The Instigator
CapAhab
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AWSM0055
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Jesus could not be the messiah as per his 2 genealogies

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 2 votes the winner is...
AWSM0055
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 365 times Debate No: 86112
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

CapAhab

Pro

Round 1 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals)
Round 2 - Rebuttals Only
Round 3 - Counter-Rebuttals
Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals
Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements

The Hebrew Bible, as per this debate is the only inspired word of G-d.

Serious Debate only.
AWSM0055

Con

Jesus COULD be the messiah. Faulty genealogies doesnt exactly prove Jesus wasn't the messiah. All it proves is that the people that wrote them were stupid
Debate Round No. 1
CapAhab

Pro

CapAhab forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
CapAhab

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. And would like to apologise for not answering in the previous round.

First let us look at Matthew's genealogy found in Matthew 1
https://www.biblegateway.com... 1

And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.

First Matthew's genealogy is useless. The whole Genealogies go through the father. Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. Thus, his genealogy does not count. As an example, if the High Priest would have had adopted a son, this son would not have been able to serve in the temple. So the whole genealogy is useless.

" And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ."

Furthermore, the lineage goes to a curse person:

Jeremiah 22:29-30
Is this man Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.

Second Luke's genealogy:
https://www.biblegateway.com... 3
First, this is not Mary's genealogy. This an attempt to justify the contradiction between the two genealogies. But let us say that it is really Mary's genealogy.

Mary's genealogy is useless as well. The lineage must come from the father side. For example, if Aaron would have had daughters, their sons could not have serve in the Temple as the High Priest.

Furthermore, the line of the messiah must come from Solomon, not Nathan.

1 Chronicles 29:1 "Then King David said to the whole assembly: "My son Solomon, the one whom God has chosen"

Finally. Both Lines have Zerubbabel and Shealtiel

Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel begot Abiud (Matthew)

the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri (Luke)

Zerubbabel could have had 2 sons and one would have been the father of Joseph and the other the father of Mary. Shealtiel must have only one father. Sometimes, that person can have 2 names, but the rest of the genealogy must stay the same. Because of that, it is another contradiction in the genealogy. Furthermore, that would not "by-pass" the curse, if we still talk about the son of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah).

For that reason, Jesus is not a descendant of King David and could not be the messiah.
AWSM0055

Con

"First Matthew's genealogy is useless. The whole Genealogies go through the father. Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. Thus, his genealogy does not count. As an example, if the High Priest would have had adopted a son, this son would not have been able to serve in the temple. So the whole genealogy is useless."

Agreed

"Mary's genealogy is useless as well. The lineage must come from the father side. For example, if Aaron would have had daughters, their sons could not have serve in the Temple as the High Priest."

Agreed

"Furthermore, the line of the messiah must come from Solomon, not Nathan.

1 Chronicles 29:1 "Then King David said to the whole assembly: "My son Solomon, the one whom God has chosen""

If I'm not mistaken, David was referring to God choosing Solomon to build the temple, not in regards to Jesus's messianic lineage (1 Chronicles 28:6) I'll assume this is true nonetheless to keep things simple.

"For that reason, Jesus is not a descendant of King David and could not be the messiah."

We have a few conclusions to come to from your arguments:

1. Jesus wasn't messiah
2. Bible is inaccurate and therefore wrong
3. Both

Obviously I'm con, so I cannot concede 1 or 3, so I will instead present 2 as a solution.

Unless you can find a trusted genealogy of Jesus, and then prove that his genealogy is off-track, then your conclusion that he wasn't the messiah may be true. Until then, I'll ditto my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
CapAhab

Pro

I would like to add an explanation that would make more sense. As you probably know, the Jewish People only hold the Hebrew Bible (Old testament) as true. They are still waiting for the messiah, but reject Jesus as the messiah. They reason why they refuse Jesus is because he did not fulfilled the prophecies of the messiah. The messiah need to be a descendant of David and he needs to be a King over Israel and over all the earth.

Thus because nobody ever fulfilled those prophecies, we can still wait for the true messiah to come. And until I see Jesus on the clouds of Heaven, there is no reason to believe he will fulfil those prophecies when he comes back.

Jeremiah 23:5
The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.

Hosea 3:4-5
For the sons of Israel will remain for many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar and without ephod or household idols. 5Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to the LORD and to His goodness in the last days.
AWSM0055

Con

"I would like to add an explanation that would make more sense. As you probably know, the Jewish People only hold the Hebrew Bible (Old testament) as true. They are still waiting for the messiah, but reject Jesus as the messiah. They reason why they refuse Jesus is because he did not fulfilled the prophecies of the messiah. The messiah need to be a descendant of David and he needs to be a King over Israel and over all the earth."

"Thus because nobody ever fulfilled those prophecies, we can still wait for the true messiah to come. And until I see Jesus on the clouds of Heaven, there is no reason to believe he will fulfil those prophecies when he comes back."

But we're not talking about whether Jesus fulfilled the prophesies or not, we're talking about his genealogy and whether that itself proves he's the messiah or not.

Jeremiah 23:5
The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.

This could mean a physical King, but it could also be a spiritual King, so there is no contradiction there.

Hosea 3:4-5
For the sons of Israel will remain for many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar and without ephod or household idols. 5Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to the LORD and to His goodness in the last days.

Doesn't really mention the Messiah or Jesus here at all.
Debate Round No. 4
CapAhab

Pro

As my opponent agreed that both genealogies could not be used in round 3.

The fact that the 2 lines could not be trace back to David on the father's line is enough.

Look at Ezra 2

The following came up from the towns of Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Kerub, Addon and Immer, but they could not show that their families were descended from Israel: The descendants of Delaiah, Tobiah and Nekoda 652. And from among the priests: The descendants of Hobaiah, Hakkoz and Barzillai (a man who had married a daughter of Barzillai the Gileadite and was called by that name). These searched for their family records, but they could not find them and so were excluded from the priesthood as unclean.

So if the priest were exclude for lack of proper genealogies, so the messiah as well should be rejected.

"This could mean a physical King, but it could also be a spiritual King, so there is no contradiction there."

This passage is specific about a king who will reign.

And again, even the messiah will offer sin sacrifices for his sins. So it is a literal person reigning.

'My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. Ezekiel 37

On that day the prince is to provide a bull as a sin offering for himself and for all the people of the land. Ezekiel 45

"Doesn't really mention the Messiah or Jesus here at all."

Maybe my opponent did not know, but the word "the messiah" in Hebrew is never used to point to the messiah. Both Jews and Christian agree on that. But because that future king will be from the line of David and all kings are "messiah" (anointed one), then we call that specific king who will rule over all the earth "the messiah".

Thus "David their king" is actually the messiah. This also fit with what I say. Israel will be many days without a king as predicted by scriptures and it is not odd that the messiah has not come yet.
AWSM0055

Con

"As my opponent agreed that both genealogies could not be used in round 3.

The fact that the 2 lines could not be trace back to David on the father's line is enough."

No it is not. Your arguing that the faulty genealogies in Mathew and Luke prove that he wasn't the messiah. Your debate topic is specifically:

"Jesus could not be messiah as per his two genealogies"

My response is that the issues with Mathew and Marks genealogies may be (and probably are) faulty. That itself does not prove that Jesus wasn't the messiah, since his genealogy may be completely different from both. Furthermore, I think we both can agree that the New Tesement can be highly inaccurate. Nevertheless, that is no reflection on Jesus himself, since he never wrote the books himself.

Furthermore, past practices of the priesthood may or may not apply to Jesus. Unless you can prove that the priesthood's practices of rejecting those with unclear geneologies also applies to Jesus, I won't accept them.

"This passage is specific about a king who will reign."

Yes, but it doesn't specify that it would be a physical King. Both a physical and spiritual King can "reign" over a land.

"And again, even the messiah will offer sin sacrifices for his sins. So it is a literal person reigning."

Where does it say that? Anyway, Jesus grew up in Isreal, so he probably would have offered sin sacrifices as part of the tradition. Also, most Jews have stopped offering sin sacrifices today, which means that the messiah has already come or that he's going to do it in secrecy.

"Maybe my opponent did not know, but the word "the messiah" in Hebrew is never used to point to the messiah. Both Jews and Christian agree on that. But because that future king will be from the line of David and all kings are "messiah" (anointed one), then we call that specific king who will rule over all the earth "the messiah"."

Well you're equivocating the two different meanings of the word "messiah". Im talking about the chosen-one-to-liberate-all-of-Isreal-and-restore-Jerusalem messiah, not a generic King messiah.

But all of this doesn't matter anyway because we're supposed to be debating whether Jesus's geneologies in Mathew and Luke prove he wasn't the messiah, not about fulfilled prophesy.

In fact, from a Judaistic (is that even a word?) point of view, I agree with you that Jesus wasn't the messiah because of his lack of fulfilling prophesy aimed at the messiah. But this doesn't effect our debate at all because we're debating in ragards to his genealogy, not his lack of fulfilled prophesy.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The RFD is sufficient for explaining the conduct point allocation.
************************************************************************
Posted by CapAhab 1 year ago
CapAhab
I am sorry, I did not have time for the second round. I will post my argument on round 3.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 1 year ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
You seem to use a lot of passages to backup your arguments (that you think is backup) then say, "The hebrew bible, as per this debate is the only inspired word of G-d"

Nowhere in the old and new testament does it say what is written is the ONLY inspired word of God, word doesn't have to only be written.
Posted by CapAhab 1 year ago
CapAhab
I am just saying that Jesus is not the messiah per any of his genealogy recorded in Matthew or Luke.
Posted by Petfish 1 year ago
Petfish
I would be interested in debating this, but I'm very busy right now. It seems like you've worded the debate so that it would be impossible for someone with a certain geneology to be the Messiah. That's a rather large BoP.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 12 months ago
U.n
CapAhabAWSM0055Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
CapAhabAWSM0055Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.