The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Jesus fulfilled no prophecies

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 328 times Debate No: 85886
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




All prophecies that Jesus fulfilled were or
2)Taking out of context
3)Fulfilled in heaven or in the spiritual realm
4)Wrongly translated
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.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

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.


Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of being the Son of God stated in Psalm 2:7 which says, "I will proclaim the Lord's decree: He said to me, today I have become your father.

(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.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent uses Psalm 2.

"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.


First off, I specified the verses because I didn't want you to pull something from nothing, which you did and completely skipped the whole track of things from my first argument.

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.
Debate Round No. 3


First, I did not say that Mary was not a virgin... I am saying that Isaiah 7 does not talk about her. It is actually possible for a virgin to become pregnant, you may want to do a Google search and tons of girls are asking that very question and are worried they are actually pregnant, wile still virgins... (Let's not go more in detail, I think you can understand).

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."

Thank you


In Isaiah 50:6, the prophet (it is not known who) writes about a servant of God who endures abuse at the hands of sinful people. This servant offers his back to those who beat him, his face to those who rip out his beard, and himself to those who mock and taunt him. Christians historically have acknowledged this Old Testament prophecy as being fulfilled by Jesus Christ, who lived about 700 years after Isaiah. Jesus, as explained in the New Testament, was beaten, mocked and taunted shortly before his crucifixion by the Romans. In Matthew 26:67 (NIV translation), for example, it says: Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?"

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.
Debate Round No. 4


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.

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.

Thank you


First off, I never said Isaiah was speaking, I still can't see how you are coming away with all this made up trash.

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.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by EvangilisticOmega 8 months ago
I commented about fallacies. Didn't argue about them.
Posted by EvangilisticOmega 8 months ago
Thank you.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
>Reported vote: ho11yw00d// Mod action: Removed<

No points awarded. Reasons for voting decision: da

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. Voters must provide at least some feedback on the debate.
Posted by EvangilisticOmega 8 months ago
If you cannot vote without a bias, please do not vote at all.
Posted by BIBLETHUMPER 8 months ago
Go CON!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by squonk 8 months ago
Here's a note for Pro. Con brought up Isaiah 7:14.

"Matthew"s Gospel is quite explicit that Jesus" mother was a virgin, but is also quite restrained in any kind of speculation about what that means theologically. We have seen that Matthew is particularly keen to show that everything in Jesus birth, life, and death was a fulfillment of Scriptural prophecy. So why was he born of a virgin? It was because the Hebrew prophet Isaiah indicated that "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call him Immanuel" (Matthew 1:23, quoting Isaiah 7:14). Actually, that"s not exactly what Isaiah said. In the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah indicates that a "young woman" will conceive and bear a son, a prediction not of a future Messiah but of an event that was soon to take place in Isaiah"s own day. When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, however, Isaiah"s "young woman" (Hebrew alma; there is a different Hebrew word for "virgin") came to be rendered by the Greek word for "virgin" (parthenos), and that is the form of the Bible that Matthew read. And so he thought that Isaiah was predicting something not about his own day but about the future Messiah (though the term "Messiah" does not occur in Isaiah 7). So Matthew wrote that Jesus was born of a virgin because that"s what he thought Scripture predicted." -- Bart D. Ehrman
Posted by CapAhab 8 months ago
I meant invade, not invite....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Briannj17 8 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
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.