyakh has come?
Posted by YehudaYisrael 2 years ago
YehudaYisrael
Yoshidino, you claim that you did not mention Jeremiah's New Covenant...This is false. You mention Jeremiah 31:31-34 plain as day in your debate against Emilrose. It is there for everyone to see.

And if you are going to argue that Israel is never mentioned in the chapter as being identified with there servant, I can assure you your "yeshua" is not identified as the servant, not only in that chapter, but also nowhere in the entirety of the Book of Isaiah! Israel/Jacob is identified as the servant numerous times throughout the Book of Isaiah, thus giving credence to Israel being the servant over your position that it refers exclusively to "yeshua."

And your unwillingness to answer my question just proves my point: You are a christian. You may be halachically Jewish (I have no way of telling for sure so I'll just take your word for it) but your belief in jesus as messiah makes you christian.

I accept your debate challenge, but I am in the midst of finals week this week, so forgive me if I am slow at responding. I have a few papers to write and exams to take. But I will surely debate you on this topic. I've never used this site before, so I don't know exactly how it works though.

Shalom
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
I never even mentioned Jeremiah's covenant. And certainly never mentioned "Jesus blood." I mentioned the name of a different guys blood though, but I did not say that it "fulfilled" Jeremiah's covenant. You also seem to have missed the part where I pointed out that Yeshayahu 53 is Not talking about the "servant" of YHWH, but the "arm" of YHWH. And never once is the name Yisrael mentioned in the chapter. And I'm not ignoring your yes or no question, I'm just choosing not to answer it. (Ps. Some Christians believe yes, some backside no.) Why haven't you excepted my debate challenge yet?
Posted by YehudaYisrael 2 years ago
YehudaYisrael
Yoshidino, your debate with Emilrose shows that your arguments are certainly in agreement with the fallacious interpretations that christians utilize over and over again to try and impose their false messiah (yeshua) on the Jewish people...

You use the same tired arguments about Isaiah 53 and insist that yeshu is the only possible candidate for fulfillment of the prophesy, even though the context clearly states that Israel is the servant. You're certainly in full agreement on that point with christians!

Moreover, you insist that Jeremiah 31:31-34 was fulfilled by "jesus blood" even though the blessings of the New Covenant were not fulfilled with the death of jesus. So for someone who claims to be at odds with christianity, you sure seem to have a lot in common with them!

Perhaps you differ on this point though, do you believe that yeshua is synonymous with Hashem? Yes or no?
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
Vern99, Israel is still the Apple of God's eye. Yeshua prayed, "Abba forgive them, they know not what they do." Why then do you condemn the Apple of his eye?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
yoshidinoEmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is tied all the way up to the sources. Con was the only one to use sources, and they are quite reliable in terms of this debate.