The Instigator
fred70
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
elikakohen
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Jesus cannot be Messiah

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,042 times Debate No: 97944
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (0)

 

fred70

Pro

My position is that Jesus cannot be Messiah.

Genealogical argument: Jesus's pedigree in Matthee\Luke does not coincide with the anticipated Messianic genealogy of the Tanakh.

1 Chronicles 28:4-7
28:4 Howbeit the LORD God of Israel chose me (David) before all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever: for he hath chosen Judah to be the ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the sons of my father he liked me to make me king over all Israel: 28:5 And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.
28:6 And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.
28:7 Moreover I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.
The last two verses interpret the meaning of 2 Samuel 7:12-15
12 When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy body, and I will establish his kingdom.
13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14 I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men;
15 but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

Solomon is called God's son in 1 Chron 28. Presumably (to my mind) the author of Chronicles was connecting Solomon with Psalm two, which speaks of God's son ruling over the nations (Solomon was said to have ruled over nations).
Any Davidic king could implicitly be called God's son, since all are included in 2nd Samuel's intended ambiguity: "he shall be to Me for a son." However, only Solomon is singled out for the explicit title "My son", 1st Chron 28:6. The author of Chronicles was the most messianic author in the Tanakh. To him, all Israel's history was dependent upon the fulfilment of God's promise to David. He reinterpreted the monarchy's past in a more favorable view than the authors of Kings\various Prophets (Jeremiah etc). He wanted to counter the anticipated notion of the returning exiles: "well, what a waste of time that Davidic monarchy bit," and reaffirm the messianic fervor of the past with the returning exiles.
I believe the train of thought that wrote Chronicles, was the final redaction phase of the Tanakh.
I posit that Solomon must be the anticipated genealogical connection with David to whom the Messianic covenant was given. Thus all the Jewish folklore surrounding the Messiah as a "man of wisdom' like Solomon.

Problems for the Christian: Luke's gospel (Luke 3:31) links Jesus's pedigree to David's son Nathan (Solomon's brother).

Matthew's gospel links Jesus's pedigree to Solomon, but it contains Jeconiah in the genealogy, Matt 1:12.
Jeconiah and his descendants are excluded from the Messianic equation, Jeremiah 22:30.


Prophetical context argument: Any prophecy applied to Jesus's first advent has better contextual logic ( in the Tanakh) of being applied to an event or person that preceded him.

Side note: I threw my mezuzah away ten years ago, but I can still see the imprint of where it was.
I will never regret my conversion, even though I have long since lost my faith.
Judaism, in spite of its many quirks, taught me one thing: if something doesn't make sense, then the hell with it. Sometimes in my desire for numinous, I look at the mezuzah print outside my door. I gaze it and wonder if I should return. Then I think of its many quirks and say, "to hell with it."


elikakohen

Con

Please NOTE: I am unable to properly format Greek / Hebrew quotes - and will clarify in comments, if necessary!


R1.Con.1 - Burden of Proof :

As I understand, the "Instigator" will provide textual proofs that exclude Jesus as the Messiah.

As the apologist, I am expected to either refute the basis of the claim, (challenge translations and interpretations of the texts) - or, to reasonably provide a defense.

@R1.Pro.1 - Jeconiah's Appearance in Jesus' Geneology Disqualifies Jesus as the Messiah

Jeconiah's curse is being taken out-of-context, and misapplied here :

Jesus' "Geneology" Does Actually Include Jeconiah -

Matthew 1:12 - "After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel."

And Jeconiah Was Actually Cursed :

Jeremiah 22:24 “As I live,” declares the Lord, “even though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pull you off; 30 “Thus says the Lord, ‘Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.’”

R1.Con.2 - It is reasonable to hold that Jeconiah's curse was reversed through Zerubbabel's actions, and consequently the curse would not have applied to Jesus as well :

Note, however, that Jeconiah's curse does not say his descendents would never sit on the throne again - just that they would never "prosper" on the throne, (and arguably they never did).

Regardless, as is with nearly everyone in Jesus' geneology - they all seemed to have found forgiveness, and even Jeconiah's curse appears to have been reversed - using the same symbology :

Haggai 2:21-23 - 21 “Speak to Zerubbabel governor of Judah, saying, ‘I am going to shake the heavens and the earth. 22 I will overthrow the thrones of kingdoms and destroy the power of the kingdoms of the nations; 23 ‘On that day,’ declares the Lord of hosts, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, My servant,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you,’” declares the Lord of hosts.

Ironically - in both contexts, (in Jeremiah, Haggai, and even Zechariah), all passages either sit in, or are immediately followed by clearly Messianic passages, regarding the redemption of Israel.

Granted from a secular point of view, that could be considered "circumstantial" - but hermeneutically, in prophetic books and messianic contexts - a reasonably minded believer would certainly begin by including the possibility that God was speaking through Zerubbabel to his descendent, as God had spoke through Abraham - to his descendent, and through Jacob, to his descendent, and through David, to his descendent, etc.

@R1.Pro.2 - "Prophetical context argument: Any prophecy applied to Jesus's first advent has better contextual logic ( in the Tanakh) of being applied to an event or person that preceded him."

If the Burden of Proof is met that the prophecies towards Zerubbabel had "better contextual logic of beling applied to [Zerubbabel]"- then I believe : Pro would have made his case - in this one point.

Often times in Scripture, a prophecy is worded towards the father, which actually applies to the son - which I would argue certainly applies in Zerubbabel's case - as the prophecies towards him, (In Haggai, Zechariah, etc) - do not appear to have actually applied to Zerubbabel.

In fact, I would go as far as saying that if all of the prophecies regarding Zerubabel (including Jeconiah), were "better fulfilled" in their "contexts" - especially regarding the second/third temples, and the redemption of Israel - then the Instigator's position would certainly prevail. (Granted, impossible to do in this debate format.)

@R1.Pro.3 - "... Solomon is called God's son in 1 Chron 28."

Certainly others were called the Son of God - even all people :

Psalms 82:6-7 - I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. 7 “Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes.”

So, having been called a "Son of God" certainly isn't that compelling - not at least in the Scriptural sense.

Setting aside any "Rabbinical" interpretations of Psalms 82 - the earliest Christians (Jews) understood this verse to be literal - evident by the fact that even Jesus used it in his defense - from being stoned to death.

John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?

R1.Con.3 - Son's of God Appear in Scripture - But, God's "Rightful Heir", God's "Sole Heir" - Never Appeared :

The Instigator's objection largely stems around a very, very, mistranslated verse.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten [μονογενQ34;] ..."

μονο-γενQ34; can literally mean, "single offspring, only descendent" ... But - it is actually a metaphor of sorts in Biblical in Classical Greek - to mean, "Only Heir" ... the only, rightful heir, to the throne ...

Plato, Laws: Plat. Laws 3.691e - [691e] your kingly line, (μονογενοQ66;ς) no longer single but twofold. ...

In Flavius Josephus, Isaac isn't the Only Child - but is the: "μονογενQ34;":

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, J. AJ 1.222 - O96;σακον δP50; P01; πατP52;ρ O49;βραμος P17;περηγ^0;πα μονογενQ34; P04;ντα καP54; O52;πP54; γ^2;ρως οP16;δQ83; κατP48; δωρεP48;ν αP16;τQ83; τοQ66;

Now Abraham greatly loved Isaac, as being his only begotten and given to him at the borders of old age,

Debate Round No. 1
fred70

Pro

God's covenant with David includes His election of Solomon AS the genealogical extension.
Any genealogical pedigree without Solomon in it disqualifies the individual's pedigree.

1 Chron 28:5 "of all my son's, (for the Lord has given me many sons) He has CHOSEN Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel."
Nathan, (Solomon's brother) was not chosen. Notice the messianic phrase, "kingdom of the Lord". The author of Chronicles was very messianic. His intended implication is "the kingdom of God" will come through the Messiah. He ends the book depicting Cyrus as saying, "the God who gave me all the kingdom's of the earth.........whoever will let him return to Jerusalem."
Implication: return to Jerusalem the city that will one day rule over the kingdom's of the earth when Messiah comes.
Jewish folklore viewed Messiah as having the might of David and the wisdom of Solomon.
Rabbinical musings have no merit, I just mention it demonstrate the messianic implications attached to Chronicles. What matters is the author's intent, which is clearly messianic.
The author explicitly links Solomon with the kingdom of the Lord.
Luke gives an irrelevant genealogy. None of Nathan's descendants can have the messianic covenant extended to them.

Jeconiah's curse cannot be abrogated, the object of God's oath is "as I live", Jer 22:24, and thrice repeated (major oath) earth, earth, earth, verse 29.
Jeconiah's descendants are not excluded from mercy but from prospering on the throne of David. Thus jesus cannot prosper (come on dude) on the throne of david.

The prophecy stuff: I'll just cut to the chase. Isaiah chapter 53 has nothing to do with jesus.
Isaiah chapters 40-66 are concerned with Cyrus's edict to return to Jerusalem and rebuild it.
52:11 Hey, leave Babylon and return the temple stuff Nebuchadnezzar took.
54:3 resettle the desolated cities in Israel when you get back.
The in-between hyperbolic descriptions of a human sacrifice in chapter 53?
Lamentations 5:7 'Our fathers sinned and are no more; we carry their sins."
The 50 plus years of captivity saw a new generation suffering for their fathers' mess.
A proverb arose from that: our fathers ate some sour grapes, but our teeth are set on edge.
Psalm 44:22 " it is for God's sake we are given to death, we are sheep to be sacrificed."
Bible writers assured the returning exiles that their misery was part of God's plan.
Their misery was like a guilt offering. Were they forever cursed for their fathers' idolatry? No, they paid the price in captivity.
Christian scholars view chapters 40-66 as being about the Cyrus edict with jesus curve balls thrown in.
My view has more viability concerning the actual subject matter.
elikakohen

Con


R2.Con.1 - Conceded Issue Between Parties - Davidic Lineage :

Since we are both conceding that Jesus is a descendent of Jeconiah, and that Jeconiah is a descendent of David, (Jeremiah 1:3) - I think what is more important is the issue of whether a curse can be "abrogated".

@R2.Pro.1 - "... Thus jesus cannot prosper -- (come on dude) -- on the throne of david."

If you are going to make an appeal, in debate, from Rabbinical Judaism - then you have to apply the Talmudic rules of interpretation - and you likely understand the legal implications of qualifications, and that a narrow circumstance does not apply generally, (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

@R2.Pro.2 - Messianic Lineage Through Solomon : "... I posit that Solomon must be the anticipated genealogical connection with David to whom the Messianic covenant was given."

And you are entitled to that idea - if at the very least the text is quoted in context :

An UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE made to David :

8 So now, in the sight of all Israel, the assembly of the Lord, and in the hearing of our God, observe and seek after all the commandments of the Lord your God so that you may possess the good land and bequeath it to your sons after you forever.

A CONDITIONAL PROMISE made to Solomon :

9 “As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.

Solomon's Descendents Were Apparently Destroyed :

2 Chron. 22:10 - Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she rose and destroyed all the royal [j]offspring of the house of Judah. 11 But Jehoshabeath the king’s daughter took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king’s sons who were being put to death, and placed him and his nurse in the bedroom.

Psalms 2 is anti-thetical to Solomon's reign of "Peace" :

Psalms 2 : ... “I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. ... 9 ‘You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.’”

So - again, it is reasonable - to assert that Messiah did NOT have to come through Solomon - but would unconditionally, come through David.

@R2.Pro.3 - "... Jeconiah's curse cannot be abrogated, the object of God's oath is "as I live", Jer 22:24, and thrice repeated (major oath) earth, earth, earth, verse 29."

What authority do you have - to claim that God cannot reverse, and override his own judgment?

To counter this, I gave an explicit reference where God not only reversed a judgment - but reversed that specific judgment - through Jeconiah's descendent Zerubbabel, (Haggain 2:21-23).

R2.Con.2 - Judicial Precedent that Advocacy for Each Other Overturns God's Judgments :

But - You are kinda missing the point here : the entire premise of Christianity - heck, the entire Bible - is that God is desperate to do just that! Beginning when God overruled the judgment that Adam would die in the Garden of Eden. From the very begnning God established a precedent that advocating for others, in love, would overturn a ruling of judgment.


If you can prove that this is impossible - to the nature of God, then you disprove the entirety of Christianity!


But ... I believe that I can rest my case regarding the text's position that Jeconiah's curse was reversed from the context of Haggai. ...

It would be your burden to prove that this isn't even a remote possibility, in order for a reasonably minded person to interpret Haggai exactly opposite of what is written !!!
Debate Round No. 2
fred70

Pro

I did not concede that Jesus came from jeconiah. Luke and matthew disagree about Jesus's pedigree. I'm simply stating that Jesus is screwed either way.

The Talmud was written around 250 a.d. it has no bearing on Chronicles which was written around 200-150 b.c. Also, tisk tisk on resorting to rabbinical judaism. I said in round two that rabbinical judaism has no merit in interpreting the Tanakh. All Jewish\christian scholars readily admit that both the Palestinian and the Babylonian Talmud, provide no steam in biblical hermeneutics. The FAINT traces of the (original) hillel\shamai schools of thought that it retains, are far removed from the culture\customs of the Tanakh. Tisk tisk.

The ancient Israelite oath: A person would swear something by placing themselves or an object under an imprecatory oath. The object under the imprecatory oath, would be considered damned by God if the oath were broken. The verses I quoted from Jeremiah depicts God putting his own life, (as I live) and the freaking world (earth,earrh,earth) into his oath. In other words God was saying, "may I DIE and may the WORLD DIE along with me should I break my word." All ancient Israelite oaths, whether explicitly stated or only implied, contain the notion that sh*t will hit the fans if the promise is broken.

Your bit about 'apparantly all Solomon's descendants died". Apparent is not absolute.
Maybe she only killed all the ones she knew of.

Solomon's election was unconditional not conditional.
The ability of the monarchy to reign perpetually was conditional, not unconditional.

You didn't respond to my wonderful commentary on Isaiah 53 within the context of 40-66.

I used to get up and pray my morning prayer, it took nearly 45 minutes.
I remember wrapping the tzitzit around my wedding finger and imagining myself married to God and his Torah. I couldn't afford the tefillin (300 bucks or so). After 3 years of practicing reform judaism my rabbi (who was raised haredi in Manhattan) advised I go to a haredi shul in Dallas. So I went. It was impersonal and full of chaos. Completely unstructured. Eventually I made my way to the rabbi and told him my story. At first he smiled, I had a ZZ top beard, why not smile at me? After he learned I was reform he angrily scolded me. "Someone may have counted you in their minyan!" He raced around the room asking who counted me. When I got back I asked my rabbi, "is haredi judaism loveless?" To which he replied, "now you know why I left Manhattan!"
elikakohen

Con

@R3.Pro.1 - "... Also, tisk tisk on resorting to rabbinical judaism. I said in round two that rabbinical Judaism has no merit in interpreting the Tanakh."

Except - the idea of the Messiah being a descdant of Solomon is an entirely Rabbinic construction construction, (relying on Maimonides, the Zohar, etc) :

I stand by the conclusion that an inference that the Messiah must be a descendant of Solomon - can only arise from possibility applying the Rabbinic rules of interpretation - to their own commentary.

Although, It would interesting to see that idea in Tannaitic writing!

But - for every Jew - there is a differing opinion!!! :

"The famed 20th-century Jewish scholar and kabbalist Rabbi Reuven Margolies explains that the Zohar is careful to describe the Moshiach as being a descendant of Nathan’s wife, rather than of Nathan himself. Nathan had passed away childless, and Solomon his brother married his widow, according to the laws of yibum, levirate marriage." http://www.chabad.org...

It is not possible to simply wave this issue at Jesus' genealogy - to make it go away; the "Jewish" opinion is a LOT more complicated than it appears!

And - yes, to properly interpret all of that "commentary" - we are expected to apply the Talmudic rules of interpretation - as we expect that those writers to have written with those principles in mind.

Regardless - even those rules of interpretation are derived from "Pardes" (https://en.wikipedia.org...(Jewish_exegesis) - which likely DID originate before Jesus' time - which still require reasonable exegesis that a passage be understood in its context.

So - it is disingenuous to claim that the Talmudic rules of interpretation don't really apply.Because - the Rules of Exegesis DO apply, (Pardes), which arguably were present during the Tannaitic period, (https://en.wikipedia.org...(Jewish_exegesis) ).

You just can't rip passages out of their contexts - ignore their plain meaning, let-alone try to infer a generality from a specific circumstance. https://en.wikipedia.org...

But - the inferential leap that the Messiah would be descendant from Solomon is impossible to make from a plain-reading of the text, (which is a violation of Pardes) - and only panders to the unsubstantiated Rabbinic claim, only under their own rules of interpretation.

R3.Con.1 - Again - I am insisting on a reasonable argument of Messianic lineage through Solomon - based on Scripture, in its complete context, that a fair-minded reader could come to that conclusion. Relying on Maimonides, (as you are doing - even if not knowingly) - would not have been possible for a Jew of the Second Temple period.

@R3.Pro.2 - "... I did not concede that Jesus came from jeconiah. Luke and matthew disagree about Jesus's pedigree. I'm simply stating that Jesus is screwed either way."I believe I have addressed all of these issues reasonably :

The Differing Genealogies is Really Irrelevant - Both genealogies (Luke 3:27, Matthew 1:12) appear honest enough, both affirming that Jesus was a descendant of Zerubbabel, (the grandson of Jeconiah - whose lineage was cursed).

Sure - one mentions Solomon, the other mentions Nathan - and this is incredibly important, because : ALL of the Christian writers appealed to David, and Abraham (not even Nathan). Objectively, they would have addressed the issue - if it had actually been significant to Jews of that era.

This is a valid argument from silence : a supposed issue, such as this, would not have been left unadressed - if it had actually been an issue for Jews of that Era. (I am not even sure the Apostolic Fathers ever ran across this!)

Again, A historical reference, commentary, about the Messiah coming from Solomon, from before that Era - would be VERY compelling in this case.

But - to be honest - this is exactly the kind of Genealogy I would expect to see, in a lineage that was trying to preserve itself - by marrying as much as possible within the same famliy/tribe every few generations or so.

1. The text indicates that God reversed Jeconiah's curse, in view of his grandson, Zerubbabel, (Haggai 2:21-23);
2. The text indicates that all of Solomon's descendants were killed; but - Messianic prophecies were still written afterwards - about David, (2 Chron 22:10, Zech 12:12) - never mentioning Solomon, but including Nathan.
3. Even if the inferential leap is made that Solomon was promised the Messiah as a descendant - the plain-reading of the text, itself, explicitly states that God's covenant with Solomon was conditional, (1 Chron 28:9).

R3.Con.2 - What is your basis - if not the text - to show this is not actually conditional? Jews are commanded NOT to lean on their own understanding, or trust in men or princes. Are you asking violate this Mitzvah?

By appealing to the plain-reading of the text - a reasonably-minded reader could not make an inferential leap that that Messiah would be a descendant of Solomon's.

But - by that same standard, (a plain-reading of the text) - you still have the burden of proof to show that the Messiah was to be a descendant from Solomon, which you can't through the plain-reading of the text - but only by appealing to Talmudic doctrine, (which was anti-Christian).

@R3.Pro.3 - "... Luke's gospel (Luke 3:31) links Jesus's pedigree to David's son Nathan (Solomon's brother)."

Again, not an issue. Even in a later Messianic passage - the family of Solomon is not mentioned. But David's, Nathan's, and Levi's are - as expected :

Zechariah 12:12 - The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves;Ironically - in Scripture - the only remnant of Solomon's - are the descendants of his servants!

Even the "Zohar" supposedly links Nathan and Solomon - so, there is that, (cited above).

@R3.Pro.4 - "... Your bit about 'apparently all Solomon's descendants died". Apparent is not absolute. Maybe she only killed all the ones she knew of.""Maybe she only killed the ones she knew of ..."

2 Chron. 22:10 - Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she rose and destroyed all the royal offspring of the house of Judah.If you rely on a supposed ambiguity in this passage - then the entire argument regarding Solomon's lineage is defeated.

In order to rule out Jesus' right to reign - you HAVE to assert that Solomon's descendants didn't actually die; and, you have to show how you can possibily interpret that passage exactly opposite of what it states.

One Rabbinic principle is - an interpretation cannot leave a passage meaningless, or even redundant. Yet - that is /exactly/ where this interpretation leads - if this passage has no "real meaning".

@R3.Pro.5 - Regarding Isaiah 53 :Y our debate is that Jesus can't be the Messiah because of Scripture ... but your citation of Is. 53 isn't framed in an argument that excludes Jesus somehow ... So, I don't really understand it.

Since you don't say WHO Isaiah 53 is talking about, or how it absolutely excludes Jesus - then it isn't really relevant. Again, I would appeal to the plain-reading of the text.

Regardless - that same passage is mirrored in Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Malachai, etc ... okay, all over Scripture.

We could have an entire discussion on Is. 53 alone.

R3.Con.3 - But - unless you use it to exclude Jesus, then it isn't relevant - here....

However, I do think we have beaten the Solomon lineage thing to death ... If you have a basis, other than one single, really, really, vague Talmudic understanding ... I am not sure that can go anywhere.
Debate Round No. 3
fred70

Pro

Why do you keep appealing to the Talmud?
If a woman is with her child and she needed to urinate, she should not urinate directly in front of the child but rather should stand to the side and urinate (Bechoros 44b)
(Gittin 69a) To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix it with honey and eat it.

Sanhedrin 55b Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 (24) I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.
The Talmud is full of wierd crap, completely irrelevant to the Tanakh.
I remember reading in the Talmud an intense debate about the following: if a woman is a virgin and can't resist her urge for sex, she should have unnatural sex (anal) and her virginity will be retained. I think this went on for 10 pages. Suddenly it switched to this topic: The son of David will reveal himself with a smile. Why? Because it's written, "his teeth are white as milk."
Then the rest of the entire volume debated whether the fruits of the fruits of a field should be considered the fruits of the field, or the fruits of the fruits. I kid you not. (It was about how a husband has ownership of his wife's property unless she conditioned it: the field is mine, but I wave my rights to the fruits of the field etc)

I don't care about Judaism's various interpretations, I'm arguing the author's intent

1 Chron 28:5 "of all my son's, (for the Lord has given me many sons) He has CHOSEN Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.
Solomon did nothing to earn his election, his election was unconditional. God excluded all of Davids sons and chose Solomon.
2 Samuel 12:25: When Solomon (shlomo peaceful) was born, God named him Y'deedeeyah,
Yahweh's precious (one), my translation. Solomon must be in jesus's pedigree.
Zech12:8 2 camps "the feeble and the house of david."
Compared with Zech12:12 two camps "house of david....and..house of Nathan."
The Davidic dynasty and the feeble (ordinary non-royalty folk)
Nathan and his descendants are clearly distinguished from the house of david (the monarchy)

Eleeka: Since you don't say WHO Isaiah 53 is talking about, or how it absolutely excludes Jesus - then it isn't really relevant. Again, I would appeal to the plain-reading of the text.

You didn't read my round 2. I know I'm boring, but geesh, at least read it.
The prophecy stuff: I'll just cut to the chase. Isaiah chapter 53 has nothing to do with jesus.
Isaiah chapters 40-66 are concerned with Cyrus's edict to return to Jerusalem and rebuild it.
52:11 Hey, leave Babylon and return the temple stuff Nebuchadnezzar took.
54:3 resettle the desolated cities in Israel when you get back.
The in-between hyperbolic descriptions of a human sacrifice in chapter 53?
Lamentations 5:7 'Our fathers sinned and are no more; we carry their sins."
The 50 plus years of captivity saw a new generation suffering for their fathers' mess.
A proverb arose from that: our fathers ate some sour grapes, but our teeth are set on edge.
Psalm 44:22 " it is for God's sake we are given to death, we are sheep to be sacrificed."
Bible writers assured the returning exiles that their misery was part of God's plan.
Their misery was like a guilt offering. Were they forever cursed for their fathers' idolatry? No, they paid the price in captivity.
Jesus's (supposed cruci-fiction) did nothing for 6the century exiles, the exiles suffering in Babylonian captivity was their guilt offering.

Isaiah 40:1,2 speak to jerusalem....comfort, comfort my people.....her sin has been removed, for she received of the Lord double for all her sins
Observe: Jerusalem was to warmly welcome the returning exiles. Jerusalem's sins were removed. Jerusalem's misery during the Jews absence, and the Jews misery in Babylon was the means of purging the two parties.
It was two parties purged from sin that were being reunited.
That's the context of 40-66 Cyrus's edict for the two to rejoin, Providence of God thingamajig.

Eleeka, Some of your stuff was ad hominem. Clear sign of throwing in the towel!

Stop being a Christian!
elikakohen

Con


In Re R4.Pro.1 - Only Arguing from Talmud and Zohar to Show Multiple "Jew-Ish" Opinions - Disproving "Certainty" :

[Elika], Some of your stuff was ad hominem. Clear sign of throwing in the towel!

No - I think we are both bashing Rabbinical Judaism pretty evenly - to show that arguing from Tradition, (the Mishneh and Talmud) - cannot possibly lead to a conclusive resolution. (I think we agree on this point.)

But - to show that it is also a "Jew-ish" idea that the Messiah would come from Nathan - I pointed to the Zohar, (which modern Judaism also acknowledges the connection to both Nathan AND Solomon - in agreement with the New Testament writers).

"The famed 20th-century Jewish scholar and kabbalist Rabbi Reuven Margolies explains that the Zohar is careful to describe the Moshiach as being a descendant of Nathan’s wife, rather than of Nathan himself. Nathan had passed away childless, and Solomon his brother married his widow, according to the laws of yibum, levirate marriage."

Judaism is very adamant about relying on supposed traditions / intellectualisms rather than plain-reading of the texts, (like pedastry, etc).

In other words, IF it is arguable that Jewish disciples of Jesus of that era most likely didn't care if the Messiah descendend from Solomon or Nathan, (supported by the two genealogies); AND IF it is a well-substantiated fact that Judasim has multiple-opinions on this, AND IF there is no plain-reading of the text where a reasonable bystander could infer that the Messiah would certainly be a descendant of Solomon - THEN it is clear that the text does not conclusively disqualify Jesus as the Messiah based on a genealogy through either Nathan or Solomon.

R4.Con.1 - Authorial Intent is Reasonably Debated - Even in Judaism; It is incredibly vauge; Unknowable :

The thing is - Jews at that time - likely had a much better understanding of the differing opinions - of that time, (especially since the Sadducees and Karaites were exterminated). This renders the entire question about "Authorial Intent" - "Moot" - unknowable. The best we can do - is rely on a "Plain-reading" of the text - which even the writers of the Zohar and other Rabbinical sources disagree with you about. ... so \o/ ?? (Moot.)

In Re. R4.Pro.2 - Various Inferences and Proofs Regarding Solomon

The Debate : "Jesus Cannot Be the Messiah" - appeals to a deductive / certain conclusion; "THIS MUST BE TRUE".

The Burden of Proof - at the bare minimun - is to rule out valid/reasonable Rival Hypotheses.
1. The text states that all of Solomon's descendants were killed.
2. The text still states the Messiah would be descendant from David - after the death of Solomon's descendants.
3. In the text, The promises/covenants that God made with Solomon were conditional - (which he broke).

Neither I, (nor a reasonable reader), could possibly accept your conclusion based on a "Plain-Reading" of the text - BUT PERHAPS on of the other methods could, (Like Derash, hidden meaning, etc).

R4.Con.2 - Even so - the Rival Hypothesis MUST be excluded in order to ENTAIL a Deductive/Certain Conclusion.

That burden of proof - to rule out that Rival Hypothesis - is still not addressed with any certainty.

In Re.R4.Pro.3 - Arguments Regarding Isaiah :

"Isaiah chapter 53 has nothing to do with jesus." (And Isaiah 40, Psalms, etc) ...

Great. And?

You just said it has NOTHING to do with Jesus. (Since you do not argue Messianic intent in those passages, I suppose you may also be arguing that it doesn't even have anything to do with the Messiah).

R4.Con.3 - In either case - according to you - Isaiah 53 has NOTHING to do with Jesus - and can't possibly exclude him.

(That was a LOT more efficient/concise than going chapter by chapter! I WIN! HAH!)

In Re.R4.Pro.4 - "Stop being a Christian!"

*Cough. You do realize that when Jews accepted "Jesus" as the Messiah - that it had NOTHING to do with prophecy, right?

Jesus was clearly a political dissident, objecting to both Pharasaic and Sadducean Judaism.

Jesus' first followers were clueless about Isaiah 53.

Their faith / loyalty to Jesus was baed on Reasoned Argumentation, (anti-sexism/racism, anti-oppression, the true nature of God, etc) - and, what they perceived as the evident power of God, proving that he was "Anointed" - just like King Saul and David were "Anointed" with super-natural power.

The point being - Prophecy is all fine and dandy, but ultimately - and objectively - it is crazy vague and can be interpreted in many, many ways. As a result - it is highly unlikely that any "reasonably minded person" could ever come to any "FOR CERTAIN/DEDUCTIVE" conclusion based on any plain-reading of prophecy !!!

Oh - and : In Christian Scripture - People never appealed to Prophecy AS PROOF; but as a nice "bow" to tie up the facts with.

They always, always, appealed to what people, many witnesses saw - and heard.

Quite frankly - New Testament writers just took the Messiahship of Jesus as a clearly established fact among Jews - regardless of any prophecy:

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.

1 Corinthians 2:4 ... and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

R4.Con.4 - Finding Reasonable Bystanders to See Who Could Be Persuaded, Either Way - from Scriptural Prophecy :

I hear that http://www.debate.org...;- has a moderate representation of atheists .... *cough. Maybe they could provide opinions on whether any prophecy of Scripture is remotely specific enough to either include, or exclude Jesus.

I believe this entire premise is invalid, and that ONE verse in Chronicles - that appears conditional - is nowhere near as conclusive as you make it out to be.
Debate Round No. 4
fred70

Pro

I'll be brief.
Isaiah 53: Israel is identified 7 times as the servant.
41:8, ,44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20, 49:3

Unidentified servant: 41:9 obviously Israel, 41:8.
43:10 servant called "witnesses", plurality Israel. Witnesses that idolatry is rubbish.
42:19 blind servant, israel.
49:5-7 servant called "servant to rulers", Israel subjected to various rulers.

52:13 every single time the servant is Israel, why get goofy now?

Question: 53:10 He shall see his seed. No where in the N.T is the Church called Christ's seed.
They're called his bride, but never his seed.
No where in OT are humans called God's seed. Sons, sure.never seed.
Seed suggests CUM, god can't cum, god has no seed.
"Prolong his days"? The Ancient of Days cannot prolong his days?
elikakohen

Con

R5.Con.1 - Too many untrue premises - but Regardless, none of the Arguments Would Necessarily Exclude Jesus as Messiah :

I feel that Pro's argument is intended to : 1. Argue that Isaiah 53 is NOT a Messianic Prophecy; 2. Argue that "Servant pertains to "Israel" - and not Specifically the Messiah.

In either case - IF TRUE - then, this has NO effect on whether any of the OTHER prophecies in Isaiah, (let alone the rest of Scripture), necessarily exclude Jesus as the Messiah.

Even-So - I will try to briefly explain why the arguments are invalid ...

R5.Con.2 - "Seed" in both Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek - is a Metaphor for Descendants, or a Specific Descendant :

In Re. R5.Pro - Premises Regarding "Seed" : He shall see his seed. No where in the N.T is the Church called Christ's seed." They're called his bride, but never his seed. No where in OT are humans called God's seed. Sons, sure.never seed. Seed suggests CUM, god can't cum, god has no seed.

Galatians 3:16 - Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed (σπ^1;ρματι | spermati). He does not say, “And to seeds (σπ^1;ρμασιν | spermasin),” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed (σπ^1;ρματ^3; | spermati),” that is, Christ.

Galatians 3:29 - And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants (σπ^1;ρμα | sperma), heirs according to promise.

Isaiah 41:8 - “But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, Descendant (Hebrew : זֶ֖רַע | zerah; Greek : σπP51;ρμα | sperma) of Abraham My friend;

Targum Jonathan, Isaiah 1:4 - My people, called a beloved seed, (בְזַרעָא רְחִימָא)

I do not know what the relevance of Pro's premises are : but regardless - none of these are true.

R5.Con.3 - Linguistically, Historically - It is Valid to interpret "Servant" as the Messiah; According to JEWISH authorities :

In Re. R5.Pro - Isaiah 49:5-7 servant called "servant to rulers", Israel subjected to various rulers.
In Re. R5.Pro - Isaiah 52:13 every single time the servant is Israel, why get goofy now?
In Re. R5.Pro - In Scripture - especially in prophetic passages, the "Servant" referred to a single person - so why get goofy now?

R5.Con.3.1 - "Servant" is Extremely Equivocated in ALL of Hebrew Scripture, not just Isaiah :

Gen 26:24 - Moses, my Servant
2 Samuel 3:18 - David, my Servant
Isaiah 20:3 - Isaiah, my Servant
Isaiah 22:20 - My servant Eliakim
Isaiah 37:37 - My servant David
Ezekiel 37:25 - forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever.
Malachi 4:4 - Moses, my Servant

R5.Con.3.2 - Servant - in Isaiah 49 - is CLEARLY DISTINCT from "Jacob/Israel", not the same :

Isaiah 49:3 - He said to Me, “You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory.” .... Isaiah 49:5 - And now says the Lord, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the Lord, And My God is My strength),

R5.Con.3.3 - Jewish Authorities Interpreting "Servant" to mean "The Messiah" & Not a Christian Bias:

It is one thing - to look back 2-3 thousand years at ancient texts and speculate how to interpret them; But, it is an entirely different thing to see how people 2-3 thousand years ago interpreted the those texts - for themselves ...

It goes without saying that the New Testament IS A JEWISH commentary - WRITTEN BY JEWS - of Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek versions of the Tanakh. But - what about Jewish opinion before and after that period :

R5.3.3.1 - Rabbinic Opiniona :

Rashi's Commentary on Isaiah 49:6 - And He said, “It is too light for you to be, etc.”: In My eyes, it is too small a gift that you should have this alone, that you be My servant to establish Jacob and to bring back to Me the besieged of Israel, and behold I add more to you, “And I will make you a light for the nations,” to prophesy concerning the downfall of Babylon, which will be a joy for the whole world. and the besieged of Israel: Heb. וּנְצוּרֵי. Comp. (Prov. 7:10) “With a heart surrounded by evil thoughts (וּנְצֻרַת),” that their heart is surrounded by the inclination of sinful thoughts, like a city besieged by a bulwark of those who besiege it.

R5.Con.3.3.2 - Targum Jonathan on Isaiah (Circa 50 BCE) - The Oldest and MOST Authoritative Jewish INTERPRETATION of Isaiah :

http://juchre.org... (Granted - I don't agree with all of it's translations - but a few "notable" mentions ...)

Targum Jonahthan - Isaiah 43:10 - אַת@309;ן סָהְדִין קְֹדָמַי אְמַר יוי וְעַבדִי מְשִיחָא | You all are my witnesses says the Lord, and my servant [the] Messiah.

Targum Jonathan - Isaiah 52:13 - הָא יַצלַח עַבדִי מְשִיחָא | Behold, my servant the Messiah will prosper.

Targum Jonathan - Isaiah 53:11 - And it was the pleasure of the Lord to refine and to purify the remnant of His people, in order to cleanse their souls from sin, that they might see the kingdom of their Messiah.

R5.Con.4 - To sum this last argument and every argument that I have made :

1. Even Jewish Authorities are ambiguous on whether or not the Messiah would come through Solomon or Nathan.
2. Even Jewish Authorities assert that the Messiah would come through BOTH - as is reflected in the two different genealogies of Jesus.
3. The most Ancient Jewish Authorities affirm that "Servant" in Isaiah - was a reference to the Messiah, and not Israel as a whole.
4. Jeconiah's curse was apparently reversed through the faithfulness of his grandson Zerubbabel;
5. Any apparent requirement to rely on ambiguous interpretations regarding Solomon or Nathan are in no way conclusive;
6. Even if it were conceded that Isaiah chapters 40+ had nothing to do with the Messiah - then Jesus couldn't possibly be excluded as the Messiah based on texts that have nothing to do with the Messiah;
7. Any argument relying on the premise that "seed" does not imply descendant(s) fails because this is inc, literally - (as sperm) to exclude Jesus - couldn't possibly prevail, because this is incredibly unsubstantiated and contradicted by nearly every instance of this term in the texts.

Vote CON!!!
Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by judaism 3 months ago
judaism
Jesus is not the Messiah.
Posted by Yozavad 1 year ago
Yozavad
Eleeka, I'm debating an atheist.
http://www.debate.org...
Lol, I gotta start somewhere.
Anyways, God bless you.
I still think you misunderstood my "God has no seed argument".
Yes people are called seed (offspring) but humans are never called God's seed.
All christian commentaries I checked, said the church is Christ's seed.
Pulpit commentary for example.
Isaiah 53:10 is talking about the servant seeing his seed and prolonging his days.
This cannot apply to Jesus. Dude, you're wrong.
Desist. Give it up. :)
Posted by Yozavad 1 year ago
Yozavad
Fred70 you seem to be an atheist. Why would you debate these things? What's in it for you?
Posted by elikakohen 1 year ago
elikakohen
@fred20 - I think your argument that God's curses cannot be abrogated belong in a debate. I think it is worth more than "comments".

I feel that this is the ONE SINGLE core distinction between Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. :) Without it - no other nations could possibly find favor with God - as Abraham's / Isaac's / Jacob's blessings can be understood, effectively, as curses upon all other nations. Again - this topic deserves its own discussion.

Regardless, no matter if God could, or shouldn't have reversed a curse - the text states that he did. If that is an irreconcilable contradiction that points to a failure in the text - then the curse upon jeconiah is called into question too. Regardless - of whether God can or can't - the text says that he did
Posted by Yozavad 1 year ago
Yozavad
Isaiah 53:" He was wronged and pained, yet he did not open his mouth.."
He didn't want to complain. He wanted to fulfill the sh'ma by loving God with all his "nefesh". This chapter is about the mercy of God. God views Israel's suffering as fulfilling the Sh'ma, even when they don't face it with courage. God is cool like that. :)
Posted by Yozavad 1 year ago
Yozavad
Fred70: "Jeconiah's curse cannot be abrogated, the object of God's oath is "as I live", Jer 22:24, and thrice repeated (major oath) earth, earth, earth, verse 29.
The verses I quoted from Jeremiah depicts God putting his own life, (as I live) and the freaking world (earth,earrh,earth) into his oath. In other words God was saying, "may I DIE and may the WORLD DIE along with me should I break my word."

You've misread the text. The earth was called to "listen" and "write", Jer 22:29. The earth was described as a scribe taking dictation. God was not self-imprecating himself or the earth.
Posted by boozeandbabble 1 year ago
boozeandbabble
Also you both wrong about jews.
The Black Hebrew Israelites are God's true people.
The jews are European tricksters.
Posted by boozeandbabble 1 year ago
boozeandbabble
Elikerkohen was deceptive.
Fred70 was better.
God ain't no man.
Posted by fred70 1 year ago
fred70
I'm not even religious and I won't to stone you to death for that :)
Posted by fred70 1 year ago
fred70
53:10 "he will see his seed" =the servant's descendants. The jews would prolong their days.

Elika's explanation:
Galatians 3:29 - And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham"s descendants (`3;`0;^1;`1;_6;^5; | sperma), heirs according to promise.
What f***ing relevance would it be for deutero isaiah to tell the returned exiles: hey, 600 years from now the church will replace Israel as avraham's seed?
You're full of crap!
No votes have been placed for this debate.