The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
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: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 793 times Debate No: 92347
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I hope someone accepts this.


I accept, all the best.
Debate Round No. 1


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).


The context (verse 19) indicates that Isaiah is not referring to the Ten Commandments, but to that part of the Mosaic Law of the Old Covenant which commands the Jews not to consult with mediums (them that have familiar spirits) and wizards. (Leviticus 19:31)
A generalization to the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath Commandment or to the entire Mosaic Law of the Old Covenant might be justified except, with respect to the Sabbath, the Lord says elsewhere by another prophet, "And I will put an end to all her mirth, her feasts, her new moons, her sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts." (Hosea 2:11) The Apostle Paul accordingly describes the now voluntary and passing nature of the Sabbath observance under the New Covenant, "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come." (Colossians 2:16-17) And again, "One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind." (Romans 14:5)
Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: (28) Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."
One of Jesus" responses is to point at how the priests in the temple work on the Sabbath yet they are "blameless". How much more blameless are His disciples who are working for the Messiah Himself?
Matthew 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
The Sabbath was not to be a burden for God"s people. God made the Sabbath for man and not man for the Sabbath.
The old and new testaments are simultaneous because of Gods omnipotence, it is free will that allows us to reject it.
I noticed how you tried to hand wave away "365 prophecies" and also, "fits zero prophesies" and your elaboration is that they are "vague". That is vague. If you would like a better understanding of the prophecies I suggest this,

Skip to 17:25 for prophecies. Source, Jimmy Akin.
Debate Round No. 2


Actualy, Isaiah 8:20 is refering to anyone;
"Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn."

And Hosea 2:11 doesn't say that the commandment of Shabbat will cease,because if you see this verse in context, Hosea 2:11-13:
"I will stop all her celebrations:her yearly festivals, her New Moons,her Sabbath days—all her appointed festivals. I will ruin her vines and her fig trees,which she said were her pay from her lovers; I will make them a thicket,and wild animals will devour them. I will punish her for the daysshe burned incense to the Baals; she decked herself with rings and jewelry,and went after her lovers,but me she forgot,” declares the Lord."

And yes those 365 prophecies are vague, such as the ones that say he would be a Jew, born of a woman, that he would die, that he would thirst, that he would eat food and drink wine (no joke). So yeah they are vague.



Regarding prophesies i refer again back to the link, this answers these objections. We could get into translation issues but it may be prudent to agree to disagree on that, even though your explanation on Isaiah 8:20 is irrelevant due to the context of Isaiah 19. You are also making the mistake of binding God. My response remains unchallenged.
Debate Round No. 3


Binding G-d? Oh yeah, I've heard that excuse before, "If G-d can do anything, he can become a man, he can destroy all his laws, therefor any objections to Jesus's doing this are nullified," here is my reponse to that:
If G-d can become a golden calf, why then don't you worship a golden calf? If -d can become one?
Also, there are many verses that imply anything which G-d says he must abide by and cannot repeal.


Even if your context was correct, you would class God as "anyone"?

"If G-d can do anything, he can become a man, he can destroy all his laws, therefore any objections to Jesus's doing this are nullified, here is my reponse to that:
If G-d can become a golden calf, why then don't you worship a golden calf?"
You are creating your own question with your own context and implying (by the speech marks) that I to am asking this same question and context. I am not. As you know, God lets us know his will and we either accept it or reject it. Jesus fulfilled, not "destroyed" the laws. Of course you can object to it, it's only natural to ask questions, but ultimately as I said only us as individuals accept or reject the answers and for me the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus Christ is the messiah.
As for the golden calf question, even if God was a golden calf I would not have to worship it because I believe the old testament has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ and I only have to keep the natural law. Also as a catholic we do not worship statues even though there are misconceptions that we do. Secondly, this actually helps my case for Jesus as the messiah. The Hebrews were reverting back to the Egyptian ways because they were losing there faith in God because Moses was absent for so long, this is happening today, because of lack of faith in Jesus, old laws and wrong teachings are being accepted.

"Also, there are many verses that imply anything which G-d says he must abide by and cannot repeal"
Again it is you that is being vague, I would be happy to address objections if you could elaborate.
Debate Round No. 4


Reading your replies i would suggest researching what the trinity actually is and what it teaches, your replys show you do not understand the teaching of the trinity.

I noticed you didn't answer my question, if you class God as 'anyone' you say God CANNOT become man, that is like saying the person that invented football is not allowed to play it. God is omnipotent, of course he can become man if he chose to. The question isn't if he can or not but rather if he did or not, and he did.

Exodus 15:3 the Lord IS A MAN. (Huh?)

The Triune God does not lie and does not change, and in His divinity is not man.

Second, the passage was written before the Incarnation took place.

And third, I would note the context, which is to make a point about God's faithfulness, which He has both before and after the Incarnation because of His divinity, not His humanity. Therefore even were this passage written after the Incarnation (which it was not), it would still be talking about God in His divine nature, not in His (the Second Person's that is) human nature.

Genesis 18:1-5

1 And the LORD appeared to him by the Oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day.
2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, THREE MEN stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth,
3 and said, " MY LORD, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant.
4 Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest YOURSELVES under the tree,
5 while I fetch a morsel of bread, that YOU may refresh YOURSELVES, and after that you may pass on-since you have come to your servant."

"I asked you a very simple question in response; if G-d can become a Golden Calf, why not worship a Golden Calf if it can represent G-d? If I told you that G-d became a Golden Calf, and you had to worship this idol or go to hell, would you do it? Obcourse not! Why then do you expect me to?"
Read your own statement, in your context how could the calf be an idol if God BECOMES (your word) the calf? God did not become a golden calf, because of lack of faith the Hebrews reverted back to the Egyptian ways by idolising the golden calf. If God became a golden calf then it wouldn't be an idol, your statement contradicts itself. Jesus Christ IS God, not an idol of God.

If you have the same question regarding catholics and Mary and the saints, check this definition out.

We also believe, as Scripture makes very clear, that death does not separate us from the love of Christ (Rom. 8:38), or from his body, which is the Church (Col. 1:24). Our "elders in heaven" (cf. Rev. 5:8)"should be honored as much or even more than our greatest members on earth. So having statues honoring God or great saints brings to mind the God we adore"and the saints we love and respect. This is a no-brainder for Catholics. To us,"having statues is just as natural as"you guessed it"having pictures in our wallets to remind us of the ones we love here on earth. But reminding ourselves of loved ones is a far cry from idolatry.

While it can certainly be understood how a superficial reading of the first commandment could lead one to believe we Catholics are in grave error with regard to our use of statues and icons, the key to a proper understanding of the first commandment is found at the very end of that same commandment, in verse 5 of Exodus 20: "You shall not bow down to them or serve [adore] them."
The Lord did not prohibit statues; he prohibited the adoration of"them. If God truly meant that we were not to possess any statues at all, then he would later contradict himself. Just five chapters after this commandment in Exodus 20, God commanded Moses to build the ark of the Covenant, which would contain the presence of God and was to be venerated as the holiest place in all of Israel. Here is what God commanded Moses concerning the statues on it:
And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends (Ex. 25:18"19).
In Numbers 21:8"9, not only did our Lord order Moses to make another statue in the form of a bronze serpent, he commanded the children of Israel to look to it in order to be healed. The context of the passage is one where Israel had rebelled against God, and a plague of deadly snakes was"sent as a just punishment. This statue of a snake had no power of itself"we know from John 3:14 it was merely a type of Christ"but God used this image of a snake as an instrument to effect healing in his people.
Further, in 1 Kings 6, Solomon built a temple for the glory of God, described as follows:
In the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olivewood, each ten cubits high. . . . He put the cherubim in the innermost part of the house. . . . He carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubim and palm trees, and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms. . . . For the entrance to the inner sanctuary he made doors of olivewood. . . . He covered the two doors of olivewood with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers; he overlaid them with gold (1 Kgs. 6:23, 27, 29, 31, 32).
King Solomon ordered the construction of multiple images of things both "in heaven above" (angels) and "in the earth beneath" (palm trees and open flowers). And then, after the completion of the temple, God declared he was pleased with its construction (1 Kgs. 9:3). Didn't God know what King Solomon had done?
It becomes apparent, given the above evidence, that a strictly literal interpretation of Exodus 20:2"5 is erroneous. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that God prohibits something in Exodus 20 that he commands elsewhere.

Psalm 119:160:
"All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal."
As i said as catholics we are taught to keep the natural/moral law (righteous). These apply to everyone. You wouldn't expect people to keep laws like putting rails on your roof etc? They wouldn't class as 'righteous' (moral)

In his day even his own people rejected him, obviously people will reject him today also. Although other religions may contain some truths, we as Catholics have the fullness of the truth.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 2 years ago
Harry, Harry, Harry, how many times have I told you to stop interpreting your self. You merly show your inexpierence.

If God can become a golden calf ..... really, for Pet's sake

Soooo if you had wheels would that make you a wagon. If you were a pig and I put a pink bow on your ear, does that somehow make you a poodle?

Please, argue scripture WITH scripture not your opinion or forfeit debate.
Posted by kwagga_la 2 years ago
Mathhew 12:6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice,"[a]you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. He was therefore the Lord of the Sabbath, and not subjected to the Sabbath. Perhaps you should consider the following passage: Isaiah 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?
Posted by harrytruman 2 years ago
A few verses later Jesus apprtoved though.
Posted by ViceRegent 2 years ago
The opening argument is absurd, for whatever the disciples did has nothing to do with what Jesus did. Good grief. These people need to learn logic.
No votes have been placed for this debate.