The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 201 times Debate No: 92346
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

harrytruman

Pro

I hope you accept this.
Jerry947

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

Bs"d
Isaiah 8:20 says:

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
This verse lays out that any teacher who teaches something contrary to the Mitzvot is a false teacher, and there is no light in them. In addition to this, the Non-Testament confirms the Torah, which means it must be held in accordance to the Torah, the Torah doesn't confirm the Non-Testament, so it does not have to teach in accordance with the Non-Testament to be true. And to top this point off, the Non-Testament itself lays out in Matthew 5:17 that it doesn't come to destroy the law:
"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."

There for we may conclude that the Non-Testament must teach in accordance with the Torah enable to be valid at all. Matthew 12:1:
"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them."

So now we see Jesus allowing his disciples to harvest wheat on Shabbat, something completely contrary to the law. Just one of many examples.

He also fit ZERO prophecies, and no those 365 non-prophecies fulfilled by Jesus are not valid, a lot of them are very vague that just about anyone could fit, like being born of
a woman, being a Jew, having enemies, or dying. Isaiah 53 isn't valid either cause first of all it isn't a Messianic prophecy. Second of all Jesus didn't fit it, he didn't live a long life or have children (Isaiah 53:10), and he wasn't rich (Isaiah 53:12).
Jerry947

Con

I am going to start off the debate using arguments that I have used in past debates. Part one will be my argument and part two will be my rebuttals.

Part One:

1. The New Testament is a Reliable Source:

a. There are precisely 5,686 New Testament documents (written in Greek) that we now have that are believed to have been written by the end of the first century. We even have a document written by John that was composed 29 years after the death of Jesus. And according to scholars, when these documents are compared to each other, and checked for accuracy, they are 99.5% accurate. This is really significant when speaking of ancient documents. There is really no doubt that we have the original information from the original documents. That said, we only have seven copies of Plato"s Tetralogies and they were composed over 1,000 years after his death and scholars still accept the documents as valid. There is also the fact that there are also over 19,000 New Testament documents that were written in Latin and in other languages. Therefore it is reasonable to say that we have the exact words that the people of the time period wrote about Jesus.

b. People in the New Testament have been proven outside of the Bible to have existed. John the Baptist for example was mentioned by the historian Josephus. And James, the brother of Jesus has also been confirmed outside of the Bible. The link at the bottom of this paragraph lists more people that have been confirmed outside of the Bible (including King Herod). Therefore, since the New Testament has many people that have been confirmed to have existed, we can conclude that the documents are historically accurate.
Link: http://www.ucg.org...
https://carm.org...

c. Places in the New Testament have been confirmed to have existed. Luke, for example, mentioned "thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error" (http://www.everystudent.com...). Then of course there is the Sea of Galilee, Capernaum, Bethsaida, and etc..that have all been confirmed to have existed (https://www.youtube.com...). The point is that the Bible mentions real places which shows that it is historically reliable.

d. Events mentioned in the Bible have been confirmed to have happened. The crucifixion of Jesus is an example of a real event recorded by Josephus (https://carm.org...). Then there is the fact the the New Testament mentions many Jewish events that still took place such as passover. All of these events are things that we know happened.

e. The information is accurate because it was written by real people who wrote about real people, real places, and about real events that took place. For example, when a person reads the gospel of Matthew, they are reading an eyewitness account of the events that took place. And because the document mentions real people, real places, real events, and details only an eyewitness would know...the source is reliable. There is no good reason to deny the reliability of the New Testament.

f. Then there is the embarrassment factor. A good indicator of a source's reliability is that it mentions things that happened that were embarrassing. For example, the crucifixion of Jesus was something that was incredibly embarrassing for the early Christians and yet the gospel writers included it in their writings. These people worshipped Jesus as their God and it was horrible to see him murdered butt naked on a cross like some kind of criminal. Then there is the fact that the historian Luke records women discovering the empty tomb. Back then, the testimony of a women was not highly valued. It was embarrassing for Jesus" tomb to be discovered by women. Therefore the New Testament is reliable due to the embarrassing events that it mentions.

In conclusion, it is reasonable to say that the New Testament is a reliable source because we know we have the original words of the author's, real people are mentioned, real places are mentioned, and because real events have been included in the New Testament.

2. Jesus...

Is Called God-John 1:1,18; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1.
Has the names and titles of God-The Lord (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21), I AM (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58), and Savior (Isaiah 43:11; Titus 2:13).
Has Attributes of God-Omnipresence (Matthew 18:20; 28:26), Immutable (Hebrews 13:8), Eternal (John 8:58), Omnipotence (John 11:38-44; Matthew 28: 18-22), and Omniscience (Matthew 16:21; John 4:28; 11:17).
Did Works of God-Creating/Sustaining (John 1:3,10; Hebrews 1:2, 3; Colossians 1:15-17), Forgiveness/healing (Isaiah 29:18; Mark 2:1-12), and Calming the Storm (Psalm 107:28-29; Matthew 8: 23-27).
Is Due Honor and Worship-John 5:22-30; 20:28

3. He died and rose from the dead according to the people who lived during the time period.

Matthew-https://www.biblegateway.com......

Mark-https://www.biblegateway.com......

Luke-https://www.biblegateway.com......

John-https://www.biblegateway.com......

Paul also has something to say about it-https://www.biblegateway.com......

Even the brothers of Jesus (who previously disbelieved in the deity of their brother) came to believe that Jesus was God. Think about that for a moment...what would it take for you to believe that your brother (if you have one) was God? Would it take a resurrection? Nevertheless they became Christians.

Part Two: I will quote my opponent and then respond to what they wrote.

"There for we may conclude that the Non-Testament must teach in accordance with the Torah enable to be valid at all."

I think it is more accurate to say that those who were inspired by God are fit to write scripture.

"So now we see Jesus allowing his disciples to harvest wheat on Shabbat, something completely contrary to the law. Just one of many examples."

This law was apart of the old covenant. It previously existed to foreshadow the rest people would find in God. That said, the Sabbath law has been done away with (Col 2:16) since Jesus has died for us. The Sabbath represented the rest and the holiness we would find in Jesus. And the fact is that even when the law was in place, it represented part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God's requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins.

Not only that, but the whole animals sacrifice system was there to foreshadow what the messiah would do for us. That is also why no one sacrifices animals anymore. It is no longer necessary under the new covenant.

"He also fit ZERO prophecies, and no those 365 non-prophecies fulfilled by Jesus are not valid, a lot of them are very vague that just about anyone could fit, like being born of a woman, being a Jew, having enemies, or dying."

My opponent just made a large claim with no support. I now ask them to try and support there claim.

"Isaiah 53 isn't valid either cause first of all it isn't a Messianic prophecy."

a. Fruchtenbaum points out, "All of the ancient Jewish writings " the Mishnah, the Gemara, (the Talmud), the Midrashim and many others " all regard this portion of Scripture as relating to the Messianic Person."[15] It was Rashi, around 1050 A.D. who first suggested that it refers to Israel. However, Rashi"s views sparked fierce debate with the great rabbi Maimonides strongly opposing Rashi"s claims" (https://carm.org...).

b. The source above also states that "There are a number of reasons why this passage refers to the Messiah. First, this passage mentions an individual person. The references are in the singular. Commenting on verse 8, Fruchtenbaum notes, "This One, who is Messiah, is quite distinct from "my people," who are Israel."[10] Elwell notes, "While it is true that Isaiah does not explicitly link the title Messiah with the Servant of the Lord, identifying both figures as one and the same person is justifiable."[11] Both are uniquely anointed (Is. 61:1), bring light to the Gentiles (Is. 55:4; cf. 49:6), neither is pretentious at the first appearance (Is. 7:14-15; 11:1; cf. 42:3; 53:1), they both have the title of the Davidic "branch" (Is. 11:1-4), and they both are humiliated and exalted (Is. 49:7; 52:13-15). In the Old Testament, "my people" is always a reference to Israel. However, Messiah will be killed for the sins of Israel.[12]"

"Second of all Jesus didn't fit it, he didn't live a long life or have children (Isaiah 53:10), and he wasn't rich (Isaiah 53:12)."

a. The Bible doesn't say that he didn't have children

b. The verse about children most likely referred to those who believed in him (Christians).

c. How does that verse indicate that the messiah would be rich?
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

Rebuttals:

"Is Called God-John 1:1,18; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1.
Has the names and titles of God-The Lord (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21), I AM (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58), and Savior (Isaiah 43:11; Titus 2:13).
Has Attributes of God-Omnipresence (Matthew 18:20; 28:26), Immutable (Hebrews 13:8), Eternal (John 8:58), Omnipotence (John 11:38-44; Matthew 28: 18-22), and Omniscience (Matthew 16:21; John 4:28; 11:17).
Did Works of God-Creating/Sustaining (John 1:3,10; Hebrews 1:2, 3; Colossians 1:15-17), Forgiveness/healing (Isaiah 29:18; Mark 2:1-12), and Calming the Storm (Psalm 107:28-29; Matthew 8: 23-27).
Is Due Honor and Worship-John 5:22-30; 20:28"

No, Jesus is not G-d, Numbers 23:19 says:
"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"
And 1st Timothy 2:5:
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,"
So what the hell are these verses that say Jesus is G-d doing there? While we know that both the Torah and the Non-Testament say that G-d is not a man, and Jesus is not G-d?



"This law was apart of the old covenant. It previously existed to foreshadow the rest people would find in God. That said, the Sabbath law has been done away with (Col 2:16) since Jesus has died for us. The Sabbath represented the rest and the holiness we would find in Jesus. And the fact is that even when the law was in place, it represented part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God's requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins."

Psalms:
"I will not violate my covenant or alter what my lips have uttered."
So no, G-d isn't going to destroy the old covenant, start a new one and say something completely different than before, this is absurd. There are many more verses that I can bring up such as Isaiah 40:8 which says:
"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever."
This is almost embarassing that you don't know this. Exodus 12:24:
"Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants."



"b. The verse about children most likely referred to those who believed in him (Christians).

Hahahahaha! NO! The word used for offspring used is "Zera," which means seed, not followers.



c. How does that verse indicate that the messiah would be rich?"

It doesn't say that the Messiah will be rich, this verse isn't refering to the Messiah, it is refering to someone else who becomes rich, which yes it does saythat "I will divide him a portion among the great," great being "rab" in Hebrew which mean "abundant." Jesus wasn't rich.


Arguments:

Jesus's prophecy fulfillments are invalid:
Jesus fit no messianic prophecies whatsoever, as I said before those 365 prophecies are not genuine, I could fit a lot of those, just look at them:
https://www.bibleprobe.com...
Most of these propheies are super vague, such as that he would be a Jew, that he would be born of a woman, he would die, that he would be thirsty. Oh and another, "the Messiah will be G-d," again, G-d is not a man, this isn't a Messianic prophecy, and even if it were, you would need to prove him G-d. One last thing, one of these propheies says that he would be a king, but Jesus wasn't a king!






Jerry947

Con

In response to my Jesus is God argument, he ignores it and cites Numbers 23:19.

First of all, when that verse was written, God had not became flesh yet. So yes, he had not yet become a man yet. Also, the verse says that "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent." In other words, the verse is saying that God does not lie or repent of sins like man does. So my opponent is twisting the words of God here.

My opponent argues that God would never violate what his lips have uttered. I agree except for the fact that the Old Testament predicts the coming of the New Testament. Jer. 31:31 says "Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah."

The Old Covenant showed that no one was perfect and that no one could even be perfect. The New Covenant was made because humans couldn't keep it. Not because God couldn't.

My opponent says "Hahahahaha! NO! The word used for offspring used is 'Zera,' which means seed, not followers."

They missed my point. First of all, we don't know for sure that Jesus didn't have children. Second of all, children would be a word used to represent his followers. God uses that kind of terminology a lot. Paul refers to Christians as God's adopted sons and etc...

My opponent then says "It doesn't say that the Messiah will be rich, this verse isn't refering to the Messiah, it is refering to someone else who becomes rich."

I gave an argument for why the verse referred to the messiah. My opponent can address it whenever they feel like it. Or they can keep making bare assertions like they have been doing.

Lastly, my opponent says "Jesus fit no messianic prophecies whatsoever, as I said before those 365 prophecies are not genuine, I could fit a lot of those, just look at them..."

He then cites a website that says "The following is a list of prophecies in the Jewish scriptures that Jesus fulfilled" (https://www.bibleprobe.com...). I agree, those are all things that Jesus fulfilled. Thanks to my opponent for the help.

He also adds that "Most of these propheies are super vague, such as that he would be a Jew, that he would be born of a woman, he would die, that he would be thirsty. Oh and another, "the Messiah will be G-d," again, G-d is not a man, this isn't a Messianic prophecy, and even if it were, you would need to prove him G-d. One last thing, one of these propheies says that he would be a king, but Jesus wasn't a king!"

I don't understand why my opponent thinks that being born of a virgin, he would die (really specific details are given in Psalm 22), and etc...are vague details.

As for being a King, Jesus literally says "You say that I"m a king," Jesus replied. "I was born for this, and I have come into the world for this: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice" (John 18:37).
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

Bs"d
Numbers 23:19 says that G-d is a man, then says that this mean he won't lie or change his mind, you are saying that G-d is a man. And you can't say that this verse is irrelevant because G-d latter became a man, last I checked G-d doesn't change;
Malachi 3:6:
"For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed"
Psalms 102:27:
"But You remain the same [always], And Your years will not come to an end."
Exodus 3:14:
"God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Jeremiah 31:31 doesn't say G-d will abolish his old covenant, that's absurd, every new covenant only confirms and expounds upon an old one, G-d's covenant with Avram didn't nullify his covenant with Noah, and his covenant with Isaac didn't nullify his covenant with Avram. Also, this verse still says G-d will not alter what he said before, so this "new covenant" which G-d will make is only adding to the previous one in the ways specified afterward. Seeing these additions gives you the impression that it is refering to the coming of the Messiah, as in, the one where everyone knows G-d exists, which hasn't come yet.
Psalms119:160:
"All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal."
Psalm 111:8:
"They are upheld forever and ever; They are performed in truth and uprightness."
Psalm 119:89:
"Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven."


And you further make the error of saying that humans cannot follow the laws, infact Deuteronomy 30:11-14 lays out that it is not imposible:
" Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it? 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it? 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it."


Paul may have this terminology to rfer to diciples/followers, but nowhere do we see inthe Tanakh that seed refers to anything other than your genetic biological children. Also it says that G-d will multiply his seed, i.e. he will have many children. Also, you didn't provide any argument as to why this chapter is refering to the Messiah, I however proved this impossible. such as Isaiah 53:10:
"Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand."
Did jesus live a long life or have children that he lived to see? Last I checked he lived to the ripe old age of 33. And Isaiah 53:12:
"Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors."
Poured out his life unto death? Last I checked he lived peacibly until he died. And Isaiah 53:3 should make this very clear:
"He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem."
Jesus? Rejected by mankind? Sure he had some enemies, but everyone loved him, and he wasn't a man of suffering or familiar with pain, this never happened until the last da of his life. And his diciples didn't hold him in low esteem, they thought he was G-d!



And no, I wasn't refering to him being born of a virgin, besides, you would have to prove Mary a virgin, on the other hand, we find that she would be stoned to death if she was found to hae commited audultry, so she had every reason to lie about her virginity. And Psalm 22 doesn't specify his death. And none of those 365 prophecies are valid. And dispite what my opponent may think, Jesus was never, and will never, be a king.

Jerry947

Con

My opponent states that "And you can't say that this verse is irrelevant because G-d latter became a man, last I checked G-d doesn't change..."

The verses my opponent provided were referring to God's character. His life will never end, he will always remain good, and etc...But the verses do not say that God cannot be a man. And besides, if it was in God's nature to change then it really wouldn't be changing now would it?

My opponent then says that "Jeremiah 31:31 doesn't say G-d will abolish his old covenant." I don't disagree with this. All I am saying is that the new covenant was made and many of the laws in the old covenant were done away with since they foreshadowed the return of the messiah.

As for the verses in the book of Psalm, verse 160 says "The entirety of Your word is truth,
and all Your righteous judgments endure forever" (https://www.biblegateway.com...). This wasn't talking about specific laws.

My opponent says that "And you further make the error of saying that humans cannot follow the laws, infact Deuteronomy 30:11-14 lays out that it is not imposible..."

I didn't say that we couldn't follow any of the laws. My point was that we can't follow the law perfectly. No human (minus Jesus) has ever been perfectly moral. So yes, I realize that humans can follow laws but we can't follow God's law perfectly otherwise we wouldn't need the messiah.

As for people being called children of God, that is something the New Testament does more so than the Old Testament. But my point remains valid.

My opponent then says "Also, you didn't provide any argument as to why this chapter is refering to the Messiah, I however proved this impossible. such as Isaiah 53:10."

I did...please reread round two.

My opponent says that "Jesus? Rejected by mankind? Sure he had some enemies, but everyone loved him, and he wasn't a man of suffering or familiar with pain, this never happened until the last da of his life. And his diciples didn't hold him in low esteem, they thought he was G-d!"

Jesus was born in a family with little money and he had a King trying to kill him. And that didn't end until 3 years after he was born. Then he grew up and people constantly wanted to stone him since he claimed to be God and then the Jews (including some of the disciples) betrayed their own messiah and had him murdered. Doesn't sound like a great life to me.

My opponent also wants me to prove that Mary was a virgin. Sure...the Bible says "This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:18).

My opponent then ends his argument with these three bare assertions: "Psalm 22 doesn't specify his death. And none of those 365 prophecies are valid. And dispite what my opponent may think, Jesus was never, and will never, be a king."

He may feel free to support them whenever he wishes.
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

Bs"d
If it were in G-ds nature to change into a man, he would have done it. Besides, if G-d changed into a human, and this has no benefit, he wouldn't do it, if it was an improvement, that would mean G-d wasn't perfect to begin with, and if it was a change for the worse, G-d would no longer be perfect. There for G-d could not become a man by definition. Also, I responded to this earlier, if G-d CAN become a Golden Calf, why not worship a Golden Calf if it can represent G-d?

And no, none of the Laws of the Torah can be done away with, nowhere do we see a new covenant does away with any of the rules of the old, only adds to them. All of G-ds laws are eternal,
Psalm 111:8:
"They are upheld forever and ever; They are performed in truth and uprightness."

And another thing, Jesus cannot annul Shabbat, because Exodus 31:13:
"Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for all your generations, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy."

"All your generations" means eternity, and though there is much debate as to why Shabbat was so important, it isn't really important right now because it was forever. So, Shabbat was not annulled, and neither were any other laws, and according to Isaiah 8:20, Jesus was a false prophet.

And you further say that we cannot follow the law perfectly, there for we need a messiah. Just because humans are imperfect doesn't mean we shouldn't be required to follow any laws, proverbs defines righteousness as picking yourself up and trying again when you sin, not never sinning. Sure we won't ever be perfect, but improvement is the goal of these laws, not perfection, if there isn't some standard to be held against we won't get better. Point being, why would G-d give you no requirements and no standard, it's like a parent acknowledging that his child will screw up at some point there for he shouldn't enforce any rules.

And Jesus still wasn't hated by men, a king, maybe some rabbis, that's it. Anyway, a verse from the Non-Testament doesn't prove anything, you have to give me a real reason to believe she didn't just commit adultery, and also, Jesus wasn't a king, he was a wandering preacher, he never reigned. As I said before, those 365 prophecies aren't prophecies, in one of them they said that Melchezidek giving Abram bread and wine was a prophecy that Jesus would eat food at the last supper and be a king and priest, just one issue, many people eat food and drink wine, Jesus was not a king, and he wasn't a priest.
Jerry947

Con

"If it were in G-ds nature to change into a man, he would have done it."

John 1:14 says that he did do it.

"Besides, if G-d changed into a human, and this has no benefit, he wouldn't do it, if it was an improvement, that would mean G-d wasn't perfect to begin with, and if it was a change for the worse, G-d would no longer be perfect."

The change wasn't made to improve himself, it was to change humans. He did it to bring salvation to all of his people.

"if G-d CAN become a Golden Calf, why not worship a Golden Calf if it can represent G-d?"

Because the golden calf isn't actually God. We aren't supposed to worship things that represent God (not even the Bible). We are supposed to worship God himself and Jesus was fully God. And that is why Christians worship him and why we do not worship any golden calf.

"Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for all your generations, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy."

I agree that the Sabbath was a sign. It was a sign of the rest that the people of Israel would find in God. And according to Paul, that law foreshadowed the coming of Jesus.

"So, Shabbat was not annulled, and neither were any other laws, and according to Isaiah 8:20, Jesus was a false prophet. "

The Sabbath law was a sign that pointed to Jesus. When Jesus came, the law wasn't needed any longer since Jesus is the "lord of the Sabbath." The second part of that quote is a bare assertion.

"Just because humans are imperfect doesn't mean we shouldn't be required to follow any laws, proverbs defines righteousness as picking yourself up and trying again when you sin, not never sinning."

I do not disagree with that.

"Sure we won't ever be perfect, but improvement is the goal of these laws, not perfection, if there isn't some standard to be held against we won't get better."

Romans 3:23 says that the wages of sin is death. And Adam's one single led to the death of humans! So the law is supposed to be perfectly followed in order to have a perfect relationship with God (which is the goal here). We do not want sin separating us from God. That is why a messiah is so important.

"And Jesus still wasn't hated by men, a king, maybe some rabbis, that's it."

He was murdered!

"Anyway, a verse from the Non-Testament doesn't prove anything..."

Why not? I gave a whole argument supporting the New Testament and you ignored it.

" Jesus wasn't a king, he was a wandering preacher, he never reigned..."

Already refuted that one.

"As I said before, those 365 prophecies aren't prophecies..."

Yes, you did assert that.

"in one of them they said that Melchezidek giving Abram bread and wine was a prophecy that Jesus would eat food at the last supper and be a king and priest, just one issue, many people eat food and drink wine, Jesus was not a king, and he wasn't a priest."

Hebrews 7:25 proves that he was a priest. And I already showed that he was a King.

And you also picked one of the least impressive prophecies about Jesus. Why didn't you go in Psalm 22?

I thank my opponent for a descent debate and wish him the best.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by harrytruman 6 months ago
harrytruman
Ok.
Posted by Jerry947 6 months ago
Jerry947
I will accept this in the next 1-2 days if that is okay with you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.