The Instigator
Mr.Infidel
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Wandile
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Jesus is not the Messiah

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Wandile
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,826 times Debate No: 20263
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

Mr.Infidel

Pro

Resolution

Jesus is not the messiah promised in the Old Testament.

Clarification

This debate is NOT about whether or not Jesus existed, rather, we will examine the claime that Jesus is the Messiah under the light of Jewish scriptures.

Similar debates have been done here http://www.debate.org...

Definitions

You may disagree with these definitions and adopt your own, but the following definitions are offered to clarify the resolution as I have expressed it.
  1. "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus" is a proposed historical human being whose character began the myth of the character of Jesus in the Christian gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The historical "Jesus" has a biographical profile roughly corresponding to the profile of the character of Jesus in the gospels (i.e. home town of Nazareth, baptism by John the Baptist, traveling preacher, twelve disciples and crucifixion in Jerusalem). [1]
  2. A "messiah" is a term used for one who is anointed. The word "messiah" literally means an anointed one. [2]
Positions of Opposing Contender

My contender must show that either my arguments are false, or he may show that Jesus is indeed the Messiah.

Rules
  1. Round 1 is acceptance only.
  2. Absolutely no ad hominem attacks: This will result in an automatic loss.
  3. Do not introduce new arguments in the last round.
  4. If you wish to forfeit, then please post it; do not let the time run out!

I wish my partner the best of luck.

==References==

1. For the definition of Jesus, please see ApostateAbe's unrelated debate here: http://www.debate.org...;

2. http://www.aish.com...;
Wandile

Con

I accept the debate challenge and am excited to debate this topic with such a formidable opponent. I look forward to this dialogue and hope that it will live up to the high expectations set for such a debate.

I look forward to my opponents opening arguments and wish him the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Infidel

Pro

==Introduction==

Thank you for agreeing to debate this important issue with me. I ask that my partner keeps an open mind and I will do the same.

==My case==

C1: Jesus did not qualify to be the Messiah

According to prophecy, there are 5 requirements for one to be the Messiah (keep in mind that this is before one can even think about being anointed):
  1. He must be Jewish
  2. He must be a male
  3. He must be of the tribe of Judah
  4. He must be a descendant of David
  5. He must be a descendant of Solomon as well. (II Samuel 7:12-17; I Chronicles 22:9-10)
According to the New Testament, Jesus was indeed male and was (most likely) Jewish. However, there is a problem: Jesus was purportedy born of a virgin. When we look at Jewish law, tribal lineage comes only through the father. [1] Secondly, when examining Mary's genealogy givene in Luke, it comes from Nathan instead of Solomon. Finally, Matthew lists a king who was cursed; namely, the king known as Jehoiakim. In Jeremiah 22, there was an eternal cursed place on him that no descendant of his shall ever prosper sitting on the throne. The Ryrie Study Bible notes: "had Jesus been the natural son of Joseph, then he could not have prospered sitting upon the throne of David because of this curse." [2] The only problem with this "explanation" is that it would logically follow that Jesus had no legal claims to David's lineage.

C2: Jesus was a false prophet

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah is going to be the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses , yet Jesus was indeed a false prophet. In order to understand who a false prophet is, we must understand the Laws surrounding a false prophet:
  1. If a false prophet prophesized and the prophecy fails, he is a false prophet. (D'varim 18:21-22)
  2. Anyone who changes the Torah is a false prophet.
  3. Anyone who attempts to bring the Jewish people into idolatry is a false prophet.
Let's see if Jesus passes our litmus test.

A. Failed prophecies?

Mattai 24:1-2, "And Yéshu (Jesus) went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to she him the buildings of the temple. And Yéshu said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be throne down."

So, did this happen? Was the temple torn down so that "not one stone was left upon another, that was not throne down"? Well, take a look at this photo



This shows one part of the enclosed wall that Herod the Great built around the temple in the 1st century BCE; is apparent this prophecy failed.

B. Change the Torah?

Point 1: The Law of Burial

Matthew 8:21-22 states: "And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead."

What utter disrespect! Burial within 24 hours of death is commanded for an executed criminal; hence, the Oral torah tells us that this is also a proper procedure for an innocent person! [3] Rather than allowing his disciple to properly bury his own father, Jesus demands that the disciple follow him and "let the dead bury the dead." This also violates the command to honor and respect one's parents as well. Compare this event to Elijah who allowed Elisha to give proper goodbyes to his parents and delayed their journey together because of that.

Point 2: Dietary laws

Matthew 15:10-11(KJV) – (10) And he called the multitude, and said unto them, 
Hear, and understand: (11) Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but
that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Christians understand this passage that Jesus done away with the dietary restrictions perscribed to them in the Torah. (indeed, Paul confirms this). [5]

C3: Jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophecies

Now we know who the Messiah is (see C1), we can now go forward to understand what the Messiah is going to do. As we already concluded, the messiah is going to be an ordinary man--not a demigod.

1) The messiah is to bring an eternal peace between all nations and people (Isaiah 2:2-4; Micha 4:1-4; Ezekiel 39:9). Obviously there is no such peace. 40 years later, the temple was destroyed.

2) The Messiah is going to bring about universal knowlege of G-d and full Torah observance.

We have already seen that anyone who adds or subtracts from the Law is a false prophet. One of the tasks of the Messiah is to bring us back into Torah observance. [6]

3) Gather the Jews to Israel (Ezekie 36:24)

The Messiah is going to gather together the lost tribes of Israel and bring us back into the promise land; yet we are still lost and still in exile!


Conclusion

Jesus is not the Messiah because he did not embody the personal qualifications to be the Messiah, he showed himself to be a false prophet, and did not perform the Messianic requirements. [7]

Thank you!

==Notes and Sources==

1. See http://www.beingjewish.com...;

2. http://www.amazon.com...;(Notes on Matthew 1)

3. http://thejewishhome.org...;

4. Exodus 22:20

5. See Romans 14:14

6. Jeremiah 31:31-34; Zechariah 8:23; Isaiah 11:9; Zechariah 14:9,16

7. For more, please see http://whatjewsbelieve.org...;
Wandile

Con

I appreciate my opponents well though out and concise arguments.. It is evident that at face value, his arguments seem convincing but, as we shall see, they generally hold no water.

C1 : JESUS DID NOT QUALIFY TO BE THE MESSIAH

My opponent opens :

"However, there is a problem : Jesus was purportedly born of a virgin. When we look at Jewish law, tribal lineage comes only through the father. Secondly, when examining Mary's genealogy given in Luke, it comes from Nathan instead of Solomon. Finally, Mathew lists a king who was cursed; namely the king known as Jehoiakim. In Jeremiah 22, there was an eternal curse placed on him that no descendant of his shall ever prosper sitting on the throne."

This is the core of my opponents contention. My opponent also listed five requirements that one must fulfill the be the Messiah. Requirements 1 and 2 are not disputed as Jesus easily meets them. My opponent evidently has problems with requirements 3,4 and 5, and puts forth his case in the paragraph above. Let us examine as to whether Jesus meets these disputed requirements while taking into consideration, the paragraph that my opponent presented.

[3] He must be from the tribe of Judah.

It is a fact that tribal lineage comes solely through the father. So what does one make of the case of Jesus? Certainly this rule cannot apply to Jesus because the rule exclusively deals with children who have a biological earthly father. Jesus, on the other hand, had no biological earthly father! ALL his genetic make-up came solely from his mother, Mary. The scripture does not directly address such an extraordinary situation. Hence it would be illogical to attempt to apply ordinary laws to an extraordinary situation!

Scripture is not entirely silent on how to deal with such an issue though. Through scripture, it is still possible to determine the tribe of a child who has no earthly biological father :

I begin with the simple premise that women born of a certain tribe have an affiliation of that tribe. This is confirmed by various passages in scripture such as Numbers 36. They possess this affiliation even though they are unmarried. Thus through their affiliation, all that they possess belongs to the tribe.

As in the daughters of Zelophehad's situation, this includes the lands and inheritance that came to them. Such land and inheritance belonged to the tribe of Mannaseh precisely because it belonged to these women. If they betrothed someone of another tribe, the land and inheritance would go with them to that other tribe (Numbers 36:3). So too if they married within their own tribe, then the land as well inheritance and all they have would remain in their own tribe (Numbers 36:6-9).

The same would be true of Mary. Before she married, all that belonged to herself would have belonged to the tribe of Judah. If she married a man from another tribe, then all that belonged to her would belong to that tribe. If she married a man from within her tribe, then she and all she had would continue to belong to the tribe of Judah. I'm sure my opponent has no problem with this so we can safely proceed.

Taking into account what was said above : Since all that belonged to Mary always was of the tribe of Judah, then since Mary bore a Jesus solely by herself, by the power of the Holy Spirit of God and without any genetic aid of an earthly father, there is no basis to conclude other than that Jesus (the Son of Mary) belonged to the tribe of Judah. The only way the child Jesus could've ever been of another tribe was if the father was from a different tribe. In this case Joseph too (Jesus' legal father) was from the tribe of Judah so either way, Legally or biologically, Jesus was of the tribe of Judah since Mary and joseph belonged to the same tribe. Also because Jesus belonged to Mary and Mary belonged to the tribe of Judah, thus Jesus belonged to the tribe of Judah.

For more, in depth, info on this topic : http://www.christianthinktank.com...

[4] HE MUST BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID

My opponent states :

"The only problem with this 'explanation' is that it would logically follow that Jesus had no legal claims to David's lineage."

This is false. Jesus in both legal (Matthew) and biological (Luke) genealogies is descended from David. Through Mary his biological mother, Jesus descends from David through Nathan. Through Joseph his legal father, Jesus descends from David through Solomon. In BOTH genealogies Jesus is a descendant of king David. In fact NO ONE during the time, even though genealogical records were available to the doubters, ever disputed Jesus' Davidic decendency. There are in fact numerous instances where the Jews call Jesus "Son of David" :

"As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, 'Have Mercy on us, Son of David' " (Matthew 9:27, Mark 10:47)

"A Canaanite women from the vicinity came to him crying out, 'Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me!' " (Matthew 15:22)

"All the people were astonished and said, 'could this be the Son of David' " (Matthew 12:23)

"But when the chief priests and teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, 'Hosanna to the Son of David', they were indignant."
(Matthew 21:15)

Even Zacharia (Jewish priest) had this to say of Jesus :

"He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David" (Luke 1:69)

[5] HE MUST BE A DESCENDANT OF SOLOMON AS WELL

My opponent states :

"Secondly, when examining Mary's genealogy given in Luke, it comes from Nathan instead of Solomon."

This is true of Mary's genealogy but not of Joseph's. Joseph is the one who descends from Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7). This is not even necessary though. The promise to David was unconditional and is constantly referred to through the OT and Rabbinic literature. It is always the "throne of David" and never the "throne of Solomon". It is always David who returns and never Solomon.

The promise to Solomon sounds like the same unconditional promise to David, but it is not! It is actually a conditional promise as can be seen from the parallel and other passages like 1 Chronicles 20:5 and 2 Chronicles 7:17. In fact, Solomon completely violated the condition that God put forth. He did not only 'sin lightly' and this is documented in the Hebrew Bible and recognized in the Rabbinics. Indeed when God DID divest Solomon of his kingdom (upon failing the condition as the HB explicitly says), his son (Rehoboam) ruled a part of the kingdom is spite of his relation to Solomon (1 Kings 11:14). Solomon actually lost the kingdom to someone not in his line (his servant)! And the fractional part of the kingdom that is retained by his son is ONLY because of the promise made to David, not because of the promise made to Solomon! Thus the genealogy in Matthew traces Jesus back to Solomon and then to David. Full legal, dynastic lineage of Jesus is affirmed thereby.

For more info on this topic : http://www.christianthinktank.com...

My opponent proceed to say :

"Finally, Matthew lists a king who was cursed; namely the king known as Jehoiakim."

Actually the curse was placed on Jeconiah (or Jehoiachin) son of Jehoiakim.

Anyway... Jews seem to have found favor with this argument. However this argument is not as convincing as it seems. In fact, the prophecy in Jeremiah 22 is not referring to Jeconiah's descendants FOR ALL TIME. The context of the passages seem to limit the scope to just Jeconiah's immediate descendants.

The phrase "in his lifetime" focuses the passage on the immediate future; the "for" word connects the "no man of his descendants" (Jeremiah 22:30) with the "in his lifetime" --- the strong casual relationship between not-prospering-now and his descendants is strong evidence for an immediate future context. The "again" word (od) is not the "big" forever word : ad-olam or le-olam. Immediately after this passage, Jeremiah relays a promise by God to raise up a righteous branch of David (Jer 23)! Could Jeremiah have been so blind as to not notice such a contradiction (if the preceding chapter referred to the end of the Davidic line) ??
It's much more likely that this is a deposing of Jeconiah, and a promise of a better king from the house of David. This views is held by a vast number of commentators such as Craig.P in Volume.26 of the World Biblical Commentary.

So since the curse of Jeconiah is not to be extended past his immediate descendants as I have just illustrated above, then my opponents argument becomes fruitless and holds no water.

EVEN IF I take the position that the curse was eternal, there still poses no problem to Jesus' claim to the throne of David.

This is because Jesus was a divine child, adopted legally by Joseph, and as such he was rightfully handed the reign to David's throne. Therefore Jesus was a legitimate royal heir to the throne. The line had no curse upon it produced Heli and his daughter the Virgin Mary and her Son Jesus. He is thus eligible by the line of Nathan and exhausts the line that line. The line that bore the curse produced Joseph and exhausts the line of Solomon, for Joseph's other children now have an elder brother who ,legally by adoption, is the royal heir to the throne of David and is still free of the curse of the bloodline of Jeconiah. Bear in mind that both the Davidic lines of Nathan and Solomon are exhausted so if any man comes after the time of Jesus claiming to be the messiah, he is a LIAR! All the possibilities of a messiah of the royal bloodline of Solomon , through his succeeding son Rehoboam, ended at Jesus. This is because Jesus was the only legal descendant of the lineage who did not bear the biological curse. Since Jesus had no descendants, and all his siblings bore the curse, there are only 2 conclusions this issue can have :

(1) Jesus was the Messiah

Or...

(2) No messiah is coming

http://www.abideinchrist.com...

C2 : JESUS WAS A FALSE PROPHET

A- Failed prophecies?

My opponent quotes Matthew 24:1-2 and provides a picture of the "Western Wall" in Jerusalem and also states :

"This (the picture) shows one part of the enclosed wall that Herod the Great built around the temple in the 1st century BCE; is apparent this prophecy failed."

This is completely false and displays my opponents poor reading of Matthew 24:1-2. The passage in question is solely focused on THE TEMPLE ITSELF and NOT on the surrounding enclosures. Jesus' disciples came to him and started admiring the majesty of the temple's architecture. In response to this, Jesus prophecies against the temple and says that "Not one stone shall be left upon another that has not fallen down". This was fulfilled in 70AD when the Romans destroyed the temple down to its very foundations! Today not ONE remnant of the temple is left. The Western Wall is irrelevant to the prophecy as it was not part of the actual temple itself. The Western Wall just served as a means to enclose the Temple area... Nothing more!

B - Change the Torah ?

POINT 1 : Law of burial

My opponent quoted Matthew 8:21-22 as evidence of Jesus changing and showing disrespect to the law. He then quotes the Oral Law which teaches the procedure on how to bury an innocent person. Jesus was referring to the secondary burial Jewish practice. When the disciple requested to bury his father, he meant the Jewish custom of second burial by placing the bones of the decomposed deceased in an ossuary. In the tomb of the disciple's family, family members as well as his father who had died were in it and some were would have obviously been awaiting second burial. While others were already in ossuaries. Hence Jesus said let the dead bury their dead. He said this in reference to this Jewish custom (Not law). The custom in NOT Mosaic Law and thus Jesus never changed, disrespected or broke any divine law. He only broke the meaningless customs of man.

http://www.ldolphin.org...

POINT 2 - Dietary laws

The dietary laws addressed in Matthew 15:10 are NOT part of the Law that God gave to Moses, but rather they are part of the Laws of men (Oral law, non-divine) and thus Jesus EVEN quotes Isaiah 29:13 to support his statement as he says, in Matthew 15:7-9 :

"You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you :

'These people honor me with their lips,
But their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain;
Their teachings are but rules taught by men' "

This is the reason why he said what he said in Matthew 15:10. YES Jesus did away with the dietary laws of MEN, but NOT ONCE did Jesus do abolish a law from God in the Torah.

C3- JESUS FAILED TO FULFILL THE MESSAINIC PROPHECIES

1) The Messiah is to bring eternal peace between all people and nations

Let us investigate the provided quotes :

"In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as a chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. Many people will come and say, "Come , let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, the house of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem."
(Isaiah 2:2-4)

Notice that the verse says NOTHING about the messiah bringing peace nor does it say anything about an eternal peace. The passage is simply telling about the last days and how the mountain of the LORD will be the centre of world attention.

Micah 4:1-4 actually says the exact same thing and Is almost word for word identical to Isaiah 2:2-4. Although it does make reference to world peace, nowhere does it say messiah will be the cause of this. It makes no mention to a man causing the peace. The only assumption that can be made is that God himself is the cause of this peace. This would contradict jewish theology as messiah is only a man in judaism and not divine.

"Then those who live in the towns of Israel will go out and use the weapons for fuel and burn them up- war clubs and spears. FOR SEVEN years they will use them for fuel." (Ezekiel 39:9)

Notice again that the passage nowhere hints at a human cause to for this peace but only tells how people will act during the period of peace. Secondly the passage says that the peace will last for seven years, it will not be eternal.

As a christian, I do believe in the eternal peace that will be brought about by the messiah Jesus. However, we believe he will do this in his second coming. NOWHERE in scripture does it say that messiah has to do all these things in his first coming! NOWHERE!!

2) Messiah is supposed to bring about universal knowledge of God full Torah observance

My opponent provides no evidence for this claim and thus its presence is nullified and is futile until evidence is provided.

3) Gather the Jews back to Israel

"For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land."

Notice again that it is GOD HIMSELF saying that He Himself will bring the jews back to Israel. This proves problematic for my opponent as jewish doctrine teaches that messiah is not God, but a mere man. So, in effect, this verse that my opponent uses to prove his case actually proved detrimental to his case and is contradictory to modern jewish theology. The verse is question evidently is NOT messianic if modern jewish theology is applied.

CONCLUSION

The burden of proof is on Pro and all I have to do is prove his assertions to be speculative or false in order to win this debate. I have provided ample theological evidence to prove that Jesus was indeed the Jewish Messiah as I have proved my opponents case false. As a result I still hold the position that Jesus was the Messiah.

I look forward to my opponents rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Infidel

Pro

I thank my partner for his thought-out rebuttals. It is clear he spent a lot of time on this. However, as we shall soon see, his "rebuttals" hold absolutely no water.

C1: Jesus did not embody the personal quaifications to be the Messiah

Numbers 36:7, "The hereditary property of the Israelites will thus not be transferred from one tribe to another, and each person among the Israelites will remain attached to the hereditary property of his father's tribe.

Your argument is refuted by the text itself. Women ONLY kept the right to the inheritance if they married not only within the same tribe--but within the same clan!

You now attempt to defend two conflicting lineages--which I believe I explained well. Joseph's lineage would be immaterial if he were not the biological father, and if he was not the biological father, his lineage was disqualified because he went through the line of Jeconiah. [1]

In fact NO ONE during the time, even though genealogical records were available to the doubters, ever disputed Jesus' Davidic decendency. There are in fact numerous instances where the Jews call Jesus "Son of David"

False! Legends in the Talmud say that the one who MIGHT have been Jesus of the Christian Bible was actually the child of a Roman soldier. [2]

"This is because Jesus was a divine child, adopted legally by Joseph, and as such he was rightfully handed the reign to David's throne."

False! Please present a Biblical (or Talmudic) account. A child born as a priest (a kohein) is ALWAYS a kohein even if adopted by someone from the tribe of Judah. Adoption does NOT change tribal status -- it is only biological from a Jewish father to his Jewish child.

Conclusion: My partners "rebuttals" are fiction.

C2: Jesus was a false prophet.

The problem is that the Western Wall was indeed part of the Jewish temple. [3] Second problem with this "explanation" is that there are two more reports of this incident:

1) Mark 13:1-2, "And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, 'Master, see what manner of stones and buildings are here! And Jesus answering said to him, "See these great buildings? There shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be throne down.

2) Luke 19:41-44, "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, "If you had known, even, at least in this day, the things which belong unto your peace! but now they are hid from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you, that your enemies will cast a trench about you, and compass you round, and keep you in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and your children within youi; and they shall not leave in you one stone upon another; because you knew not the time of your visitation."

From Mark's version, it seems clear that Jesus refers to the entire Temple complex, including all its "stones and buildings"; but it is in Luke that removes all ambiguity because he took the whole city of Y'rushalayim, which certainly does include portions of the wall shown in my photograph of round 1. [4]

Removal of the Torah?

Unlike what my partner may suggest, the kosher laws are indeed Biblical. [5]

C3: Jesus did not fullfill the Messianic prophecies

My partner's rebuttal was especially week on this, and we will see why in just a sec.

1) World peace?

The passages I quoted certainly discuss the Messianic era. Every time the scriptures use the phrases "in that day", "the terrible day of the Lord" or anything about the last days, we are to understand it to discuss the Messianic era.

Isaiah 2:4, "And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Sounds like world peace to me!

As a christian, I do believe in the eternal peace that will be brought about by the messiah Jesus. However, we believe he will do this in his second coming.

This just proves my point that Jesus did not fulfill everything in his first coming. This is also an argument from silence. Likewise, Jesus was suppose to come back in the lifetime of his followers. [6]


2) Universal knowlege of God and Torah observance

Sorry for no reference: Jeremiah 31:31-34; Zechariah 8:23; Isaiah 11:9; Zechariah 14:9,16; Isaiah 11:9

3) Gather Jews back to the land of Israel

I fail to see why this shows my argument false. Throughout the Bible, G-d often uses people to accomplish His will. A good example of that is in 1 Chronicles:

1 Chronicles 10:13-15: So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against Yahweh, because he did not keep the word of Yahweh, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance. But he did not inquire of Yahweh; therefore He killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse (1 Chron. 10:13-15)

Conclusion: Jesus is not the Messiah; the Messiah is not yet come!


==Notes and Sources==

http://www.debate.org...



Wandile

Con

I thank my opponent for his interesting rebuttals.
He makes some very bold statements and huge claims. He also presents some intriguing theological ideas. As we shall see, he again makes some crucial errors.

C1 : JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS TO BE THE MESSIAH

My opponent states :

"Your argument is refuted by the text itself. Women ONLY kept the right to the inheritance if they married not only within the same tribe-- but within the same clan"

This is true and I'm baffled as to how my opponent see the text as refuting my arguments. Let's see of Mary meets the requirements set forth in my opponents paragraph above (which are based on Numbers 36:7-8).

The argument I put forward is actually affirmed by the text itself! The text supports the case that I am presenting. The two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 show that Mary and Joseph were both of the tribe of Judah and via Davidic decendency, through their common relation to David, Mary and Joseph are not only of the same tribe, but of the same tribal clan! Here is the seal of the argument : Mary had no brothers and so was entitled to inherit her family's land as long as she married someone who too was a descendant of David (same clan). Joseph fit the bill and being of the royal line, he had a claim to the throne, but carries the blood curse. No biological son of his could ever legally qualify as Israel's king, but Joseph could secure Mary's right of inheritance. When Mary accepted Joseph's marriage offer, she preserved her family's land and also made good her son's (Jesus) claim to the throne of Israel as Joseph legally took Jesus as his own son, thus giving Jesus the right to the throne. Jesus was in royal succession through Joseph but escaped the curse since he wasn't Joseph's biological son. But he was a biological descendant of David's through his mother and therefore was of "the house of David". Hence Jesus easily lays claim to the throne as he is of the tribe of Judah, through Mary marrying within her same clan as well as Jesus being granted royal succession through the Joseph legally taking Jesus as his own son.

My opponent proceeds to say :

"You now attempt to defend two conflicting lineages which I believe I explained well. Joseph's lineage would be immaterial if he were not the biological father, and if he was not the biological father, his lineage was disqualified because he went through the line of Jeconiah."

Immaterial? Disqualified? REALLY???

My opponent fails to realise that by him disqualifying the lineage of Joseph, he is inadvertently disqualifying the throne of David! Joseph was in actuality the holder of the throne. He was supposed to be the King of Israel if the Davidic throne had not been disqualified by the Romans when they elected non-Davidic persons to be Israel's kings e.g. Herod the Great. The messiah has to be of not just any Davidic lineage through Solomon, but of the ROYAL Davidic lineage through Solomon in order to lay claim to the throne. This royal lineage, ironically, is the very lineage of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus! Jesus , through legal reasons, inherits all that Joseph offers to him... This includes Joseph's lineage! Jesus as such legally descends from the line of the royal kings and was next in line to claim the throne! Jesus legally held rights to the throne and also did not bare the blood curse! Now you as the viewer tell me, taking all this into consideration-- who better than Jesus to be the Messiah? He fits perfectly doesn't he?

I'll let you decide that one

For more info : http://www.letusreason.org...

My opponent continues :

"False! Legends in the Talmud say that the one who MIGHT have been Jesus of the Christian bible was actually the child of a Roman soldier."

Notice the 'evidence' that acts as the authority of his argument... A LEGEND! This immediately discredits his source on this topic as it is purely mythical and he even admits this by calling it a 'legend'. Secondly the Talmud was written near to the close of the 1st century AD, well after the first three gospels had been written. Thirdly my opponent is basing his argument on a racist 'jewish supremacist' book that writes badly about non-jews. Such a biased source could really not be used as a piece of evidence as it is completely unauthoritative and is merely a "legend".

My opponent goes on to say :

"False! Please present a Biblical (or Talmudic) account. A child born as a priest ( a kohein) is ALWAYS a kohein even if adopted by someone from the tribe of Judah. Adoption does not change tribal status-- it is only biological from a Jewish father to his jewish child."

This argument amounts to a simple unauthoritative expression, "Nuh-uh!". I already explained how Jesus became part of the tribe of Judah by earlier in this post and in last round. Further more LEGALITY was and is what was and is important. If Jesus' sonship was legally recognised then he legally inherits Joseph's decendency. Joseph as noted was Jesus' LEGAL father. You do the maths...

C2 : JESUS WAS A FALSE PROPHET

My opponent displays poor conduct by using deception to prove his case. He deceptively claims that the Luke 19:41-44 is the Lukan account of Matthew 24:1-2 and Mark 13:1-2. This is a LIE! Luke 19:41-44 is recording a totally different situation and the prophecy in the passage is apocalyptic hence it will only be fulfilled in the end times.

HERE is the Lukan account of Matthew 24:1-2 :

"Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, "As for what you see here, the tome will come when not one stone will be left on another, every one of them will be thrown down." (Luke 21: 5-6)

Notice that the text establishes very early, the subject of the discussion which was the Temple itself. Jesus in response to his disciples remarks about the temple itself, prophecies against the temple saying that "not one stone will be left on another, every one of them will be thrown down". Like I said earlier, this was fulfilled in 70AD when the romans destroyed the temple right to its very foundations and today not one remnant of the temple is left on the site that it once stood... Just as Jesus had prophesied!

# Removal of the Torah ?

Like I said, Jesus did away with the Kosher laws of men. The Torah does have some Kosher laws which I am well aware of. However Jesus was addressing the Kosher laws of the Oral Torah which are purely from men, secondly Jesus never says the Torah will be abolished but rather affirmed its eternalness right down to the smallest dot :

" I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is fulfilled."
(Matthew 5:18)

He says this in reference to the messianic mission that he was and is still on.

1) World peace

My opponent says :

"The passages I quoted certainly discuss the Messianic era. Every time the scriptures use the phrases, "in that day","the terrible day of the Lord" or anything about the last days, we are to understand it to discuss the Messianic era."

And I suppose we are just supposed to take my opponents word on this?

This is an appeal to questionable interpretation. The problem with prophecy is that various interpretations can be drawn from one prophetic passage in scripture. Nobody can ever be 100% certain what a prophecy actually means until the day it is fulfilled. Hence "in that day" and "the terrible day of the Lord" could easily be interpreted as referring to Judgement Day or any other particular day that God has set a date with. All we can really be sure of is that which has been fulfilled and that the unfulfilled scriptures that use the phrases mentioned by my opponent are apocalyptic in nature, nothing more. Everything else about prophecy is open to all interpretation and no one cane be sure who is right until the prophecy is fulfilled. We can only know for sure once it comes to pass.

My opponent proceeds to say :

"Thus just proves my point that Jesus did not fulfil everything in his first coming. This is also an argument from silence. Likewise, Jesus was supposed to come back in the life time of his followers."

This is completely false and boarders on being a straw man. Jesus is supposed to come back at the end of this generation or age (end of the world). Secondly the second coming of the Messiah is firmly rooted in scripture. I'll elaborate on this next round as I am short on time.

2) Universal knowledge of God and Torah observance

I would first like to point out that I am extremely upset by what my opponent has done. He merely makes claims about passages and simply references them. He has forgotten that he has the BOP and as such, he has to actually not just claim and provide quotes, but actually show how his claims relate to the quotes and thus show how they prove his case! He does not do this and thus indirectly shifts the BOP on to me and forces me to do all the work to prove my case when in fact, the BOP is on him and I simply have to disprove his case! Simply citing a source is not good enough since he has the BOP. He needs to critically dissect his references and I as the contender need to disprove his findings. However, for the sake of debate, will proceed to provide the actual words to the referenced passages and dissect each claim my opponent has made.

Jeremiah 31:31-34

" "The time is coming", declares the LORD," when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them out of Egypt because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,"
Declares the LORD. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD', because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

The verse in question actually discusses a promise of a New Covenant which will be unlike the Old (the Law) that was made the Jew's forefathers (Jer 31:31-32). The Law was part of the Covenant made to their forefathers and was replaced by the New Covenant that began at the Crucifixion of Jesus and it was also at this point that God forgave man's wickedness. God, in the passage, proceeds to say that he will put the law in our minds and inscribe it on our hearts to keep the eternalness of the law this is true and is firmly rooted in New Testament teachings in Hebrews 8:7-12, in which Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted to support the Christian teachings of the New Covenant.

See here : http://www.bible.cc...

Zechariah 8:23, 14:9 and 14:16 :

"This is what the LORD Almighty says : 'in those days ten men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, "let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you." "

This verse speaks about the end times being the period in which universal knowledge of God will be apparent. This is a prophecy yet to be fully fulfilled but is being fulfilled right before your eyes as today 2 Billion professing christians now cling onto one Jew, Jesus and through him know the God of Israel. Most of the world has heard about the God of Israel because of this one Jewish man! You can't ignore this! This is the prophecy being fulfilled right before your eyes.

"The LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD, and His name the only name"

This speaks about the eternal king who is God after the day of judgement. Christian teaching teaches this too. So I don't see your case here. Messiah is the one with an eternal dominion ye here it says God has and eternal dominion. This would makes o much more sense if the christian teaching that Jesus is God was applied. For judaism, this passage poses a problem for your understanding of who the messiah is and actually hurts your case.

"Then the survivors. From all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and celebrate the Feats of Tabernacles"

This is still a problem for judaism as the eternal king here is God. Yet scripture teaches Messiah will have the eternal kingdom on the throne of David. This passage does little to disprove Jesus as Messiah and it is actually a post-apocalyptic prophecy.

3) Gather the Jews back to Israel

The problem with is that in 1 Chronicles 10:13-15, God let's us know how he plans to accomplish his promise. He tells us that he will use Saul. On the other hand. Ezekiel 36:24 only mentions God himself accomplishing His mission and never mentions the use of a man to accomplish God's will for Him.

Anyway the prophecy is not messianic as it has begun to be fulfilled by the hand of God himself when in 1948, the State of Israel was established and the Jews began to flock back to Israel. Today. The State of Israel is the only predominantly jewish country in the world. Every year jews migrate to Israel just as God promised. It is a prophecy that is being fulfilled right before our very eyes!

Conclusion :

Jesus fulfilled the requirements to be the Jewish Messiah. He is the perfects fit for the position and fulfilled the necessary requirements to be Messiah. As such, I still lay claim to my position that Jesus was indeed the Jewish Messiah.

REFERENCES :

[1] http://www.learnthebible.org...
[2] http://www.answersingenesis.org...
[3] The New International Version Bible
[4] http://www.learnthebible.org...
[5] http://www.letusreason.org...
[6] http://www.instituteofbiblicaldefense.com...
[7] http://www.bible.cc...
Debate Round No. 3
Mr.Infidel

Pro

Thank you, Wandile, for an engaging debate. It is truly an honor to debate someone as formidable and knowlegable as you. However, I do believe you have committed a fatal error in your previous round. Unfortunately, due to time restraints from vacations and final exams have not allowed me to fully refute your arguments. I am going to nail down a couple of stuff, though not everything. PLEASE NOTE: WHAT I HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO I AM NOT CONCEDING!

C2: Jesus the false prophet

My partner keeps insisting that Jesus only done away with the ORAL law: However, I can easily argue that the Oral Torah is as much from God as the written Torah (more on this later). Let's actually see if my partner's contention "Jesus was addressing the Kosher laws of the Oral Torah which are purely from men," is true.

Jn 6:51I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.Jn 6:53Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.Jn 6:54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.Jn 6:55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.Jn 6:56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Here, Jesus argues for the Cathoic doctrine of Transubtantiation. As my partner is part of the Catholic church, I imagine that he believes in this doctrine.

It is clear that this is literal as they understood it to be such. Early Christians such as Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ. [1]

The problem, of course, is that it is very clear that the Torah CONDEMNS drinking/eating blood:

Leviticus 22:26-27: You shall not consume blood... from fowl or animal. Any soul that consumes blood will be cut off from his people.

Leviticus 17:10-12: Any man of the House of Israel and of the proselyte who dwells among them, consume any blood -- I shall concentrate My attention upon the soul consuming blood, and I will cut it off from its people.

Deuteronomy: 12:23: Only be strong as not to eat blood...

To quote Rav Shimon Ben Azai: "if blood, which is so repulsive, needs such dire warnings surely one must take great precaution not to succumb to sins that are appealing."

(Note that the Torah also condemns this in the Noahic covanent for Gentiles as well).

I will respond to the rest in the next round. Due to finals, I humbly request that my partner wait until about 5 hours before the time runs out to submit his arguments, that way I can be sure to not forfeit.



References

1. http://www.catholicapologetics.org...

Wandile

Con

I thank my opponent for posting an argument in spite of the circumstances he is in. Since he has not addressed my former arguments, and said that he has not conceded to them, I will not elaborate on them. I will only address the one he has put forward this round.

C2 : JESUS THE FALSE PROPHET

What one first needs to establish is that since the New Testament has been referenced, the teachings need to be understood within the scope of the New Testament. With that being said, let us proceed.

My opponent and many others do and will continue to quote from three books against the consumption of blood : Genesis 9:4, "Only flesh with its life blood still in it you shall not eat"; Leviticus 3:17, 17:10, 19:26, "You shall not partake of...any blood. And if anyone...partakes of any blood, I will set myself against the one who partakes of blood and will cut him off. Do not eat meat with blood still in it"; Deuteronomy 12:16,23,24,27, "You shall not partake of the blood". Most protestants thus reject transubstantiation and say that God is explicitly saying that Christ is not offering His blood for drink because of this rule. But such an understanding of the Bible is out of context.

If one were to read why we cannot drink the blood of an animal, the Bible will tell them this :

"The life of a living body is in its blood, it is the blood, as the seat of life, that makes atonement. That is why I have told the Israelites : None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."
(Leviticus 17:11-12)

"The life of every living body is its blood."
(Leviticus 17:14)

"For the blood is life...the seat of life."
(Deuteronomy 12:23)

God is telling us that life is the blood. This is why God tells us not to consume animal blood, because animals cannot give us life as it only serves for the life of the creature. But rather, Jesus is life, and can give us life. According to God, Jesus, life is the blood, His blood. And if we want that life, we must do as He says when he said :

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats of my flesh and drinks of my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day..."
(John 6:53-56)

For more information on Jesus and the blood issue : http://www.catholicquarter.com...
and also see [5]

The blood of an animal cannot give us eternal life. Hence we are told not to drink it. Rather the blood of the Messiah, who is God, gives us eternal life. The only thing that needs to be proved, for Jesus' words to be true, is that Jesus is the Messiah and the Messiah is God. The messianic prophecies prove both points :

MESSIAH IS GOD

"For to us a child is born, to us a so is given, and the governments will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
(Isaiah 9:6)

"A voice of one calling: 'in the desert prepare the way for YHWH; makes straight in the wilderness a highway for our God...' "
(Isaiah 40:3)

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign : The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."
(Isaiah 7:14) [ Immanuel means God with us ]

" 'The days are coming', declares YHWH, 'when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch. A King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.... This is the name by which he will be called : YHWH Our Righteousness'. "
(Jeremiah 23:5-6)

"And YHWH said to me, 'Throw it to the potter- the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of YHWH to the potter."
(Zechariah 11:13)

SOME IMPORTANT MESSIANIC PROPHESIES THAT JESUS FULFILLED

Messiah must be born in Bethlehem :
Micah 5:2 fulfilled in Matthew 2:1

Messiah must be born of a Virgin :
Isaiah 7:14 fulfilled in Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:31, 35 and Luke 2:4-6

Messiah will come during the second temple period, and after he dies the temple will be destroyed :

Daniel 9:24-26 fulfilled in Matthew 2:1 and as we know Jesus died before 70AD and a few decades after he was cut off, the temple was destroyed.

Messiah will be betrayed and sold for 30 silver pieces :
Zechariah 11:11-13 fulfilled in Matthew 26:14-16

Messiah will be pierced in his body to kill him and many will look upon him(crucifixion) :
Zechariah 12:10 fulfilled in John 19:28-37

Messiah's clothes will be gambled over while he is being killed :
Psalm 22:18 fulfilled in John 19:34

None of Messiah's bones will be broken :
Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Psalm 34:20 fulfilled in John 19: 33-36

Messiah will die for the sins of the world :
Isaiah 53:4-5 fulfilled in John 29-37

Messiah will be buried like a criminal in a rich mans tomb :
Isaiah 53:9 fulfilled in John 19:38,42

Jesus fulfilled over 300 of the messianic prophecies including the most essential ones. If you want to see more that he fulfilled : http://www.scripturecatholic.com...

For more fulfilled prophecies see[1] and [2]

In conclusion I still hold my position that Jesus is Messiah as he has upheld the requirements to be the messiah. I look forward to my opponents final rebuttals

REFERENCES :

[1]http://www.bibleprobe.com...
[2] http://www.bprc.org...
[3] Messiah was to come during the 2nd temple period http://www.jesusplusnothing.com...
[4] http://www.christianthinktank.com...
[5] http://www.biblemeanings.info...
Debate Round No. 4
Mr.Infidel

Pro

I'd like to thank my partner for an incredible debate. Unfrotunately, my partner brought up the newer arguments in the last round which is going to be a pain to have to refute every one of them. I'd like to start a separate debate with you debating each of these prophecies.==Rebuttals==I'm going to first start with the new arguments that my partner brought up. MESSIAH IS GODUnfortunately for my partner, the verse he brought up is mistranslated. The correct translation should be "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the ruler of peace; that the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts does perform this." The prophet Isaiah is often known to use a method by which he presents many of his messages through prophetic names. In fact, Isaiah 8 tells us that 'all of his sons were given for signs.' When we critically examine this verse under study, Isaiah is formulating a prophetic name for king Hezekiah. The words of this name express G-d's greatness, which becomes manifest in benifits bestowed upon the future king in his lifetime. Hezekiah is called "a wonderful counselor" because it is a sign which fortells God's design for him.

The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying: "As I have thought, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand, that I will break Asshur in My land, and upon My mountains trample him under foot; then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulder." This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? And His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back? (Isaiah 14:24-27)


Be not afraid of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me. Behold, I will put a spirit in him, and he shall hear a rumor, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. (Isaiah 37:6-7)

"the mighty God" refers to the sign that fortells God's defense of Jerusalem through the death of Sennacherib's army. "The everlasting father" fortells that God is going to add extra years in his life. Source: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org... of a virgin: Isaiah 7:14 This is a gross mistranslation! "immanu'él"sh'mov'kara'tbénv'yoledetharahha-al'mahhinneh -The Hebrew text Let's examine each word. Hinneh means "behold", or "see." It is a word used by the prophets to denote a declaration of major signifigance, but may be used in common speech in the sense of "there is/are" for pointing something out. Thirdly, it is an eclamation of astonishment rather like the word "WOW!," Second is the word ha-al'mah, which roughly translates as "that teenage girl" or maiden. Is this al'mah a virgin or not? Let's continue to find out!The next two words are harah and v'yoledet. These are critical when translating this verse properly. There can be absolutely no argument abotu the second word v'yoldent which is the singular feminine present participle of the word meaning "to give birth" and it means "[she] is giving birth." In other words, the prophet is telling us that she is not only pregnat, but about to give birth at any moment, and used this present participle to indicate immediacy. [1] Potter's field: Zechariah 11:13 I fail to see how this is a messianic prophecy! This isn't even a prophecy! Matthew applies this verse to Jeremiah--NOT zechariah! SOME IMPORTANT MESSIANIC PROPHESIES THAT JESUS FULFILLED"Born in Bethlehem."Even if I concede this, this does not show Jesus is messiah as many people were born in Bethlehem. Likewise, under critical examination, we see some serious flaws (though I'll concede this for this debate). Messiah will be pierced in his body to kill him and many will look upon him(crucifixion) :Zechariah 12:10 fulfilled in John 19:28-37Let's look at Zechariah 12:10 one last time.

10. "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication, and they will look onto Me whom (et asher) they have pierced and they will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep for Him like the weeping over a first born. 11. In that day there will be a great mourning in Jerusalem like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12. and the land will mourn every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself; and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself; and their wives by themselves..."

The word et asher should be translated "concerning whom." However, there is a bigger problem: John mistranslates this:19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. This is a serious misquote. Likewise, when we examine critically the correct translation, we receive this:"they will look onto Me concerning whom they have pierced and they will mourn for him" The question is: Did the Jews "mourn" for Jesus? According to the new Testament, no! What is the historical conncetion to Hadadrimmon in the plain of Migiddo? Well, that is where Josiah died (2 Kings 23:29-30). After his death all of Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him (2 Chron 35:22-25). Zechariah is comparing the mourning to that which was heard in when king Josiah died. This obviosusly has not happened when Jesus was killed! Source: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org...'s clothes will be gambled over while he is being killed :Psalm 22:18 fulfilled in John 19:34Psalm 22 is anotehr case of circular reasoning and mistranslation. None of Messiah's bones will be broken :Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Psalm 34:20 fulfilled in John 19: 33-36Messiah will die for the sins of the world :Isaiah 53:4-5 fulfilled in John 29-37Messiah will be buried like a criminal in a rich mans tomb :Isaiah 53:9 fulfilled in John 19:38,42Reference1. http://mordochai.tripod.com...

(Note: I am out of time and when I did this it completely destroyed the format. PLEASE forgive me!)

300*0=0!
Wandile

Con

I thank my opponent for such and intriguing and entertaining debate. I wish to debate him in future as he truly is a worthy opponent. It must be noted that my opponent failed to address my former arguments from round 3 and thus I can safely conclude that he concedes them.

Messiah is God

My opponent only addresses one of the verses that prove the Deity of messiah. As a result I have concluded that he concedes these points. With that being said, I'll address the one argument that he put forward concerning this argument.

My opponent says :

"...Unfortunately for my partner, the verse he brought up is mistranslated."

Let us examine this issue more critically to see whether this accusation is true or not :

The passage in question (Isaiah 9:6) indicates that Messiah, called the stem of Jesse, and Branch, will have YHWH's spirit of council. Therefore, he will be called a 'Wonderful Counsellor'.

The subject of Isaiah 9:6 is also called "the Mighty God", although my opponent says this is a mistranslation. It is NOT a mistranslation but is in fact, a correct rendering of the Hebrew phrase "El gibbor". This is a title that is reserved exclusively for God and God alone. This title is used in one other place, in Isaiah 10:20-21 :

"... The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the Mighty God (El gibbor)."

In actual fact, in the entire Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), only the LORD (YHWH) is called "El gibbor". This illustration clearly establishes the Deity of the child to be born. He would be the Almighty God Himself! This is the same child prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 when Isaiah referred to the child as Immanuel, meaning "God with us". The child would be God with us, He is the Mighty God, the Messiah! This confirms the Deity of Messiah, who is the promised saviour of Israel, and is in strong concordance Isaiah 43:11 where God says :

"I, even, I am the LORD, and apart from me there is no saviour."

Messiah is the saviour of Israel, yet apart from God there is not saviour... You do the maths.

My opponent proceeds to say :

"When we critically examine the verse under study, Isaiah is formulating a prophetic name for King Hezekiah. The words of this name express God's greatness, which becomes manifest in benefits bestowed upon the future king in his lifetime. Hezekiah is called 'a wonderful counsellor' because it is a sign which for tells God's design for him."

This whole argument is completely false. In no logical way could this passage possibly be referring to King Hezekiah. During the reign of Hezekiah, the Assyrians came to destroy the cities of Judah and capture Jerusalem. It was an extremely bleak time because Assyria was a world empire.
Because of the events in the Bible, it is possible to determine Hezekiah's age when this attack occurred. According to 2 Kings 18:1-2, Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he began to reign. The Bible establishes that Sannacherib's army (the Assyrians) attacked the cities of Judah during the fourteenth year of Hezekiah's reign (2 Kings 18:13). Hezekiah thus, was 39 years old (25+14) at the time the attack took place.

Now taking into account the fact that Isaiah wrote this prophecy during Hezekiah's reign and since King Hezekiah was already 39 years old during the Assyrian invasion, there could be no possible way that the phrase "for to us a child is born" could apply to a 39 year old man who had already been King of Judah for 14years! Bare in mind the child in the prophecy was still yet to be born, but King hezekiah, at this point in time, was already 39 years old! It is absolutely insulting to attempt to apply the verse to a 39 year old King. The age factor alone eliminates Hezekiah as the subject of Isaiah 9:6-7.
http://www.kingmessiahproject.com...

In fact the scholars of the oldest extant Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, had this to say concerning Isaiah 9:6 :

"Isaiah 9:6 is applied to Messiah in Targum" - Deburim R1(ed. Wash p4)

" 'The government shall be on his shoulders', is attentested by Rabbinical authorities as messainic. Whose shoulders shall the governments be on? The child in v6, the 'almighty God'. "
(Edernheim's list and at Qumran)

For more info : http://www.doxa.ws...

# JEWISH AUTHORITIES ATTEST TO THE DEITY OF MESSIAH

Rinto Santala states that even Rashi, one of the greatest rabbis of Judaism, saw the passage as speaking of Messiah's deity :

"Rashi refers to psalm 72 in his exposition of Micah chapter 5 verse 2, which says o
f the Ruler of Israel who will be born in Bethlehem that his 'origins are from old, from ancient times'. According to Rashi he is, 'the messiah, the Son of David'. As psalm 118 says, he is the 'stone which the builders rejected' and his origins are from ancient times, from 'before the sun was', his name was Yinnon. "

Rashi, as well as the other rabbis believed that the Messiah of Israel existed before creation. They based it on Micah 5:2 and other texts. The thing is, there was nothing before the creation except God.

David Kimchi, another rabbi revered in judaism, also known as Radak, realised this too, and specifically spike of Messiah's deity from the passage in Micah. The rabbis praised Radak's understanding of spiritual matters and said that without his insight into scripture, "there is no correct biblical exegesis." Radak said of Micah 5:2 :

"It will be said in the messianic age that his 'origins are from old, from ancient times...from Bethlehem' means that he will be of the house of David, because there is a long period of time between David and the Messiah King; and he is El (God), which is how he is 'from old, fromancient times.' "

For more on this : http://www.seedofabraham.net...

Messiah will be born of a virgin

My opponent states that the verse I provided is a 'gross mistranslation'. Scores of Jews will argue to the death that this verse does not teach a virgin birth. They will argue that the Hebrew word 'Almah' has been incorrectly translated by christians as 'virgin' instead of 'young women'. However my opponent is once again incorrect despite his noticed attempts to provide the hebrew and explain how translation works. This is why he is incorrect :

The argument over the word "almah" goes back at least to Justin Matyr (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chapter 43, written soon after 135AD). Jerome also debated the matter with a rabbi, who said that if Isaiah had meant 'virgin' he would have said "Bethulah", to which Jerome correctly replied that if Isaiah had meant 'young women', he would have said "Naarah". Now "Bethulah" is the word that the Hebrew Bible uses when it wants to make virginity explicit e.g. Deuteronomy 22. It is from a root meaning "to separate".

"Naarah" is the female equivalent to "naar", meaning a youth, a young man, a lad. "Ishah" is the female equivalent of "Ish" meaning a man. "Almah", the word Isiah uses is from a root meaning "hidden or veiled" and occurs just seven times in the hebrew scriptures. It can be translated as either virgin, maiden or young women but the context and sentence construction is key in determining which is appropriate.

We now are left with the text in Isaiah. About 175years before the birth of Christ, Jewish scholars translated the hebrew scriptures into Greek (The septuagint or LXX) and used the word "Parthenos" (virgin in english) in translating "almah" in Isaiah 7:14. It should be noted that the jewish scholars in Alexandria in 175BC are better equipped to tell what Isaiah meant by "almah" in 700BC than anyone living today, simply by being closer to the hebrew usage of Isaiah's day. This is one of the most important factors in textual criticism. This point proves quite detrimental to my opponent's case as the Jewish scholars of the day translated the word "almah" as 'virgin' or in greek, "parthenos", rather than 'young women'. This proves the translation I provided is correct as the scribes of the Septuagint, a translation done by Jews for Jews and affirmed by the High Priest in Jerusalem in 2nd century BC, translated the passage as "behold, a virgin (parhtenos) shall conceive...".

For more in depth information on the "almah" issue : http://www.jewishroots.net...

Concerning Zechariah 11:13

My opponent states :

"I fail to see how this is a messianic prophecy! This isn't even a prophecy..."

The prophecy fortells the messiah's betrayal for 30 silver pieces. This is exactly what happened to Jesus when he was sold for 30 sliver pieces. Judas later went back to the temple and threw the pieces into the potter to fulfill what was written :

"And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the handsome price which they priced me!.."
(Zechariah 11:13)

secondly my opponent states that Matthew references Jeremiah, not Zechariah. This is false. Matthew does not provide any reference at all, even if he did reference Jeremiah, it would still prove my case that the prophecy was foretold and fulfilled in Jesus through judas betraying him.

Important messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled

#Born in Bethlehem

Micah 5:2 is concede by my opponent. I will still explain the importance of this prophecy. The Jews of Jesus' time knew this to be a requirement of the messiah as seen in John 7:42 when they question Jesus' messiaship by saying :

"Does not the scripture say that the Messiah will come from David's family andfrom Bethlehem, the town where David lived?"

Despite the Jew's ignorance of the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the passage still reflects that it was a requirement for the Messiah to come from Bethlehem.

# Concerning Zechariah 12:10-12

"Did the Jews mourn for Jesus? According to the new Testament no!"

Actually the NT tells of those Jews who followed Jesus mourned for him at his crucifixion . The disciples hid away and mourned for 3days until they heard of the resurrection of Jesus. A simple reading of the gospels can tell you this. Not all jews mourned, but many did as Jesus did have a following,

# The other prophecies mentioned

My opponent prided no evidence for the numerous accusations that he points against me (mistranslations and circular reasoning). He merely makes claims and moves on to the next issue. As a result I will not address his last paragraph as it is just a host of baseless claims.

Consequently I still confidently hold the position that Jesus was messiah as he met the messianic requirements and is the most likely candidate to be messiah. Jesus stands unopposed in his claim to be messiah and scripture firmly supports his claims. As a result it can be safely concluded that Jesus was the messiah.

References

[1] http://www.seedofabraham.net...
[2] http://www.messiahrevealed.org...
[3] http://www.bibliahebraica.com...
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Stevent wrote:
: My dick is your messiah. Go atheists!

Stay off my side.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
=== continued ===

At one point, Con was upset that Pro wasn't meeting his burden of proof. I didn't understand how Pro had given offense. Pro failing to meet his burden of proof is what every other Con hopes for, so I don't see the grounds for being upset.

-

There was a claim that Jesus fulfilled over three hundred messianic prophesies. It took me a long time, when I thought Pro had gone off topic, to realize that he was responding to this claim. I didn't understand the claim to be significant. Is 300 above par? How many have I fulfilled? Can we consistently claim that Jesus fulfilled 300 prophesies while poo-pooing our opponent's claim that prophesies have meaning we can understand?

Can you be the messiah if you fulfill 300 prophesies while being a false prophet who doesn't fulfill the prophesies that Pro said Jesus didn't fulfill? In other words, are we grading on the curve?

So I didn't give weight to this section of the debate.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
=== continued ===

Secondly, Pro claims that the messiah will be a true prophet, but that Jesus is a false prophet if he changed the law. Con quibbled about some details (did Jesus change man's law or god's law) which I couldn't judge either way, but then he stipulated that Jesus will enter into a new covenant. Sounds like changing the law to me.

So I find for Pro on the second issue, which I have represented in my previous post as, "2. Did Jesus make false prophesies?"

That leaves,
3. Did Jesus fulfill the messianic prophesies?

And here again, Con says they haven't been fulfilled _yet_ but if Jesus ever fulfills them that will somehow count. And we're supposed to believe that he will fulfill them before the end of days. As I said in my previous post, that argument seems to me unpersuasive. Why would god say something would happened "in that generation" if he didn't really mean it? Why would he say something literally false if he could have used other language to convey what he actually meant?

Con was able to say things like "in the end of days" and "before the last judgment," why would Jehovah be more confusing than Con?

Finally Con argued, in effect, that we can tell what any prophesy means, so we shouldn't hold it against him if one _seems_ unfulfilled. That smacks of desperation, of knowing you've lost. If you are going to end up there, you should open with the claim that prophesy means nothing, rather than let yourself be driven to that claim after validating prophesy by attempting to interpret it in your favor.

So, I'm voting that Pro was more persuasive.

-

I didn't understand the claims that Pro was lying and failing to meet his burden of proof. I'm tempted t give Pro conduct for that.

On the other hand, what if he was lying? So what I'd like to see, if someone calls someone else a liar, is proof that he's lying. A bald unsupported claim that one's opponent is lying is at least close to misbehavior.

=== continued ===
Posted by Wandile 4 years ago
Wandile
Wiploc thanks for Voting and for your analysis of the debate. Really appreciated :P

Concerning the generation thing :

Jesus never promised to come back in that time. Generation is used countless times in the bible to refer to. More than one group of people but even time spans of over hundreds of years.

Secondly Jesus' apostles never taught the second coming in 'their time'. Look at the book of revelation.

Anyway I should have addressed this in the debate so its pointless discussing this here.

Note : if you really want to know what Jesus meant, then read the original greek.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I had low comprehension of this debate. How am I supposed to judge, for instance, whether that wall was part of the temple or just "enclosing" the temple? One side says that scripture says something like "all these buildings will fall," which would include that wall even if it just enclosed the temple without being part of it. But the other side says, for some reason not conveyed, that that's a lie.

Many times I felt unable to judge because I lack independent knowledge of the matters discussed. On the other hand, some would say that makes me the perfect judge; because I come to the table without prior prejudices, I can judge based entirely on how the debaters performed.

Well, their performance often left me confused. Maybe that just means it was a close debate.

Three issues determine:

1. Is Jesus of the proper lineage?
2. Did Jesus make false prophesies?
3. Did Jesus fulfill the messianic prophesies?

1. I'll call the first one a draw, though I didn't feel too good about the claim that the messiah has to be of a certain lineage but not really since that's a bad lineage, so the only way to qualify is to be adopted in. Weird. That feels like sleight-of-hand.

2. Seems to me that Pro won this one. Firstly, Jesus said he'd return in that generation but he didn't. (Yes, that wasn't in the debate, but let it stand for Pro's examples that are less clear in my mind.) Con's response is to argue that if Jesus may yet one day do something, then it still somehow counts because "in that generation" should be read as meaning something like, "any time up to the end of days."

That's not persuasive. You wouldn't say, "in those days," or, "in that generation," if you meant other, later, days. To make this argument, Con has to rob these phrases of their meaning. Bertrand Russell said that people only decide that things are true in some newfangled way when they have given up on them being true in a regular way.

=== continued ===
Posted by Mr.Infidel 4 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Thanks for bringing up new arguments.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 4 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Thanks
Posted by Wandile 4 years ago
Wandile
That's ok man. I wish you good luck for your finals :)
Posted by Mr.Infidel 4 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Sorry for a poor round.
Posted by Wandile 4 years ago
Wandile
You do realise that Mr.Infidel is part of these Abrahamic 'cults' that you clearly despise... He is Jewish lol
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by wierdman 4 years ago
wierdman
Mr.InfidelWandileTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave wandile the vote because frankly, he made the better argument and the better counter throughout the debate.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Mr.InfidelWandileTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: 3:1. Definitely a long and hard debate to judge, but I'd say Con did a better job refuting. Good job to both of you. You obviously both did your homework.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Mr.InfidelWandileTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 4 years ago
Buckethead31594
Mr.InfidelWandileTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides did very well- I must appluad Mr.Infidel for his commitment, I was in a similar debate with him and I know that he was very busy and likely stressed; for this, Pro gets conduct. Overall, Con had superior arguments and utilized his sources. In the future, Pro should use more sources to enhance his arguments.