Jesus is Messiah
Full Resolution: Jesus is the Messiah that was predicted in the Old Testament
Burden of Proof: Burden of Proof is upon my opponent to prove that Jesus is Messiah
First round my opponent may present his opening arguments.
Good luck, daley. Same technical rules as always except for the change above.
Jesus: A man that lived in the 1st Century, claimed to be messiah.
Messiah: A Hebrew word meaning, "annointed."
Was this text understoof in pre-Christian times as messianic? Yes, it was. The Qumran community specifically understood Isaiah 40:3 in this sense. Note what their Manual of Discipline says on this verse:
"When these men exist in Israel, these are the provisions whereby they are to be kept apart from any cosort with froward men, to the end that they may indeed 'go into the wilderness to prepare the way', i.e. do what Scripture enjoins when it says, 'Prepare in the wilderness the way...make straight in the desert a highway for our God' "(8.12-16)
"The purpose of such discussions is to guide the minds of the members of the community to give them insight into God's inscrutable wonders and truth, and to bring them to walk blamelessly each with his neighbor in harmony with all that has been revealed to them. For this is the time when 'the way is being prepared in the wilderness', and it behooves them to understand all that is happening." (9.118-20)
These quotes indicate both that the Qumran community understood the verse messianically, but also that they saw it fulfilled in them. Isaiah 40.3 was used as their rationale for leading a separated life in the desert, where they believed they were preparing the way of the Lord by means of constant reading of the Law (1Qumran Scroll 8.12-16; 9.19-20; Liefeld, The Expositor's Bible Commentary; ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein, Vol I. Zondervan, 1979: Luke 3:4-6) Qumran saw itself literally fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy by its life of study and torah-observance situated precisely in the desert of Judea. (A Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, John P. Meier, Doubleday: 1991; 2.87)
Rabinnic material also uses Isaiah 40:3 messianically as well. First, we have a passage in the Midrash on Lamentations 1:2, in which Is 40.3 is cited as one of the blessings upon Israel in the messianic age; second, we have a later passage in the Talmud by Tanhuma, citing 40.3 messianically in the comments on Deut 1.1; third, the Targum on Isaiah 40.9, renders the phrase 'Behold your God' with 'The Kingdom of your God shall be manifested'--remarkably similar to the preaching of John the Baptist and Jesus. So, the rabbinic literature also witnesses to a messianic understanding of Isaiah 40.3. This clearly demonstrates that Isaiah 40.3 was understood messianically in the time of Jesus.
Deuteronomy 18:15 promised that one day God would raise up a prophet like Moses by whom God will call everyone to account. According to Paton J. Gloag, "The Talmud asserts 'that Messiah must be the greatest of future prophets, as being nearest in spirit to our master Moses.'... This prediction, then, could only receive its accomplishment in the Messiah." (The Messianic Prophecies, from 'The Messiahship of Christ', Minneapolis, MN, Klock & Klock, 1983 rpt., p. 114) Jesus, just like Moses, was Jew, had direct communication with God the Father, fasted in the wilderness 40 days, performed greater miracles than any prophet who came before him, and mediated a covenant between God and his people, thus, its no wonder Luke recognizes this was fulfilled in Jesus. (Acts 3:19-26) We must also remember Luke was getting his information from the eyewitnesses. (Luke 1:1-4)
Isaiah 9:6 records that the Messiah would be both "God," and yet born as "a baby." The Targum of Isaiah, which is an ancient rabbinical commentary, confirms Jewish belief in the Messianic nature of this passage: "His name has been called from old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, the Anointed One, in whose days peace shall increase upon us." (The Targum of Isaiah, ed. J.F. Stenning, London, Oxford Press, 1949, p. 32) Since my opponent agrees that the disciples agreed that Jesus was God, I think we have a clear fulfillment here.
Isaiah 52-53 was also understood as messianic. It prophesied that the Messiah would be peirced for our sins (53:5), would be silent before his accusers (53:7), would be killed and buried (53:8-9), but would live again to bring in righteousness (53:10-12), all of which the New Testament writers who were contemporaries of Jesus said was fulfilled in his trial, crucifixcion and resurrection. This Isaiah passage is one believed to have influenced some Jews to conceive of a two-Messiah idea. Dr. Raphael Patai writes: "When the death of the Messiah became an established tenet in Talmudic time, this was felt to be irreconcilable with the belief in the Messiah as the Redeemer who would usher in the blissful millennium of the Messianic age. The dilemma was solved by splitting the person of the Messiah in two." (The Messiah Texts, New York, Avon, 1979, p. 166)
The New Testament's overall record of Jesus' actions matches the issues and events that were prophesied. Although many passages concerning the Messiah could be covered, Hebrew scholar Alfred Edersheim extensively reviewed the rabbinic commentaries on the Messianic prophecies. As to whether or not the New Testament claims accurately reflect Messianic expectations, Edersheim summarizes:
"Accordingly, a careful perusal of their  scripture quotations shows that the main postulates of the New Testament concerning the Messiah are fully supported by rabbinic statements. Thus, such doctrines as the pre-mundane existence of the Messiah; his elevation above Moses, and even above the Angels; his representative character; his cruel suffering and derision; his violent death, and that for his people; his work on behalf of the living and of the dead; his redemption and restoration of Israel; the opposition of the gentiles; their partial judgment and conversion; the prevalence of his Law; the universal blessings of the latter days; and his kingdom - can clearly be deduced from unquestioned passages in ancient rabbinic writings... There is, indeed, in rabbinic writings frequent reference to the sufferings, and even death of the Messiah, and these are brought into connection with our sins." (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah' (one volume edition), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1972, pp. 164-165)
It is a seldom mentioned fact that the pre-Christian Jews viewed more of the Old Testament Scriptures as messianic than did the New Testament authors, so the Gospel authors literally had a fountain of messianic prophecy to tap into and it only bespeaks their honestly in taking taking full advantage of them them. But how could Jews view certain statements as messianic prophecies when they at times appear to apply to the time in which the writer lived? The answer is type topology. The typological interpretation of prophecy asserts that the prophets did not so much make singular predictions as proclaim certain theological themes or patterns and that these themes often have several manifestations or fulfillments in the course of human history. These patterns often have their greatest manifestations in the life of Christ, but there may be other fulfillments elsewhere in human history, especially in the immediate historical context of the prophet. Perhaps the clearest example is the suffering servant in Isaiah. ( 42:1-4 ; 49:1-6 ; 50:4-9 ; 52:13-53:12). At one point, Isaiah explicitly identifies the servant as Israel ( 49:3 ), but in 50:4-9 he describes the servant in very individualistic terms and in verse 9 the prophet seems to identify himself as the servant, showing multiple application. This is why NT writers apply texts to the Messiah that also apply to other things.
Thank you for providing your opening arguments. In this round, I will discuss why Jesus CANNOT be the Messiah that was promised in the Old Testament. This round is just for opening arguments.
Contention 1: Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
1. The messiah will (1) Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28); (2) Gather all the Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6); (3) Usher in an era of world peace, end all hatred, oppression, suffering, and disease (Isaiah 2:4); (4) Spred the universal knowledge of Ha'Shem, which will unite humanity as one. (Zechariah 14:9)
2. Jesus fulfilled none of these prophecies.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not messiah.
This is the understanding Jews have of the messiah. It is a historical fact that the Third Temple has not been build, all the Jews are not in Israel, and war and violence increased after Jesus.
Conention 2: Jesus did not fulfill the messianic requirements.
1. The messiah will be a descendent of David through Solomon.
2. Jesus was not.
3. Therefore, he is not messiah.
According to Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1, the Messiah will be a descenent from David from his father's side. However, there is a problem with the virgin birth. According to Christian claims, Jesus was born of a virgin, therefore he had no earthly father. Thus, he could not have fulfilled that requirement.
Con also argues from Isaiah 43:5-6 that the Messiah must bring all the Jews back to the land of Israel, but again, the one speaking in this text is "God" himself, and modern Jews don't believe the Messiah is God, so this Jewish understanding he boasts is not the one of the original writers. Also, it doesn't say when God will bring them back to their soil, nor does it say he has to be a man on the earth in order to do it. So Con has imagined a time restriction for the fulfillment of Isaiah 43:5-6 without any Scriptural basis, just like the modern Jews have, and so is acting like if the time has passed for its fulfillment. Was there a deadline Con? Further, what is to stop Jesus the Messiah from fulfilling it after 3000 years his resurrection? Con hasn't shown this is a Messianic prophecy and not just referring to what God the Father will do in the last days, nor has he put a time limit on how long the Messiah has to do it. No Messiah is mentioned in the text, so it suffers the same problems as his previous prophecy.
The era of world peace in Isaiah 2:4 has the same problems. No "Anointed One," or "Messiah" is mentioned. Even if it did, it says this will occur in "the last days" which we know from the Bible is an undefined by very long period of time in which many things have to happen. It doesn't say the Messiah has to be a man on earth to accomplish this, nor does it put a time limit on it; so the time for its fulfillment simply has not come. Jesus the Messiah fulfilled those prophecies he had to fuflfill first, and he will yet fulfill all other which Scripture says he must fulfill.
Now I do admit that Zacheriah 14:9 is talking about the Messiah because here Yahweh is pictures as being in the flesh, standing on the Mount of Olives in verse 4. Vers 5 says Jehovah will come with all his holy ones, a clear reference to his second coming. (1 Thess 4:`14) But again, the text doesn't say "when" this is to happen. Con is assuming without good reason that the Messiah must fulfill all that is prophecied of him in one swoop, and I simply ask why is that the case? He has fulfilled enough that we can be confident he will fulfill all other things prophecied of him. Says who that the Messiah has only so much time to fulfill this prophecy? Just because he hasn't done so yet doesn't mean he won't.
Finally, Con says Jesus was born of a virgin and hence could not be a descendant of David, but Mary was the daughter of Heli, though the genealogy given by Luke lists Mary's husband Joseph as the "son of Heli." Says M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): "In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter's husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7)." It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the "son of Heli." (Luke 3:23) Mary was of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David. Hence it could be said of her son Jesus that he "sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh." (Ro 1:3) Through his adoptive father Joseph, a descendant of David, Jesus had a legal right to David's throne, and through his mother, as the "offspring," "seed," and "root" of David, he held the natural hereditary right to "the throne of David his father."—Mt 1:1-16; Lu 1:32; Ac 13:22,�23; 2Ti 2:8; Re 5:5; 22:16.
The Bible says nothing that would rule out Mary being a descendant of David from his father's side, so unless Con can show that she wasn't he cannot win this debate. The fact is, no one in Jesus time was able to refute his geneaology, nor did the later opponents of Christianity in the time of the apostles in the years following his death. The mere fact that a man claiming to be the Messiah would never face a charge against being a true descendant of David testifies to his sure geneaology according to Messianic requirements. Con needs to tell us why Jesus enemies never brought up the argument he is using now which they surely would have had it been so.
Thank you, Daley, for your rebuttals. I shall begin by refuting what you have wrote in the first round.My opponent's proof texts can be summarized as followed:
1) Isaiah 40:3;
2) Deuteronomy 18:15;
3) Isaiah 9:6; and
4) Isaiah 52-53;
What I will do is list each proof text and refute them one by one to prove the exact opposite of your points. I will not respond to every single verse due to space. Please do forgive me; however, I will try my best.
A prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me, the Lord, your God will set up for you, you shall hearken to him.Notice the phrase, "from among you," meaning that the person is in the midst of Israel. Who was this person? None other than Joshua! For further proof, let us read on: Deuteronomy 18:18, "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee [Moses], and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."For better understanding, a prophet is NOT someone who tells the future, rather, a prophet is someone from G-d that speaks on G-d's behalf. There are several major problems with using this as a proof text:
1) Jesus chastised the people for not doing G-d's will, for turning from G-d's laws, but that is where the similarities end. The prophets of Israel justified their pronuncements on the Torah and never acted on their own authority, always according to G-d. Moreoever, by proclaiming his justification on his own authority, Jesus did not follow the path of the true prophets of Israel.
2) A prophet was promised by Moses, one who would be like Moses, not greater than Moses. According to teh NT, Jesus is much greater than Moses.
3) The factthat a trinitarian godhead as co-equals, one must wonder what type of godJesus is if he can only say whatever G-d tells him to say. Think about this logically, if you are a prophet from G-d, why would you be G-d?4) Deuteronomy 18:16 ends with the phrase in which Moses quotes the Israelites sayings at Mt. Sinai, "Let me not continue to hear the voice of teh L-rd my G-d, and let me not see this great fire any more, so that I will not die."
In the New Testament it is written that Jesus was G-d manifest in the flesh, and that he came to live among the people, and that he spoke with them all the time. How, then, could this passage point to Jesus as the prophet while contradicting itself in that the people did not die as a result of his living in their midst?5) The New Testament, in which it is claimed that Jesus is the manifestation of the prophet that is foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15-18 notes, "...every soul, which will not hear taht prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:23 )
This has not happened. Most of the world's population is not Christian and does not listen to Jesus, let alone know him. They have not been destroyed. If this is referring to the Jewish people, Has this really happened to the jewish people? After all, the Jews are alive and
well today, and are more successful now than ever!
6) Jesus failed the litmus test.
According to the same chapter, it gives us a litmust test. This litmust test gives us a key to note if a person claiming to be a prophet is really a prophet.
Deuteronomy 18:20, a prophet who presumes to speak in G-d's name something that he was not commanded and/or speaks in the name of other gods, is a false prophet who is to be punished with the death penalty.
Guess what? This prophecy was not fulfilled! The generation Jesus addressed died 1900 years ago!
| Conclusion |
Reference for this work: http://www.messiahtruth.com...;Isaiah 52-54
The suffering servant as defined in earlier passages is the Nation of Israel. Simply put, Isaiah 53 is a messianic prophecy that foretells the world's reaction to the Messianic redemption. Take, for example, the following verse:
(1) Who would believe what we have heard! For whom has the arm of God been revealed!
In this opening verse, world leaders are shocked at the incredible news of Israel’s salvation: “Who would believe what we have heard!”
(2) He formerly grew like a sapling or a root from dry ground; he had neither form nor beauty. We saw him, but without a desirable appearance.
I want to skip to Isaiah 53:5 and verses that denote a "crucifixion" of the messiah.
(5) He was wounded as a result of our transgressions, and crushed as a result of our iniquities. The chastisement upon him was for our benefit; and through his wounds we were healed.
Indeed, the idea of a substitutionary sacrifice directly contradicts the basic clear Old Testament teaching that God promises forgiveness to all who sincerely return to Him; thus there is no need for the Messiah to atone for others (Isaiah 55:6-7, Jeremiah 36:3, Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33, Hoseah 14:1-3, Jonah 3:6-10, Proverbs 16:6, Daniel 4:27, 2-Chronicles 7:14).
Con argues that the phrase, "from among you," means that the person is already in the midst of Israel, but throught the bible the term "among you" is not limited to those present when the statement is being made, but applies to later generations; for example Gen 17:10-12 where every male "among you" being circumcised is not limited to those present, but all later generations from Abraham. "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." (Exo 12:49) "Among you" here applies to any "future" stranger that sojourns among them and not only to present ones. God was here giving the law that would be binding for centuries to come. Again Leviticus 17:8, 10 uses "among you" for a stranger even in future generations. The fact that this was discussing a possible future situation shows that "among you" need not be limited to those present, as this law applied to later generations. "Among you" is a synonym for "among the sons of Israel," so Moses was saying that God would raise up a prophet from among the Israelites, he was not saying that this prophet was already in their midsts as he spoke. What's more, we have no record in the Old Testament that Joshua was this prophet, or that this prophet had ever arrived. It is strange that no Old Testament writer applied these words to Joshua if indeed he was that prophet.
Con claims the similarities end where Jesus chastized the people for not doing God's will; how quickly he forgot that both Jesus and Moses escaped infanticide ordered by the respective rulers of their time. (Ex 1:22; 2:1-10; Mt 2:13-18) Moses was called out of Egypt with Yahweh's "firstborn," the nation of Israel, Jesus was called out of Egypt as God's firstborn Son. (Ex 4:22,�23; Ho 11:1; Mt 2:15, 19-21) Both fasted for 40 days in the wilderness. (Ex 34:28; Mt 4:1,�2) Both came in the name of Jehovah, Jesus' name itself meaning "Jehovah Is Salvation." (Ex 3:13-16; Mt 1:21; Joh 5:43) Jesus, like Moses, ‘declared the name of the Lord [YHWH].' (De 32:3; Joh 17:6,�26) Both were exceptional in meekness and humility. (Nu 12:3; Mt 11:28-30) Both had astounding miracles to show they were sent by God. (Ex 14:21-31; Ps 78:12-54; Mt 11:5; Mr 5:38-43; Lu 7:11-15, 18-23) Moses was mediator of the Law covenant between God and the nation of Israel, Jesus was Mediator of the new covenant between God and the "holy nation," the church. (1Pe 2:9; Ga 6:16; Ex 19:3-9; Lu 22:20; Heb 8:6; 9:15) Moses was a judge, lawgiver and leader; so is Jesus. (Ex 18:13; 32:34; Da 9:25; Mal 4:4; Mt 23:10; Joh 5:22,�23; 13:34; 15:10) Moses was entrusted with and proved faithful to his stewardship in the ‘house of God,' Israel. Jesus showed faithfulness over God's house that he as God's Son constructed, the church. (Nu 12:7; Heb 3:2-6) And even in death there was a parallel: God took care of the bodies of both Moses and Jesus. (De 34:5,�6; Ac 2:31; Jude 9) Moses lifted up the brazen serpent to heal all his people who had faith; Jesus was lifted up on the cross to heal all who would have faith in Him (John 3:14-15; Num 21:7-9). Moses appointed 70 elders to rule Israel (Num. 11:16-17); Jesus appointed 70 disciples to teach the nations (Luke 10:1, 17). Jesus was more like Moses than Joshua ever was.
Contrary to Con's assertion, Jesus did follow the patter set by the prophets in justifying his pronouncements on the Torah, for Jesus always refered back to the Law and the prophets to back up what he said. (Luke 24:44-45) And Jesus did not proclaim justification on his own authority, but on the authority of his Father in heaven. He came to do, not his own will, but that of his Father. It was God the Father, the Law and Prophets that bore witness to Jesus; he didn't do so on his own authority. (John 5:30-47) He said his teachings were not his, but his Father's. (John 7:16-18) So Jesus did not use his divinity as God to do anything in his own name, but as a man, submitted to his Father's will. So Jesus did follow the path of a true prophet of Israel.
Con argues that if Jesus is greater than Moses he therefore couldn't be "like" Moses; but this is folly. Even in ancient Jewish understanding Adam and Eve were were "like God" even though God was greater than them (Gen 3:22), so being greater than Moses doesn't deny the parallels that make Jesus "like" Moses as well. Two people can be alike in many ways while also being different in many ways. Is Con going to argue that there could be no differnces between Moses and Joshua? What proves beyond doubt the prophet like Moses could not be Joshua is Deu 34:10-12 which says that a prophet like Moses had not arisen in Israel since. My opponent certainly agrees that Moses could not have written about events after his own death, so Deuteronomy had to be written by someone much later, holding Moses in high esteem. Therefore, even after Moses, the author of this book agrees that no one, not even Joshua, was like Moses! This means the prophet like Moses had to arrive "after" the book of Deuteronomy was finished. This rules out it being Joshua. It had to be someone who came later, and Jesus fits the bill from all the parallels I've described.
Con argues that the prophet couldn't be God and yet speak for God, and this would contradict Deuteronomy 18:16 "Let me not continue to hear the voice of teh L-rd my G-d" lest they die, if Jesus was God speaking to them in person. Firstly, Deuteronomy 18:16 is saying they would die from beholding God in his divine glory, not in the flesh. Jewish understanding was that God used to appear in the flesh to men and they lived. (Gen 16:13; 18:1-22; 32:30; Exo 33:11; Judges 13:22) So Jesus appearing as God in the flesh in the New Testament would not contradict the Biblical understanding of Deuteronomy 18:16 anymore than Yahweh's manifestations in the flesh to Old Testament folks. So why would the prophet speak for God if he is God? Well, and angel is by definition a "messenger" speaking for another. Yet, at Genesis 31:11-13 "the angel of God" claims to be "the God" of Bethel where Jacob made a vow to him. He was speaking for God the Father, but he himself was God the Son, just as God the Son is messenger of God the Father in the New Testament. The fact that throughout the Old Testament we have God himself appearing as a messenger (angel) shows why Con can't deny that Moses could intend the prophet would also be God as well. Manoah confessed that the angel, or messenger, was also God, and thought he would die; but didn't die cause he didn't see him in his glory but only in the flesh. (Judges 13:11-22)
Acts 3:23 says that anyone who doesn't listen to the prophet will be destroyed from among the people. Peter was speaking to Israelites (vs 12), and Jesus had told these people to flee to the mounntains when they saw Jerusalem encircled by encamped armies they should flee to the mountains. (Luke 21:20-24; 19:41-44) This warning was given in the 30's C.E. In 66�C.E. the Roman army under Cestius Gallus attacked the city. But, as Jewish historian Josephus reports, the Roman commander "suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City." (Josephus, the Jewish War, Penguin Classics, 1969, p. 167) This provided opportunity for Christians to listen to the prophet and flee from the city, moving to Pella, beyond the Jordan, according to Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. (Translated by C. F. Crus�, London, 1894, p. 75) In 70�C.E. General Titus besieged the city, an encircling fence 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long was erected in just three days, and after five months Jerusalem fell. Those who didn't listen to the prophet and flee, died or went into slavery. They were destroyed from among the people as Acts 3:23 requires. Any living today who don't listen to him will also be destoryed from among the saved. I'm out of space and will answer the rest of his points next round.
Thank you, I will now analyse the other verses given forth by my opponent:
This child is Hezekiah as I will explaine.
There are a few issues with using it as a proof text of Jesus' messianicship.
(1) This prophecy is nowhere in the New Testament
Nowhere does any of the New Testament writers have Isaiah 9 as a fulfillment of Jesus as Messiah. Therefore, we can conclude that it is probable Isaiah 9 is not talking about a Messiah.
In the Old Testament, this is the actual translation of Isaiah 9:5-6, "For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wonderous adviser, the mighty God, the everylasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity,the zeal of the Lord of Host shall accomplish this."
What we see is that this prophecy is past tense meaning that the child has already been born, a far cry from Jesus!
(3) A King
This is obviously talking about a king, thus the phrase, "the authority is upon his shoulder." It is obvious Jesus was and is never a king.
Although the person is called, "mighty God; everylasting father, etc." and all these wonderful names I would love for God to call me, this does not mean that I am God!
Hezekiah is called "the mighty God" because this name is a sign that foretells God's defense of Jerusalem through the miraculous sudden mass death of Sennacherib's army.
Note that Hezekiah cleansed the temple of idolitry and made Judah greate again. Thus, God, bestowed upon Hezekiah the name which honors the king by proclaiming great things G-d will do for him and Israel.
I will leave it here as I want my opponent to respond to my Isaiah 53 argument.
Matthew 12:38-40 declares Jesus would be dead three days ad three nights, and he was. Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus died on Friday, or that he was raised on Sunday. The Jews did not use the Roman calendar, and even if they did, the current Roman calendar is a deviation from the nundinal calendar in use in Jesus' day. Just because some churches teach Jesus was raised on the 1st day doesn't mean Jesus taught that too. Con is confusing later church theology with the teaching of Jesus, but nowhere does the Bible say the 1st day of the week is Sunday, or that Jesus was raised on the first day. By the time the women got there before sunrise on the first day the body of Jesus was already gone. (John 20:1-2) I don't have space to go into this at length, but I think its wrong for Con to put the Friday to Sunday view in the mouth of Jesus in order to make him a liar when he said no such thing. It's the Christians who got that wrong, not Jesus.
Isaiah 53:9 is describing a "sinless" servant. Israel is never described in the Bible as sinless. Isaiah 1:4 "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity." (also vss 10, 15, 21) What a far cry from the sinless servant of Isaiah 53 who "had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth." (Isa 53:9)
Isaiah also said: "It pleased the Lord to bruise him." (Isa 53:10) Can it really be said that anti-semitism pleased the Lord? Did the Holocaust please the Lord? Why would God be please over the genocide of his people? Yet, it makes perfect sense that God would be pleased to have the Messiah die to be our sin offering because it would save millions of souls. What would the Holocaust accomplish that is pleasing to God?
The suffering servant suffered silently and willingly. (Isa 53:7) The Jews were certainly not silent during the Holocaust or the following years of suffering. All other men complain when suffering. Brave Jewish men and women resisted Hitler and spoke out. Jesus was silent before his accusers. (Matt 26:60-63) You don't really think the Jews suffer silently and willingly do you?
In Isaiah 53:10 the word for "atone" is "asham," the same as in Leviticus 5-6 and it means "sin-offering." Whomever Isaiah 53 speaks of, this one suffers and dies to pay for the sins of others so they can gain forgiveness, hence the context speaks of him as a sheep and using sacrificial language connected to animal sacrifice. The Jewish community never died for anyone to be forgiven, Jesus did.
Con says Isaiah 53:5 is mistranslated, and wishes to replace "for" with "because of" and then says this means he suffers because of others. But who are the "others" mentioned here? "Our transgressions," and "our iniquities" indicates that Isaiah's own people, the Jews are the "others" mentioned in the text. It makes no sense to say that "Israel was wounded because of Israel's transgressions" and then claim this as anti-semitism, sounds more like self-semitism! It makes more sense contextually that the Messiah is wounded "for" his people, so save them, not because of them. But even if it should be translated as Con claims, it suppots Jesus being the Messiah, for he was indeed crucified because of Jews who handed him over to Pilate, and Jews who called for Barabbas to be freed instead of him, he came to his own but they didn't receive him. (John 1:11) It was because of Israel that Jesus was crucified, so even so the text makes more sense applying to the Messiah and not Israel as the servant. Had I more space I'd list ten other reasons why Isaiah 53 can't mean Israel but Jesus as the suffering servant.
Con actually argues that substitutionary sacrifice contradicts Isaiah 55:6-7, Jeremiah 36:3, Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33, Hoseah 14:1-3, Jonah 3:6-10, Proverbs 16:6, Daniel 4:27 and 2-Chronicles 7:14. It amazes me that Con overlooks the fact that the writers of all these verses he lists used to offer up animals sacrifices as substitutes to atone for their own sins. Clearly, the ancient Jews saw no contradiction between these verses and all the animal sacrifices commanded in Leviticus 16 and throughout Leviticus as "substitutions" to atone for their sins. If no blood had to be spilled and it was as simple as asking forgiveness, why butcher all these animals? Because "without shedding blood there is no remission." (Heb 9:22) Jesus is our sin offering just as animal sacrifices were in Old Testament times. Now while Jewish law forbid the righteous to be punished for the unrighteous, this did not mean a righteous person could not sacrifice themselves to save the unrighteous. Con is confusing two different situations.
"Why would God send a messiah to atone for sin, if he could already atone for that sin without blood?" He couldn't!
"I challenge my opponent to find ONE Old Testament reference that speaks of blood being necessary for forgiveness."
Leviticus 4:13-20, there, I've named one, my opponent stands refuted! Blood had to be shed for forgiveness to take place. Also see Leviticus 4:22-35 for more examples.
Con argues that if the New Testament doesn't apply Isaiah 9:6 to Jesus that it must not have been fulfilled in that time, yet he argues that the child is Hezekiah when the Old Testament never ever applies Isaiah 9:6 to him. True, this verse is not quoted by any New Testament writer since Isaiah wrote it, but its also true that its not quoted by any Old Testament writer since Isaiah wrote it; so the very logic Con is using to deny it refers to Jesus would also show it doesn't refer to Hezekiah! New Testament Christians had no need to record an exhaustive list of every prophecy Jesus fulfilled in the Bible, only sufficient for any ready to get the point. Indeed, John confesses this much at John 21:25.
Modern Jews claim that Isaiah 9:6 was written to encourage Hezekiah, who at that time was being threatened by the powerful armies of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. According to 2 Kings 18:1-2, Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he began to reign. The Bible establishes that Sennacherib's army attacked the cities of Judah during the fourteenth year of Hezekiah's reign (2 Kings 18:13). Hezekiah was 39 years old (25+14) at the time Isaiah gave the message of Isaiah 9:6 when Assyria threatened invasion. Could the phrase "for unto us a child is born" apply to a 39 year old man who was the king of Judah for 14 years? It's insulting to apply this verse to a 39-year-old king! The age factor alone eliminates Hezekiah as the subject of Isaiah 9:6,7. Ancient monotheistic Jews didn't go around calling any mere man "mighty God," there was only one deserving of that title, Yahweh. (Isa 45:5; 10:21) The mighty God's rule of Isaiah 9:6-7 lasts forever, unlike Hezekiah who died and never came back. Jesus lives to rule earth when the time comes.