Jesus fulfilled no prophecies
Debate Rounds (5)
2)Taking out of context
3)Fulfilled in heaven or in the spiritual realm
5)Have not happened yet
6)Don"t fit Jesus or could be interpreted in other ways
Round 1 - Acceptance, Opening Statements, and Questions Only
Round 2 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals)
Round 3 - Rebuttals Only
Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals
Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements
My opponent will have to prove reasonably that Jesus fulfilled at least one prophecy from the Hebrew Scripture. That prophecy needs to be fulfilled only by Jesus. Hebrew Scriptures (old testament) are the only authoritative scriptures. New testament can be use, but is not consider authoritative to prove the claims of the New Testament.
Serious debates only.
Because I have nothing to prove, I will let my opponent show which prophecies Jesus actually fulfilled and will explain in the next round why it does not fit Jesus.
(note this is a new testament prophecy that was fulfilled)
And if you do not believe that Jesus is the son of God and you prefer an old testament prophecy then here it is.
In Isaiah 7:14 it says "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin* will conceive and give birth to a son."
*In reference to Mary
I thank my opponent for this opportunity.
"Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion."
This is one part of Psalm 2.
The "anointed one" is a King. Jesus was not a king, he actually say "my kingdom is not of this world. This is the third poin (Fulfilled in heaven or in the spiritual realm). Furthermore, psalm 2 also say:
Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
You shall break[a] them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter"s vessel.""
So this king will have dominion over all the earth. It falls on category (Have not happened yet) as Jesus never ruled over all the earth.
Finally Psalm 2 says:
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
The word "son" is not "son" in hebrew (ben) but son in Aramaic. This would be the only word in the book of psalm that would be an Aramaic word. The word "Bar" should not be translated as "son" but as "purity". Thus it fits in the (Wrongly translated). If my opponent insists that it is son, all kings need to obeyed anyway, that would not mean "worshipped" as Christians would say.
For Isaiah 7, this is an awful prophecy to prove Jesus. This is totally taken out of context. First the word "Alma" should not be translate as "virgin" but young woman. Look at Proverbs 30:
the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a young woman (alma). This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.' Proverb 30:20
This young woman was definitively not virgin.
So it falls in the category (Wrongly translated).
But again, my opponent will tell you it really means virgin, but even if it would be a virgin, the whole context of this Bible verse does not fit Jesus.
King Ahab was worry that the king of Syria (Rezin) and the king of Israel (Pekah son of Remaliah) would invite Judah. God give Ahab a sign:
Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.16 For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
You see, the child will still eat curd when those two kings (Rezin and Pekah son of Remaliah). Jesus was born 700 years later! That falls then in the category (Taking out of context).
Thus those two verses quoted by my opponent don't fit with Jesus and cannot be used to prove him.
Secondly since you are so sure that Mary was not a virgin then prove it to me. You are also twisting things to your own advantage by saying that it should not be translated by this, but by that.
You are refuting points that I didn't even bring up!
I can't say anymore, that will have to wait for round 4.
I hope that anyone looking at this won't be fooled by FACTS that have been twisted to one's advantage.
In fact, it does not mater if Mary was a virgin or not. Why? Because nobody could have check! Even poor Joseph wanted to dispose of her secretly, because he thought she was not a virgin any more.
"since you are so sure that Mary was not a virgin then prove it to me. "
Finally, the burden of the proof is on you, as I said in the first round of the debate "My opponent will have to prove reasonably..."
Because there is more space available, I will ask my opponent to read Isaiah 7 in context, he may be able to see that it does not talk about Jesus, because that child will be born before the land of the two kings be abandoned...
For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
Isaiah 50:6 I offered my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face
from mocking and spitting.
I am going to bring up Isaiah again, same verse.
Prophecy: Isaiah7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Fulfilment: Matthew 1:23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"
Yes they are nearly the same but Matthew outlines the birth details of Jesus while he is being born and therefore fulfills the prophecy.
my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face
from mocking and spitting.
In Isaiah 50, there is no reason not to believe that Isaiah himself is speaking.
So said the Lord, "Where is your mother's bill of divorce that I sent her away? Or, who is it of My creditors to whom I sold you? Behold for your iniquities you were sold, and for your transgressions your mother was sent away. Why have I come and there is no man? [Why] have I called and no one answers? Is My hand too short to redeem, or do I have no strength to save? Behold, with My rebuke I dry up the sea, I make rivers into a desert; their fish become foul because there is no water and die because of thirst. I clothe the heavens with darkness, and I make sackcloth their raiment.
Isaiah 50:1-3, the L-rd is speaking.
I clothe the heavens with darkness, and I make sackcloth their raiment. The Lord God gave me a tongue for teaching, to know to establish times for the faint [for His] word; He awakens me every morning, He awakens My ear, to hear according to the teachings. The Lord God opened my ear, and I did not rebel; I did not turn away backwards. I gave my back to smiters and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I did not hide my face from embarrassments and spitting. But the Lord God helps me, therefore, I was not embarrassed; therefore, I made my face like flint, and I knew that I would not be ashamed. He Who vindicates me is near, whoever wishes to quarrel with me-let us stand together; whoever is my contender shall approach me.
Here Isaiah is speaking. Those who smite and pulled his hair were actually the house of Judah. There is no reason to see those verses as prophecy or messianic. (Taking out of context) Nowhere in the New testament Jesus beard was pulled. And furthermore, many people were scoff in the world without answering back. This cannot prove Jesus to be the messiah, nor can you use that Bible verse to point to Jesus. Taking out of context, you could say that Martin Luther King Jr. fulfilled it. He did not answer violently to people and he was like a flint against racism!
To come back with Isaiah 7... the tense is present, not future in the original Hebrew.
behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
And still the context does not fit with Jesus at all... So my opponent has not show any bible verse that Jesus fulfilled, and only him could fulfilled.
Isaiah: Yes the tense is present, I'm glad you finally figured something out. The tense is present because it is saying that this event will happen in the future, which it did.
I rest my case, I hope my opponent can realize that his arguments were riddled with fallacies and that he will actually take the time to read and notice things that he overlooked.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Briannj17 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: First on conduct point, con never stated in full depth why pros arguments were fallacies. This is a breach of conduct calling something false without proof. Next point is for most convincing arguments. Pro (although I do not agree with what he is saying) made many arguments that went unrebutted. Con simply waved them as fallacious without a proper rebuttal. Pro also rebutted everything con had to say successfully. That is why my points go to pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.