The Instigator
CapAhab
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
rextr05
Con (against)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 268 times Debate No: 86697
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

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 (old testament) only is as per this debate is the only inspired word of G-d.

Serious Debate only.

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.
rextr05

Con

Mary was in a direct line from David with he son Nathan. Joseph was in a direct line from David with Solomon. (Joseph Adopted Jesus as his own so giving him all legal rights involving heirship).

2 Samuel 7:16 says: "Your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established for ever." This must mean that the kingdom of David would be established and secured by a descendant."

Luke 1:31"33, he said, "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Sorry, just because you don't like the genealogy set forth in the bible, it doesn't mean it's not valid.

(Mary) LUKE David, father of (Joseph) MATTHEW
Nathan Solomon
Mattatha Rehoboam
Menna Abijah
Melea Asa
Eliakim Jehoshaphat
Jonam Joram
Joseph Uzziah
Judah Jotham
Simeon Ahaz
Levi Hezekiah
Matthat Manasseh
Jorim Amon
Eliezer Josiah
Joshua Jeconiah
Er Shealtiel
Elmadam Zerubbabel
Cosam Abihud
Addi Eliakim
Melchi Azor
Neri Zadok
Shealtiel Achim
Zerubbabel Eliud
Rhesa Eleazar
Joanan Matthan
Joda Jacob
Josech Joseph
Semein Joseph Adopted Jesus
as his own son giving him
all legal rights involving heirship.
Mattathias
Maath
Naggai
Hesli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Eli
Mary

Sorry for the closeness of the names re Mary's family omn the left & Joseph's to the immediate right. been a long day & .............. The only viewing problem may be under Mary's lineage under the name Semein. The 2 preceding lines describing " as his ...." & "all legal" should go along with Joseph's side. therefore Semein is immediately followed by Mattathias.
Debate Round No. 1
CapAhab

Pro

"Mary was in a direct line from David with he son Nathan."

Please tell me where the name Mary is in that genealogy!
Also, genealogies are passed only through the father in the whole Hebrew Bible.
"But the land shall be divided by lot. They shall receive their inheritance according to the names of the tribes of their fathers. Numbers 26:55

Joseph, even if he was in direct line from David was not the father of Jesus as per both Luke and Matthew. Thus that genealogy could not be used. Furthermore Mathews' genealogy has been cursed as I said in my previous argument.

2 Samuel 7:16 Yes, it is true, but it will not be Jesus, the messiah has not come yet.
rextr05

Con

The genealogy I provided on left side of the lineage was Mary's, or are you referring to something else? At the bottom.

Your, "They shall receive their inheritance .... " Not in all cases. God sorta changed that when a family without males asked Moses if it isn't right for them to possess their father's inheritance. Numbers 27:1-11. & don't forget, Mary was a descendant from David. Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David."

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham". Matthew 1:1

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God". Luke 1:35

"And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again" And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David". Acts 13:32-34
"THE LORD (God) said unto my Lord (Davids seed), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool". Psalm 110:1

"Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ". Acts 2:29-36

"Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown" I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it (The Kingdom of Israel): and it shall be no more, until he (Jesus Christ) come whose right it is; and I will give it him". Ezekiel 21:26-27

"Behold, the days come, saith THE LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness. For thus saith THE LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel". Jeremiah 33:14-17

I addressed that in my 1st response. " Joseph Adopted Jesus as his own son giving him all legal rights involving heirship.

I don;t know where you obtained your verse of 2 Samuel 7:16, but all my sources are reflected below. You're not using the JW bible are you?
"Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever." 2 Samuel 7:16
Debate Round No. 2
CapAhab

Pro

"The genealogy I provided on left side of the lineage was Mary's, or are you referring to something else? "
See Luke 3:23. Joseph is the son of Heli. So why do you think it is Mary's genealogy? Of course they needed an explanation for the discrepancy!
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,...

"Numbers 27:1-11"
The word inheritance does mean "possession"
Look at Genesis 31:14
Rachel and Leah responded, "That"s fine with us! We won"t inherit any of our father"s wealth anyway.
https://www.blueletterbible.org...

This does not mean that the women's children will have the same tribe than the mother.
See Number 36:6
This is what the LORD commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad: Let them marry anyone they like, as long as it is within their own ancestral tribe.

Thus they need to marry from the same tribe not to mix thing up. Furthermore, Mary's line goes through Nathan, not Solomon.

1 Chronicle 28

"Yet the Lord, the God of Israel, chose me from my whole family to be king over Israel forever. He chose Judah as leader, and from the tribe of Judah he chose my family, and from my father"s sons he was pleased to make me king over all Israel. 5 Of all my sons"and the Lord has given me many"he has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. 6 He said to me: "Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. 7 I will establish his kingdom forever if he is unswerving in carrying out my commands and laws, as is being done at this time."

8 "So now I charge you in the sight of all Israel and of the assembly of the Lord, and in the hearing of our God: Be careful to follow all the commands of the Lord your God, that you may possess this good land and pass it on as an inheritance to your descendants forever.

See what it is say about Solomon "that you may possess this good land and pass it on as an inheritance to your descendants forever." So Luke's genealogy is useless.

Why would we expect anything different for the messiah?

Psalm 110:1 Jesus was never king, and less king over all the earth. The messiah, who will come soon will be king over all the earth.

Acts 2:29-36 Using the new-testament is useless, of course it claims Jesus is the messiah. That does not make it so.
The Hebrew Bible (old testament) only is as per this debate is the only inspired word of G-d.

Ezekiel 21:26-27 That may be the messiah, but it does not mean it is Jesus. Because Jesus does not fulfil the lineage requirement, we must wait for the rightful person.

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. Ezra 2.

"I addressed that in my 1st response. " Joseph Adopted Jesus as his own son giving him all legal rights involving heirship."
See how the queens and kings' descendant of England need to be from the Blood-line! http://www.wargs.com...

Also, Joseph line is cursed and thus totally utterly useless!

"2 Samuel 7:16 says: "Your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established for ever." This must mean that the kingdom of David would be established and secured by a descendant.""
This does not prove Jesus is the messiah. Just that David, through Solomon will always have someone who's right is to be the messiah, the king. And in the last day, a descendant of David will reign as Psalm 2 says.
rextr05

Con

You seem fixated on Solomon as the only line of Jesus. All what I had written in my last response was referring to David's line. Never in all of those verses does Solomon's name come up. Sure you can find supporting OT verses re Solomon as someone from his family being an heir, as Nathan was his brother. You dismiss any other scenario other than your own using flimsy cherry picked verses. How can you dismiss all the verses I had in my previous response to you. Just by saying so? Doesn't work that way. You must disprove them, not just deem them so. I admit that Solomon's name comes up as him being part of David's line, which leads to Jesus, but he's in the family of David & Nathan, so natuarally, he's going to be mentioned.

Your, "The word inheritance does mean "possession." Are you aware that the ancient Hebrew language had only 8700 words. Most words had many contextually different meanings. Altho, the most accepted meaning is "to take possession of, inherit, dispossess. From "NAS Exhaustive Concordance." So the word possession in in there, altho with the addition of "to take ..... of" certainly gives a different context than just the word 'possession'.

Also, your Genesis 31:14 .... you're kidding right? This was from a ticked off Rachel & Leah describing their father giving all their inheritance to Jacob for spending the 14 years as recompense for his 2 daughters, which they acknowledged was their father's right. They also accepted it as God's will & went with Jacob on their travels home.
It seems as tho you looked up that verse & cherry picked the only one that reflected that they did not expect any inheritance. All, & I mean all the other translations have the 2 daughters asking Jacob if there was anything left of their inheritance after their father paid Jacob. Therefore, they were expecting some inheritance.

Your, "Psalm 110:1 Jesus was never king, and less king over all the earth. ...." there are 2 schools of thought re this psalm. 1st being a son of David's that God was blessing as a priest/king & would win many battles etc. The 2nd is the one most quote by early Christians as they considered the significance of Jesus. Most expressed their conviction that the risen Jesus now occupies a unique place at God's right hand & will be victorious over His enemies.

Your, "Using the new-testament is useless .... ' seems as tho you broke this rule of one of your mandates re this debate with your 1st sentence of your 1st round. "First let us look at Matthew's genealogy found in Matthew 1." Sorry, if you use it yourself as a source, it can be used at any point as a credible source.

Your, "Mary's genealogy is useless as well. The lineage must come from the father side...." We already talked about this exact point & you are the only one asserting this requirement, not the bible. But pleas refer to previous comments.

Your, "1 Chronicles 29:1 "Then King David said to the whole assembly: "My son Solomon, the one whom God has chosen" Hmmm, you seem to leave out what David was referring to. Yes, God had chosen Solomon to be king & also to be the one to build the temple & that he was inexperienced so he was eliciting the assembly's help & materials for Solomon task. But to say that has anything to do with Solomon's lineage is misleading & off track of this debate.

Your, "Ezekiel 21:26-27 That may be the messiah, ...." true, it only says it's a messiah going to come later on. What's your point? This was never an intended proof of anything.

Your, "Ezra 2" excerpt was when the exiled Jews were relocating back to the Jerusalem in ruins if I'm not mistaken. What's your point here again? there were unscrupulous Jews trying to claim inheritance for stakes upon returning & this was the decision made. Geez, sounds like a valid plan to me.

Your, "Also, Joseph line is cursed and thus totally utterly useless!" is once again, your opinion & not true even tho you attempt to use as proof for ancient Israel. Do you know your link led me to a provision in English law that was written in 2001AD? Why on earth did you use that to prove your point? WOW!

Your, "2 Samuel 7:16 says: .... This does not prove .......Psalm 2 says" Of course it doesn't. It was my response to your quote of that same verse with totally different words according to your previous quote of the very same verse. Here's what I wrote last time to you, "I don't know where you obtained your verse of 2 Samuel 7:16, but all my sources are reflected below. You're not using the JW bible are you?
"Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever." 2 Samuel 7:16" Yet now, you attempt to use it now completely out of this debate's context.So I have to ask you what's up with you?
Debate Round No. 3
CapAhab

Pro

"You seem fixated on Solomon as"

Because it's clear that the lineage of Kings must be from solomon in 1 Chronicle 28:

the Lord has given me many"he has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.

See what it is say about Solomon "that you may possess this good land and pass it on as an inheritance to your descendants forever." So Luke's genealogy is useless.

"using flimsy cherry picked verses."
pass it on as an inheritance to your (SOLOMON) descendants forever.
That does not look like cherry picking!

"Are you aware that the ancient Hebrew language had only 8700 words. Most words had many contextually different meanings."
It does not matter, if the tribal linage would have been through the woman, then the father would lose his lineage.
the word "tribe" is the same as septer. https://www.blueletterbible.org...
Not inheritance. That means possession. Thus, the line does not go through the mother.

"It seems as tho you looked up that verse & cherry picked the only one that reflected that they did not expect any inheritance"
I provided the link with more verses. The word means inheritance... go check the link:
https://www.blueletterbible.org......

Psalm 110 is irrelevant to the subject.

TO DAVID (in context it can be translated "to David")
The L-rd said to my master (David)...

Look at the end of the Psalm, it does not fit Jesus: The Lord is at your right hand[c];
he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.
6 He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead
and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.
7 He will drink from a brook along the way,[d]
and so he will lift his head high.

"Using the new-testament is useless .... '
No, you can use the New Testament to show a point, but not to prove Jesus is the messiah. The new testament claims that Jesus is the messiah

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. John 20:31

Thus it would not be a debate to use the NT to prove it!

Your, "Ezra 2" excerpt was when the exiled Jews were relocating back to the Jerusalem in ruins if I'm not mistaken. What's your point here again?
In case of doubt, the priest were asked not to do their duties of the Priest. In case of Jesus, he cannot be a king because his two genealogies have too many problems.

"Also, Joseph line is cursed "
As I live, declares the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were jthe signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off .. Jeremiah 22:24

"Write this man down as schildless,
a man who shall not succeed in his days,
tfor none of his offspring shall succeed
tin sitting on the throne of David
and ruling again in Judah." Jeremiah 22:30

2 And after the deportation to Babylon: pJechoniah was the father of qShealtiel,4 and rShealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Matthew 1:12

2 Samuel 7:16
I did not quote that verse, you did. Not sure what you try to prove with that verse.
rextr05

Con

Please just refer to my last comment on 1 Chronicle 28. It's re Solomon's kingship & lineage for the earth kingdom. there is never any mention of the kingdom that Jesus refers to: ".... not of this world."

Your, "pass it on as an inheritance to your (SOLOMON) descendants forever," is the same as the above answer.

Your, "Not inheritance. That means possession. Thus, the line does not go through the mother." I answered you last round with this. & if yoiu are so set on only using one reference that seems to fit your story line, Maybe I see your problem. Tunnel vision. Check other sources to verify & you'll get a different perspective maybe.

Your, "Psalm 110 is irrelevant to the subject." What???? you brought it up last round. I have to ask about your memory cuz this isn't the 1st time you've done this. Anyway, it goes like this, " The Lord says to my lord "Sit at my right hand, ...." not your version of "the Lord said to my master David ...." there is no mention of David & wouldn't be cuz David authored this psalm.

Your, "Look at the end of the Psalm, it does not fit Jesus: The Lord is at your right hand ...." If the psalm is about David's son the new priest/king, it certainly does follow. & if it's re Jesus, the risen Jesus crushes evil with His Resurrection & the psalm makes perfect sense.

Your, "No, you can use the New Testament to show a point, .." Oh it's OK for you to use it to say repeatedly without any prompting from me, that Luke & Matthew's accounting of the genealogy is useless. That my friend is a double standard.

Your, ".... His two genealogies have too many problems." & where is what you say stated in Ezra ..... or why did you use that reference? & if not Ezra. you need to give me some proof in the bible that eliminates Jesus .... So far, I have refuted all your 'proof' as flimsy, not related to this debate, or just not true.

Your, "Also, Joseph line is cursed " This is in reference to the wicked king of Judah. If you are not aware, many of David's lineage that were kings, were not living God's rules. God therefore punished them, altho He kept the lineage going throughout all their reigns.

Jehoiachin or Jechonias, or Jeconiah, or Coniah, or Jechoniah, or Jekonjah was the name (s) of Jehoiakim's son & is the one you have referred to in your quote I believe. Even tho he was not childless, his sons never sat on the throne.
Zerubbabel was Jeconiah's (Jehoiachin) grandson. Though Zerubbabel did not sit on the throne as king, the fact that Haggai 2:23 uses the same terminology as Jeremiah 22:24 shows that Haggai intended to indicate a reversal of the curse. & Scripture alludes here to the verse Who art thou, O great mountain before Zerubbabel? Thou shalt become a plain (Zech. 4:7). This verse refers to the Messiah, the descendant of David. . . .From whom will the Messiah descend? From Zerubbabel.

My bad re the 2 Samuel thing, sorry.
Debate Round No. 4
CapAhab

Pro

".... not of this world."
The messiah is supposed to be king over all the earth as Psalm 2 say.
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. Jeremiah 23:5

Psalm 110 talks about David, not the messiah. This has nothing to do with this debate about the genealogy of Jesus.

"Your, "No, you can use the New Testament to show a point, .." Oh it's OK for you to use it to say repeatedly without any prompting from me, that Luke & Matthew's accounting of the genealogy is useless. That my friend is a double standard."
You should not have accepted the debate if you did not agree with the terms. I used Jesus genealogy, I am not saying that the new testament is inspired or can be used to prove Jesus is the messiah.

"So far, I have refuted all your 'proof' as flimsy, not related to this debate, or just not true."
let the judges decide.

"Jehoiachin or Jechonias, or Jeconiah, or Coniah, or Jechoniah, or Jekonjah"
Zerubbabel was not a king, he was a governor. And Zecheriah 4:7 does not allude to the messiah.

Thus all my arguments stand! Jesus could not be the messiah. Both Matthew and Luke's genealogies show that Jesus was not the messiah.
rextr05

Con

Your examples given throughout this debate indicate you seem to be of the literal interpretation of the bible. That is a mistake many make. Just as many other books throughout history use symbolism & allegory to attempt to get us to delve deeper into the meaning so we are able to understand the message ...... rather than just words, the bible's authors do the same. Don't forget that Jesus' main avenue of teaching was parables.

Your, "... The messiah is supposed to be king over all the earth as Psalm 2 say ...."
Psalm 2:12 Barnes' Notes on Psalms 2:12
Kiss the Son - Him whom God hath declared to be his Son Psalm 2:7, and whom, as such, he has resolved to set as King on his holy hill Psalm 2:6. The word "kiss" here is used in accordance with Oriental usages, for it was in this way that respect was indicated for one of superior rank. This was the ancient mode of doing homage or allegiance to a king, 1 Samuel 10:1. It was also the mode of rendering homage to an idol, 1 Kings 19:18; Hosea 13:2; Job 31:27. The mode of rendering homage to a king by a kiss was sometimes to kiss his hand, or his dress, or his feet, as among the Persians. DeWette. The practice of kissing the hand of a monarch is not uncommon in European courts as a token of allegiance. The meaning here is that they should express their allegiance to the Son of God, or recognize him as the authorized King, with suitable expressions of submission and allegiance; that they should receive him as King, and submit to his reign. Applied to others, it means that they should embrace him as their Savior.
Lest he be angry - If you do not acknowledge his claims, and receive him as the Messiah.danger of all who resist, as well as the blessing of all who welcome this mighty and triumphant king.

Your, " Jeremiah 23:5 ..."
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(5) Behold, the days come."The words point to an undefined, far-off future, following on the provisional order implied in Jeremiah 23:4, when the kingdom should once more rest in one of the house of David.

A righteous Branch."The idea is the same, though the word is different (here Zemach, and there Netzer), as in Isaiah 11:1. In both cases, however, the word means a "sprout" or "scion," springing up from the root even after the tree had been cut down (Isaiah 6:13), and not a branch growing from the trunk. It is probably in reference to this prophecy that we find the name of "the Branch" (Zemach) so prominent in Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12. Here, it is obvious, the prophet speaks of the one great Shepherd.

A King shall reign."Better, he shall reign as King, the Branch or Sprout being the subject of the sentence. As with all the Messianic prophecies of this class, the thoughts of the prophet dwell on the acts and attributes of a sovereignty exercised personally on earth. Such a sovereignty, "all power in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28:18), was indeed given to the Christ, but not after the fashion that men expected.

Your, "Psalm 110 talks about David, not the messiah. This has nothing to do with this debate about the genealogy of Jesus." is in reference to your attached quote you originally used in round 2 or 3. Here is your original quote, "Psalm 110:1 Jesus was never king, and less king over all the earth. The messiah, who will come soon will be king over all the earth."
I had just been responding to you in that respect.

Yoiur, "You should not have accepted the debate if you did not agree with the terms. I used Jesus genealogy, I am not saying that the new testament is inspired or can be used to prove Jesus is the messiah."
Thing is you used the NT genealogy as ammunition for your side of this debate. Have you not used this repeatedly to say it is useless? That is ammunition. That is part of your debate & the rule you initially had broken.

Your, "Zerubbabel was not a king, he was a governor."
Yes, I stated that he was not a king last round.
Your, "And Zecheriah 4:7 does not allude to the messiah."
once again, I'll say you do not look deeper than what the words say. Most studies show that Pslam 2 "Who are you, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace to it," are re the Messiah as "Barnes' Notes on the Bible" shows below.

"Both images together 1 - (So then the mountain symbolizes every resisting power; Satan and all his instruments, who, each in his turn, shall oppose himself anti be brought low.) & 2 - (And he shall bring forth the headstone - The foundation of the temple had long been laid. Humanly it still hung in the balance whether they would be permitted to complete it Ezra 5:Zechariah foretells absolutely that they would. Two images appear to be used in Holy Scripture, both of which meet in Christ: the one, in which the stone spoken of is the foundation-stone; the other, in which it is the head cornerstone binding the two walls together, which it connects. Both were cornerstones; the one at the base, the other at the summit.)

express, how Christ is the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last; the Foundation of the spiritual building, the Church, and its summit and completion; the unseen Foundation which was laid deep in Calvary, and the Summit to which it grows and which holds it firm together. Whence Peter unites the two prophecies, and blends with them that other of Isaiah, that Christ would "be a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of people but chosen of God and precious, ye also are built up a spiritual house - Whence also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious: unto you which believe He is precious, but unto them which be disobedient, the same stone which the builders refused is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, to them which stumble at the word being disobedient" 1 Peter 2:4-7.

A Jew paraphrases this of the Messiah; Jonathan: "And He shall reveal His Messiah, whose name was spoken from the beginning, and he shall rule over all nations."

With shouting, grace, grace unto it - that is, all favor from God unto it, redoubled favors, grace upon grace. The completion of the building was but the commencement of the dispensation under it. It was the beginning not the end. They pray then for the continued and manifold grace of God, that He would carry on the work, which He had begun. Perseverance, by the grace of God, crowns the life of the Christian; our Lord's abiding presence in grace with His Church unto the end of the world, is the witness that He who founded her upholds her in being.'

Your, "Thus all my arguments stand! Jesus could not be the messiah. Both Matthew and Luke's genealogies show that Jesus was not the messiah," show not only wishful thinking on your part, but once again, you violate the NT rule you had imposed at the beginning. The danger of a completely literal translation of any book is that one loses any deeper meaning as I have stated b4. With your analysis, the book Mobey Dick is only about a fisherman trying to catch a big fish, All other lessons, meanings are lost. Same here with all of your 'proof.' Every single piece of biblical evidence you have used was all a literal translation, so the contextual meanings are lost. Therefore most of the referenced verses you have used have been faulty thru lost meaning of the whole chapter & preceding & subsequent verses. Taking a verse, just like any sentence out of a story, all by itself, eliminates any chance of realizing the whole. Hopefully you will have an enhanced appreciation what the author really is attempting to get the audience to understand as you read forward. Thanx for the chance to research & deepen my understanding of the material brought forth here. Thanx again & good luck.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.