The Instigator
Killerchicken
Pro (for)
The Contender
Emilrose
Con (against)

Jesus Christ is the Savior of Man and Son of God

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Emilrose has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 352 times Debate No: 102836
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Killerchicken

Pro

Welcome!

I would like to debate an individual who disagrees with the debate topic (obviously).
Here are my Clauses:

1- The Trinitarian Nature of God was referenced in the O.T. because in multiple occasions, the Christian God referred to himself as "our", yet the Jewish peoples described him as being a single God.
2- Jesus Christ's coming was foretold in the old testament, and his teachings are infallable
3- Religions that do not accept Jesus Christ such as Islam are inherently False. Judaism worships the right God, but does not have a persoanl relationship wit hGod anymore, as a Relationship with God is only possible through Jesus Christ.
Emilrose

Con

Debate Accepted.

Now, I will begin my opening argument by addressing the resolution.

Resolution: Jesus Christ is the Savior of Man and Son of God

(As the instigator, Pro had the BoP in affirming this to be true; or at least that there is sufficient biblical evidence. The reason I accepted this debate is because Pro is using the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) as a source, and, I believe, incorrectly so.)

Why Jesus is Not the Son of God

Firstly, the 'son of God' or rather 'Messiah', is a concept directly born from the Tanakh. Verses alluding to a Messiah are outlined many times, but for Jewish people, he is still yet to come.

Seeing as the Messiah is itself a Jewish concept, it should not be difficult to see how Judaism is bares considerable authority on answering who is and isn't the Messiah--there is certain criteria that Jesus, just did not meet.

Such as:

•Failure to build the third Temple, as Ezekiel (see 37:26-28) proclaimed he would.

•Failure to bring world peace and an end to conflict, as Isaiah said he would (2:4)

In fact, Isaiah wrote this regarding the Messiah:

'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.'

•Failure to return exiled Jews from other lands

Isaiah states this in chapter 43:

'I will say to the north: 'Give up,' and to the south: 'Keep not back, bring My sons from far, and My daughters from the end of the earth.'

•Not a descendant of King David

The Tanakh also states that the Messiah will be descended from King David, but on his fathers side. Verses that allude to thus are:

'And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a twig shall grow forth out of his roots.' (Isaiah 11-1)

'Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.' (Jeremiah 26-5)

'In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord is our righteousness.' (Jeremiah 26-6)

Note that both of these verses significantly point to happy, and peaceful events.

Verse 5 clearly states that the Messiah will 'reign as king', that he will 'prosper', and that he will 'execute justice and righteousness throughout the land.'

This is an issue for Christians as Jesus did not reign as king, nor did he prosper, nor did have any authority to execute any extended justice or righteousness. Rather, he was ultimately rejected by many Jews, and died while impaled on a cross at the age of 33.

The second verse, also explicitly states how Israel will have peaceful times when the Messiah comes, that it will 'dwell safely.'

Sadly it did not, as after the death of Jesus, Israel continued to be under Roman control--finally after a mass revolt, a large number of Jews were forcibly exiled into other lands.

'And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even My servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.' (Ezekiel 34-23)

'And I will make with them a covenant of peace, (when the Messiah arrives) and will cause evil beasts to cease out of the land; and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in the woods.' (Ezekiel 34-25)

'And they shall no more be a prey to the nations, neither shall the beast of the earth devour them; but they shall dwell safely, and none shall make them afraid.' (Ezekiel 34-28)

Israel was indeed 'prey to the nations', before, during and after the time of Jesus' death. After the Romans, the following occurred the land of Israel:

•Byzantine Rule

•Islamic Caliphate Rule

•Christian Crusade Occupation

•Mamluk Rule

•Ottoman Empire Rule

•British Rule

So, as can be seen, Israel certainly did fall victim to various occupations and was not particularly a land of relative peace; which even to this day, it is not.

•Contradicted the Torah

In the Torah, it states that the Messiah will be a dedicated observer of the Mitzvot (Torah laws.) Also stating that anyone who claims to be a prophet of God, but violates the laws, is indeed a false prophet. (Deuteronomy 13)

To provide the full context:

'All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.'

'If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them'.

'Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.'

'After the Lord your God shall ye walk, and Him shall ye fear, and His commandments shall ye keep, and unto His voice shall ye hearken, and Him shall ye serve, and unto Him shall ye cleave.'

'And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken perversion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.'

As Jesus did fail to fully observe the Torah (he broke the Shabbat, etc.), one can conclude that according to the Tanakh, which is the original Messianic source, that he does not fit the criteria of the Messiah...or even an observant prophet.

I believe that in addition to the resolution I have also negated Pros second contention l, which was that Jesus was foretold in the Tanakh, but I will briefly review his others.

The Trinitarian Nature of God was referenced in the Tanakh

Actually, there was no Trinitarian nature of God referenced in the Tanakh at all; and any belief that there was can be attributed to misinterpretation and mistranslation.

God is very much outlined as a singular being.

Deuteronomy clearly states:

'Hear O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is One.'

In fact, the belief in a triune God would've be viewed as blasphemous in Biblical times *and* today in Judaism, which is thus one of the reasons why Jesus was rejected.

Isaiah says in chapter 44:6 that:

'I (God) am the first and I am the last and besides Me there is no other.'

In terms of further misinterpretation, the Torah (first five books) and the Tanakh were written in Hebrew; so inevitably for Christians some words and prophecies are misunderstood or taken out of context; God in fact has a few names in Hebrew (Elohim, El, Echad/Yechad, Adoshem, HaShem, Adonai, and others.)

Pro also states that religions that do not accept Jesus as the son of God, are false, but this is something that they're obligated, as the instigator, to provide more evidence for.
Debate Round No. 1
Killerchicken

Pro

Why Jesus is the Son of God
Substantial Evidence has been given, proving that Jesus Christ is the "Messiah" spoken of in the Jewish scriptures.
It is worthy to also note that Jesus himself claimed to the the Messiah spoken of-
* see John 4:25-26
* see Mathew 16:15-17

Before I move into my clauses, I would like to point out that contrary to what my opponent has said in regard to Judaism's authority, It is not Judaism that defines the criteria for the Messiah, but only God Himself.

Given these quotes prove that Jesus himself claimed to be the Messiah predicted, we can move forward on this basis.
Clause 1:
Jesus Christ of Nazareth preformed Miracles among thousands of peoples, and his apostles. This is well recorded in the Gospels. This can easily be proven true when we take into account that all of the apostles were either tortured or killed at the hands of Romans, Jews, or Gentiles for their faith. David Limbaugh, author of Jesus on Trial, and a prominent lawyer, proved Jesus's miracles, death, and resurrection to be sustainable facts in a court of law. Initially, David Limbaugh was an Atheist according to his post-authorship commentary, but was compelled to believe that Jesus did in fact preform such miracles due to the conviction of those who witnessed him.
* see David Limbaugh
*see "Jesus on Trial"

Clause 2:
Given that the Miracles, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus is proven to be true under standard law practices, and given that Jesus himself claimed to be the Messiah, we can move on to question Jesus's motives.
Why would Jesus subject himself to starvation, stress, and constant poverty if he knew that he was not the Messiah?
And again, I would ask why did every single one of the Apostles suffer to the point of death for the testimony of Jesus's Gospels without Apostatizing?
Many people have suggested that Jesus had a mental issue, but this "solution" is laughable, as it does not explain his ability to preform miracles, nor does it explain why the Pharisees would attempt to kill him if they knew he was merely insane. (At the time, it was not customary to crucify mentally ill people, but to exile, or stone the individual).
The Pharisees Once attempted to say that it was by Demons that Jesus preformed miracles, but they were quickly rebutted.
* see Mark 3 23:25

Clause 3:
More than 100 Messianic prophecies were fulfilled through Jesus Including:
Micah 5:2, Isaiah 7:14, Genesis 12:3, Genesis 22:18, Genesis 17:19, Genesis 21:12, Numbers 24:17, Hosea 11:1, Jeremiah 31:15, Isaiah 40:3-5, Malachi 4:5-6, Psalm 2:7, Isaiah 11:1, Psalm 78:2-4, Isaiah 6:9-10 and countless others.
*See Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John

To successfully Rebut my position, I would like to see Con disprove at least the Majority of the prophecies I randomly listed above using the KJV Bible.

Rebuttal-
Ezekiel 37: 26-28 Refers to Jesus Christ himself being the Third temple of God. Jesus Christ himself refers to himself as a temple in John 2:19, where he prophecies that he will be destroyed, and "rebuilt" on the third day. This is the building of the third Temple. Jesus Christ came In Human form, and died for our sins allowing the Holy Spirit (or God's Spirit) to rest, or "take Sanctuary" among the people. The Idea that a earthly Third Temple will be built is incorrect, as according to 2nd Corinthian 6:16, Every Individual with the spirit constitutes for the temple of God.
2 Corinthians 6:16 fulfills the following prophecies:
Exodus 25:8
Exodus 29:45
Leviticus 29:12
Jeremiah 31:1
and Ezekiel 37:27
* see John 2:19
* See Corinthians 6:16

The Idea that the Messiah was supposed to bring World peace instantly is false. In fact, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy given by the prophet Micah in Micah 7:6 by claiming
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' - Mathew 10: 34-37
However, world peace will become a reality in the New Jerusalem after Jesus's Second Coming.
The coming of the Messiah has led to much controversy within the Jewish community.
* see Micah 7:6
* see Mathew 10:34-37
* see Revelation

Here are some thoughtful, but contradicting views of multiple Rabbi on the coming of the Messiah:
Rabbi Yohanan claimed that "the Messiah will come when the People of Israel will be able to observe two Sabbath days."
Rabbi Uziel Eliyahu claims that it is impossible to know what will happen when the Messiah comes: "When the Messiah King comes, we will not know what will happen until it happens."
Rabbi Yaakov Halevi Fielber said that, "the coming of the Messiah depends on us, the people of Israel, and on our behavior."
Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri said, "the Messiah already came nine years ago."
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said, "when the Messiah comes, he will make war and wipe out all the Arabs."
Rabbi Haim Levi Yitzhak Ginsburg claims that, "the Messiah is Rabbi M. Lubavitch who died over twenty years ago."

How is it that the Jewish people could expect world peace from the Messiah, if many claim in contrast that he will Wipe out the Arabs? And how can others claim to know the signs of the times, if Rabbi Uziel Eliyahu claims that it is impossible to know?

Moving on to "Jesus's failure to return Jews from Exiled Lands"-
The verses given in Isaiah 43 refers to the people in question as "My Sons and Daughters" (Isaiah 43:6). In Mathew 12:49-50, we learn from Jesus that he considers those who follow him to be his family, and in Galatians 3:26, we learn that not through being a part of the Jewish Race, nor abiding by Jewish customs, but only through faith in Jesus Christ can we be considered "Sons of God". Additionally Galatians 3:7 claims that those who have faith in the one true God, are infact children of Abraham, and therefor "seed" described in earlier prophecies.
*see Genesis 32:12
*see Isaiah 43:6
*see Mathew 12:49-51
*see Galatians 3:26
*see Galatians 3:7

"Jesus was not a descendant of King David"
This statement is false, According the the Gospel of Mathew, the Genealogy listed from Jesus's Father clearly describes Jesus being from the line of David, and Bathsheba.
*See Mathew 1: 6-7

"Jesus was not a King"
Jesus was in fact a king. When Pontius Pilate asked if he was a king, Jesus answered. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."
We clearly see here that Jesus was in fact claiming to be a king, and looking from a spiritual perspective (and not an earthly one), Jesus was a King!
*John 18: 36

Lastly, it was said that Jesus broke the Law. I would beg to differ: It was the pharisees that had diverged from the law into hypocrisy.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished"
* see Mathew 5:17-18
Jesus himself was accused of breaking the Sabbath, but answered:
"Haven"t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread"which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven"t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice," you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
*see Mathew 12:3
In this statement, the hypocrisy of the Pharisees is made apparent.
There is no evidence that Jesus had broken the least of Moses' Ten commandments. Additionally, Many of the regulations given to the Israelites were for their Generations to keep, not for God to keep. Regulations such as the pricing of sacrificial animals, tassels on clothing, and indeed sacrificing animals. Though all Jews were commanded to sacrifice animals to atone for their sins, Jesus was not recorded once offering a sacrifice, besides himself.

Now that I have rebutted your arguments, I will defend my initial clauses.

The Trinitarian nature of God in the Torah-
You are right to say that God is One. He is In fact One, and like you quoted, "Besides him is No Other". But, like a three leaf clover, God is One, but expresses himself in Three Forms.
You also claimed that the Trinity came about through mis translation, but the Hebrew word for "God" (Elohim) used in reference to Yahweh, is actually a plural noun, yet is referred to in-arguably as "One God" Additionally, look into Genesis where God says "Let US make man in OUR image and OUR likeness"- The words "Us" and "Our" are properly conveyed from Hebrew Sources. Also on this topic, Jesus portrayed himself as God by claiming "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
*see John 8:58

In conclusion to my argument, I will address Con's request for proof of my belief that "all religions not accepting Jesus Christ are false". I would encourage con to look at John 14:6- Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
The New Testament constantly enforces the belief that no individual can have a relationship with God without Jesus Christ. According to multiple passages, Jesus is the "Only mediator between God and man", and "High Priest who ascended into heaven"
*see 1 Timothy 2: 5
*see Hebrews 4: 14-16
*see John 14:6
Emilrose

Con

Rebuttals:

'Why Jesus is the Son of God
Substantial Evidence has been given, proving that Jesus Christ is the "Messiah" spoken of in the Jewish scriptures.
It is worthy to also note that Jesus himself claimed to the the Messiah spoken of-
* see John 4:25-26
* see Mathew 16:15-17.'

Firstly, Pro only references Christian verses; which again, as the Messiah (Mashiach) is a Jewish concept outlined in the first five books (Torah) and the Tanakh...cannot be used as a realiable source. Of course the Christian bible is going to proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah--doesn't sufficiently prove that he is so.

'Before I move into my clauses, I would like to point out that contrary to what my opponent has said in regard to Judaism's authority, It is not Judaism that defines the criteria for the Messiah, but only God Himself.'

Actually, it does have an authority (see above.) Simarily to how Islam has an authority on its Holy Book, Judaism most certainly has an authority on its Holy Book as well...and it is only because of that Holy Book that we are aware of the concept of a Jewish Messiah. [1.] http://www.jewfaq.org...

Once again, as the above source says, there also certain requirements for the Messiah; and mentioning that another indivdual, Bar Kokba, actually came far more close to being the Messiah than Jesus ever did. However, the Messiah is yet to come.

'Given these quotes prove that Jesus himself claimed to be the Messiah predicted.'

The verses referenced by Pro do not prove anything, on the contrary, they do not come from an objective source.

'Jesus Christ of Nazareth preformed Miracles among thousands of peoples, and his apostles. This is well recorded in the Gospels. This can easily be proven true when we take into account that all of the apostles were either tortured or killed at the hands of Romans, Jews, or Gentiles for their faith. David Limbaugh, author of Jesus on Trial, and a prominent lawyer, proved Jesus's miracles, death, and resurrection to be sustainable facts in a court of law. Initially, David Limbaugh was an Atheist according to his post-authorship commentary, but was compelled to believe that Jesus did in fact preform such miracles due to the conviction of those who witnessed him.'

Empty claim. It's on Pro to affirm thsi statement and prove that Jesus indeed did peform miracles. Certainly in Judaism (or any other more impartial sources for that matter), there isn't one reliable historical reference alluding to a miracle worker named Jesus. Pro is also going to have to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

'Given that the Miracles, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus is proven to be true under standard law practices, and given that Jesus himself claimed to be the Messiah, we can move on to question Jesus's motives.
Why would Jesus subject himself to starvation, stress, and constant poverty if he knew that he was not the Messiah?
And again, I would ask why did every single one of the Apostles suffer to the point of death for the testimony of Jesus's Gospels without Apostatizing?
Many people have suggested that Jesus had a mental issue, but this "solution" is laughable, as it does not explain his ability to preform miracles, nor does it explain why the Pharisees would attempt to kill him if they knew he was merely insane. (At the time, it was not customary to crucify mentally ill people, but to exile, or stone the individual).
The Pharisees Once attempted to say that it was by Demons that Jesus preformed miracles, but they were quickly rebutted.'

This is all going on the assumption that Jesus was the Messiah, which is Pro is yet to prove.

'More than 100 Messianic prophecies were fulfilled through Jesus Including:
Micah 5:2, Isaiah 7:14, Genesis 12:3, Genesis 22:18, Genesis 17:19, Genesis 21:12, Numbers 24:17, Hosea 11:1, Jeremiah 31:15, Isaiah 40:3-5, Malachi 4:5-6, Psalm 2:7, Isaiah 11:1, Psalm 78:2-4, Isaiah 6:9-10 and countless others.'

I invite Pro to support this claim, by displaying specific verses. I have already listed Messianic Tanakh verses myself, which Pro has left ignored.

'To successfully Rebut my position, I would like to see Con disprove at least the Majority of the prophecies I randomly listed above using the KJV Bible.'

I would like to see Pro rebutt mine (see round one), using the original Tanakh source, perhaps it would help if he also read it in the original Hebrew language; to avoid misunderstanding of any kind.

'Ezekiel 37: 26-28 Refers to Jesus Christ himself being the Third temple of God.'

Indeed Ezekiel does not refer to that, it is a prophecy of the third temple being built...the Messiah himself is not the temple in question.

Pro is mixing up Jewish and Christian verses, instead he should display the primary verses that he's referring to in a specific order.

'The Idea that the Messiah was supposed to bring World peace instantly is false. In fact, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy given by the prophet Micah in Micah 7:6.'

The idea (of world peace), is not false. The Messiah was supposed to bring this while he was living, as the Tanahk says.

'Here are some thoughtful, but contradicting views of multiple Rabbi on the coming of the Messiah:'

'How is it that the Jewish people could expect world peace from the Messiah, if many claim in contrast that he will Wipe out the Arabs? And how can others claim to know the signs of the times, if Rabbi Uziel Eliyahu claims that it is impossible to know?'


Quoting Rabbis achives nothing, as the Tanakh is the ultimate origin of the Messianic concept. The Tanakh does not claim any group of persons (in this case Arabs) will be wiped out, so Pro has made a useless argument. '

Next, Pro confuses Jewish and Christian verse yet again; and only references Christian belief in response to the two verses.

'This statement is false, According the the Gospel of Mathew, the Genealogy listed from Jesus's Father clearly describes Jesus being from the line of David, and Bathsheba.'

According to Christianity, Jesus was born to a virgin...and to God, but yet somehow is God as well...but anway, given that he was born without father, Pros statement is inadequate and false; Jesus was not descended from King David, which the Messiah is supposed to on his fathers side.

'Jesus was in fact a king. We clearly see here that Jesus was in fact claiming to be a king, and looking from a spiritual perspective (and not an earthly one), Jesus was a King!'

Jesus claiming that he was a king does not make him so, simarily to him claiming that he is the Messiah. The fact remains that Jesus never experienced Kingship.

'Lastly, it was said that Jesus broke the Law. I would beg to differ: It was the pharisees that had diverged from the law into hypocrisy.'

The law back then included violation of the Shabbat, therefore, Jesus broke the law. The Pharisees' main contentin against Jesus was that he was a rebel and a law breaker, something the Messiah would not be. It's worth noting that even non-Jewish scholars rebutted Christianity, some Greek philosophers were also strong opponents due to the ludocrous nature of Christian belief [2.] Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. pp 65-66 and [3.] Raymond Edward Brown, Mary in the New Testament, Paulist Press, 1978. pp 261-262

'You are right to say that God is One. He is In fact One, and like you quoted, "Besides him is No Other". But, like a three leaf clover, God is One, but expresses himself in Three Forms.
You also claimed that the Trinity came about through mis translation, but the Hebrew word for "God" (Elohim) used in reference to Yahweh, is actually a plural noun, yet is referred to in-arguably as "One God" Additionally, look into Genesis where God says "Let US make man in OUR image and OUR likeness"- The words "Us" and "Our" are properly conveyed from Hebrew Sources.'

Now, in regards to God being one--he is indeed 'one', but by one, we mean 'one'. Not two or three. He is one being that is not triune and does not express himself in three forms. The Tanakh references a monotheistic God, not a Polyteistic one. And any belief that God is more than one, falls under the definition of Polytheism. [4.] Doctrine of the Trinity, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (1974) art.

Indeed 'Elohim' is referred to in a fully singular context in the Tanakh, so Pro is rebutted here. The extra singular is 'Elo', which is also widely used for 'God'. [5.] Gesenius Hebrew Grammar: 124g, without article 125f, with article 126e, with the singular 145h, with plural 132h,145i

Also there is no such word as 'Yahweh' in Hebrew, so Pro is rebutted here too! I assume Pro is referring to 'YHVH', which actually translates as 'Yod Hey Vav Hey'. and it more or less means 'eternal', HaShem is largely used in its place.

Rather, it is more conceiavable that God is speaking to angels in heaven, or simply to himself in Genesis; he is absolutey not referring to any other Gods, or any other non-existent parts of himself.

'In conclusion to my argument, I will address Con's request for proof of my belief that "all religions not accepting Jesus Christ are false". The New Testament constantly enforces the belief that no individual can have a relationship with God without Jesus Christ. According to multiple passages, Jesus is the "Only mediator between God and man", and "High Priest who ascended into heaven".'

Con finally responds to my question regardinng 'proof' for other religions false, but fails to provide it. Christians verses do not constitute valid evidence as they are obviously biased, and even bias alone, they still do not show how other religions are 'false'. The question has thus been left unawswered.

Debate Round No. 2
Killerchicken

Pro

"Firstly, Pro only references Christian verses; which again, as the Messiah (Mashiach) is a Jewish concept outlined in the first five books (Torah) and the Tanakh...cannot be used as a realiable source. Of course the Christian bible is going to proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah--doesn't sufficiently prove that he is so."
Con starts off with referencing my lack of O.T. Sources, Yet in my last argument, I had referenced Old Testament Sources 23 Times (Count them if you would like). Therefore the idea I have not used the Jewish Tanakh is False. Secondly, Judaism does not define God,rather God defines Judaism. This has been the accepted Jewish Interpretation for centuries. Lastly, Con argues that the New Testament cannot be used as a source, yet I would have to argue with that point. Firstly, I have used the New Testament to reference the fulfuillment of the Prophecies previously mentioned: The idea that I have to fulfill Cons need for answers to prophecies, while at the same time not referencing the text from which they were fulfilled is ludicrous. Secondly, I have used the New Testament to explain Jesus's views of himself, which is perfectly acceptable in the premise of the debate.

Con seems to believe Judaism defines who the Messiah would be, yet this idea is flawed. It has been accepted that God himself defines the criteria for the Messiah; not a Rabbi. To further this argument, as I touched on before, the Jewish community cannot even agree on who the Messiah will be, or what he will do.

"The verses referenced by Pro do not prove anything, on the contrary, they do not come from an objective source."
Not only the Verses, but the evidence I have given is more than enough to prove this to be true for the purposes of this debate. It has been up to Con to rebut these facts, not merely ignore them.
"Empty claim. It's on Pro to affirm thsi statement and prove that Jesus indeed did peform miracles. Certainly in Judaism (or any other more impartial sources for that matter), there isn't one reliable historical reference alluding to a miracle worker named Jesus. Pro is also going to have to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead."
The argument that my claims were "empty" are false, and merely serve as an attempt to avoid addressing them. To Counter Con's argument posed, I would claim her her statements are false, as multiple historical scholars have alluded to Jesus.
-Tacticus describes Jesus's Crucifixion in his "Annals" written in 116 A.D.
-Thallus is recorded referencing Jesus's Crucifixion
-Mara Bar Sepion (a Syrian Philospoher) referenced to Jesus in a letter to his son, referring to Jesus as "The Wise King".
Con asked for proof that Jesus rose from the dead, yet I have already given it in my previous argument.
I will again repeat myself: according to David Limbaugh, an accomplished Lawyer and Author, All 12 of the Apostles dying for what the purported to see is enough to prove the Birth, Miracles, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ as sustainable facts in a court of law.
"I invite Pro to support this claim, by displaying specific verses. I have already listed Messianic Tanakh verses myself, which Pro has left ignored."
I did infact support my claim. Eleven Old Testament verses in Total, all fulfilled by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. *Oh wait, Im not supposed to reference the New Testament* otherwise I would be glad to give you a list of all the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ, yet for the sake of space, I am afraid I must contain them to only eleven which I mentioned last argument.
Secondly, I have left none of your arguments ignored.Refer to my rebuttal in my previous argument, in which I addressed every single one of the verses you have brought up.
"I would like to see Pro rebutt mine (see round one), using the original Tanakh source, perhaps it would help if he also read it in the original Hebrew language; to avoid misunderstanding of any kind. "
I again will mention that I cannot properly rebut your Old Testament Prophecies, without refencing there respective New Testament fulfillments, which you apparently forbid me to do, as it is an "impartial source". This is hypocracy, as you yourself do not admit that your own religious text is impartial. Proving Prophecies were fulilled by a book not containing there fulfillments is redundant.

The next two arguments posed by Con are not addressing the New Testament Fulfillments brought up earlier, but are merely rejecting them without any reasoning.

"Indeed Ezekiel does not refer to that, it is a prophecy of the third temple being built...the Messiah himself is not the temple in question."
It is easy to see that Con argues that Jesus Himself was not the temple mentioned, but merely saying so is not sufficient. No evidence was given regarding this aspect, yet the only argument needed to warrant a rebuttal from con is that Jesus Christ considered himself the Third Temple.

Next, Con moves on to world peace. Con argues that the Tanakh text is to be taken litterally, yet remains thoughtless on the idea that the text should be interpreted by a deeper meaning. Additionally, It is indeed true that Jesus Christ will bring World Peace at his Second Coming when bringing forth the New Jerusalem. Con also has not considered the Idea, that if this prophecy is to be taken litterally, it may be fulfilled at a later date. Ezekiel does not specify at what coming the MEssiah will fulfill this prophecy, and therefore it is fair to consider such an answer.

"According to Christianity, Jesus was born to a virgin...and to God, but yet somehow is God as well...but anway, given that he was bornwithout father, Pros statement is inadequate and false; Jesus was not descended from King David, which the Messiah is supposed to on his fathers side."
Much of what was stated above does not constitute a rebuttal, but a lack of understanding of how Jesus's Birth came to be. Through Jesus's Fathers name, he was a descendent of King David from a Mother who Never had sex, and was given a child by the Holy Spirit.

"Jesus claiming that he was a king does not make him so, simarily to him claiming that he is the Messiah. The fact remains that Jesus never experienced Kingship."
You have not proven that Jesus was not a King. Jesus did infact experience Kingship in the New Testament, as according to Mark 16:19, Jesus Sits at the Right Hand of God the Father. Con has given no evidence to say He was not a king, but has instead merely said "just because Jesus claimed to be a King ,doesnt make him so". This argument is pointless, as it doesnt make his statements false either.

Next, Con seems to argue that Christians are Polytheistic, yet God is referenced as One throughout much of the New Testament, and from Jesus Himself. Adding quotations to back this rebuttal up is useless, as they are so abundant. I would encourage Con to Pick up a Bible, and find a few within the first chapter. Con's argument again mis-represents Christian beliefs, and exemplifies a blatant example of the straw-man fallacy.

I would like to also respond to this rebuttal posed earlier:
"Quoting Rabbis achives nothing, as the Tanakh is the ultimate origin of the Messianic concept. The Tanakh does not claim any group of persons (in this case Arabs) will be wiped out, so Pro has made a useless argument."
This argument is actually anything but useless;This exemplifies arguments within some of your teacher's doctrine. Such represents Jewish confusion at the coming of the Messiah, and I would further argue that you cannot say that your interpretation of the Tanakh is any better than theirs.
Secondly, your second sentence is Redundant, as it merely rebutts what one of your own Rabbi has claimed. If you would like to debate with your own teachers, please mail your second sentence to Mr. Avaddi Yosef.

Pro Rebuts my argument posed around "Elohim" and goes on to correct me in the pronounciation of Yaweh. Such arguments about the pronoucniation of the word "Yahweh" merely serves to distract from the argument at hand. Additionally, I find it hypocritical that Con proved her point through a Jewish Source (Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, written by a proffessor in Jewish Theology), wheras I cannot prove my points through Christian sources (Jesus on Trial, which was infact written by an individual who started out as a non-Christian)

In Con's final portion of her argument, she insists that I did not provide enough evidence to classify other religions as "false". This is anything but true, as I provided evidence of Why I Believed the above statement was true. I have listed the proof necessary for me to believe such an idea, and I would argue that Con is not the Judge of how much proof is necessary for me to believe what I believe.
In Conclusion, I would like to generally sum up Con's arguments:
A series of claims that my arguments are baseless, and a series of rebuttals based off a mis-understanding of true Christian beliefs. I would like to point out that it is all to easy to attack one's sources and arguments by writing them off as "baselss", or using straw-men. It was T. Edward Damor that mentioned "Ignorance does not constitute an argument".

Also by T. Edward Damor, is his masterpiece "Attacking Faulty Reasoning". In this book, Damor states "According to the Principle of Sufficiency a lack of evidence for a claim does not constitute an argument against it, and a lack of evidence against a claim does not provide suffiecient evidence for it". Therefore, even if I had given no reasoning whatsoever to Con, her argument would still be in error, as she is still required to rebut them, rather than write them off as "baseless". *p. 178. The refusal to properly engage an opponent in a rebuttal is a common, but debatically incorrect tactic.
I would like to end my final argument by thanking Con for her participation, and again persisting that I have addressed all Con's arguments to the best of my ability (character limit permitting).
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Killerchicken 7 months ago
Killerchicken
I look down upon debating in the comment section, but God was not outlined by Jewish Prophets, rather the Jewish Prophets were outlined by God. Stating otherwise is in religious terms incorrect.
Additionally, it is not a flaw to incorporate Christianity and Judaism together, as Jesus taught from the Jewish Torah/ Tanakh, and the Apostles referred to both Jesus's teachings, and O.T. Teachings.

You are speaking from an entirely Jewish point of view, Whereas Christians view themselves as a Continuation of the true Jewish Religion. Because the Jews did not accept the testimony of Jesus, it was given to the Gentiles. According to the Apostles, the current situation represents "grafting" on a bush, or tree.

Also, you mention that it is a problem using the Tanakh as a source, but also in your argument, when I use the New Testament as a source, you write it off as partial, and biased. Please Respond to my points in the next debate round, as I do not wish to start a debate through the comment section.
Posted by Emilrose 7 months ago
Emilrose
'Only God himself'...but you do realise that God was outlined by *Jewish* prophets? There really are many flaws with your argument; for starters, you're incorporating Christianity and Judaism together, when they are both entirely different religions...with entirely different ideas of what and who the Messish is. The issue is that you're using (once again), the Tanakh as a source...exploiting various verses without understanding any context.

I will respond in full tomorrow.
Posted by Emilrose 7 months ago
Emilrose
It's fine, I'll post my argument later (already early hours here)
Posted by Killerchicken 7 months ago
Killerchicken
* Forgive my grammar. I was unaware that I made a few typos upon posting the argument.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.