The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Jesus is not the Messiah

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,414 times Debate No: 44315
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




I thank my janetsanders733 for agreeing to debate this utmost important topic with me.


Resolved: Jesus of Nazareth is not the promised Messiah.

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.


1. Acceptance only
2. Opening arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals
5. Closing arguments/rebuttals

The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.

The burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to show that Jesus is not the Messiah, and it is incumbent on my opponent to show that Jesus IS the messiah. It is thus not enough to simply refute my arguments. My opponent must also erect his own case against the probability of Jesus being the messiah.


I accept, state your case.
Debate Round No. 1


Shalom alechim,

I thank my partner for accepting this debate and wish him the best of luck.

I. What (or whom) is the “Messiah”

Before we get into whether or not Jesus was the Messiah, we must first know what a Messiah is. In the Hebrew language, the word “Messiah” is מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyahP3;). It is important to note that “Messiah” is not the translation of the word mashiyahP3;, rather it is the English-equivalent of the title.[1]

A “messiah” is simply someone who had been “anointed.” Anointment, or smearing with the Oil of Sacred Anointment as per Exodus 30:22-23, was a ceremony that took place at the coronation of a Hebrew king.[2]

Who is called a “messiah” in Scriptures? Well, King Cyrus is called “His mashiyah” in Isaiah 45:1[3]

כֹּֽה־אָמַ֣ר יְיָ֘ לִמְשִׁיחוֹ֘ לְכ֣וֹרֶשׁ ׀ אֲשֶׁר־הֶחֱזַ֣קְתִּי בִֽימִינ֗וֹ לְרַד־לְפָנָיו֙ גּוֹיִ֔ם וּמָתְנֵ֥י מְלָכִ֖ים אֲפַתֵּ֑חַ לִפְתֹּ֤חַ לְפָנָיו֙ דְּלָתַ֔יִם וּשְׁעָרִ֖ים לֹ֥א יִסָּגֵֽרוּ׃

So said Adonai to His messiah, concerning Koresh (Cyrus) — whom I siezed by his right hand to flatten nations before him, and I will loosen kings’ loins — to open portals before him and gates will not be closed....

Moreover, in the book of Samuel, King Saul and David are called “m’shiyah adonai” or “Adonai’s Messiah.” Saul is called this several times (see I Samuel 12:3, 12:5, etc.) and David gets this title three times in 2 Samuel (19:21, 22:51 and 23:1) and once in Psalms (18:50)!

This effectively refutes the Christian notion that Jesus “Christ” is the one and only Messiah that was to come. Obviously, there were many more “Messiahs”, and NONE OF THEM refer to God Himself!

II. Jesus did not qualify to be the “Messiah”

According to Scriptures, the Messiah MUST:

  1. 1. Be a descendant of King David through Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-16)
  2. 2. Be a political/military leader (Isaiah 2:3, 11:2-3,6; Daniel 7:14)
  3. 3. Must be married and have children during his lifetime (Ezekiel 46:16-17)

The genealogy is passed from the father (Numbers 1:18). Because Jesus did not have a biological father, Jesus could NOT be the descendant of David through Solomon.

Jesus was never a king or a political/military leader.

Finally, according to the New Testament, Jesus was God; therefore, he could not be married and have children.

III. Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies

According to the prophets, the Messiah will:

  1. 1. Be heralded by the return of Elijah (Malachi 3:1, 23-24)
  2. 2. Rebuild the third temple (Ezekiel 40-48)
  3. 3. In-gathering the Jewish exiles to the Promised Land (Isaiah 11:12)
  4. 4. Reunifying Judah and Israel into one people (Ezekiel 37:22, 24)
  5. 5. Establish world peace (Isaiah 2:4)
  6. 6. Bring about the universal knowledge of God (Isaiah 11:9)
  7. 7. Realizing the general resurrection of the dead (Daniel 12:2)

Obviously, Jesus did not fulfill any of these Messianic prophecies.

I turn it over to you.



I would like to thank my opponent for his opening argument. I will now argue why Jesus is the Messiah

I. Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy
Jesus fulfilled over 300 OT prohecies that were required of the Messiah. I don't have enough room to list all of them, so I will go ahead and list a few.
1. Jesus will be born in the town of Bethlehem. Prophecy: Micah 5:2. Fulfilled: Luke 2:1–7.
2. Jesus will be called out of Egypt. Prophecy: Hosea 11:1. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:13–15.
3. Jesus will be a descendent of Isaac and Jacob. Prophecy: Genesis 17:19 and Numbers 24:17. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:2.
4. Jesus entered the temple. This is important because the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and was never rebuilt. Prophecy: Malachi 3:1. Fulfilled: Luke 2:25–27.
5. Jesus will be from the lineage of King David. Prophecy: Jeremiah 23:5. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:6.
6. Jesus’ birth will be accompanied with great suffering and sorrow. Prophecy: Jeremiah 31:15. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:16.

II, Jesus fulfilled the purpose of the Messiah
Daniel considers the prophecy in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:10-14; 29:10-14) regarding the seventy years of captivity (Daniel 9:2). Daniel knows that the seventy years is coming to an end soon since it is 539 B.C. and the Jews have been in captivity since 605 B.C.[1] This would mean that four years are left. He prays before God and pleads for forgiveness for
Israel’s sin (3-19). Daniel then sees the angel Gabriel who tells him important information about the future of Israel (24-27). God was obviously going to send forth the Messiah to save the people from their sin. There would be a decree to rebuild Jerusalem.
1.. Jerusalem and the Temple would be rebuilt.
2. Then an anointed one (Messiah) would be "cut off" (an idiom for "rejected" or "killed").
3.. Then Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed again.
Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled all of these events in his lifetime.
Jewish Rabbi Rashi interpreted the text as referring to events in the first century relating to the Messiah. The text uses the word Messiah.
In Deuteronomy 18:15-18, Moses told the Jews that God would raise up another prophet like Moses. After Moses, there was a succession of prophets, including Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and finally Jesus Christ. Jesus was very much like Moses. Both were delivered from death as infants. Both were prophets. Both performed miracles. Both were leaders. And both were intermediaries between God and man. Moses offered to die, if necessary, if God would forgive the sins of the people that Moses was leading (see Exodus 32:30-33). Jesus did die for our sins, so that people could enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus proclaimed he was the Messiah.
John 4:19-26

Isaiah 9:6-7
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
This is very obviously pointing to the Messiah as an individual. Jesus was the only one who was crucified, and bore the weight of sin. He claimed equality with the father. (John 14:6) (John 8:12) (John 10:25-30)

III First Conclusion:
If the Messiah is God, and Jesus is not the Messiah although he claimed it and proved it, then who is?
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your opening response.

C1) Jesus fulfilled scripture

My opponent states Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies. If true, it would certainly support his case. However, the verses he used are very weak.

Born in Bethlehem

For a moment, let’s concede that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem. Does this mean Jesus is the Messiah? No. Just because Jesus was born in Bethlehem doesn’t mean that he is the Messiah. Indeed, many people throughout history have been born in Bethlehem. This is circular reasoning.

However, does Micah say that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem? The answer is no. Here is what Micah ACTUALLY states:

וְאַתָּה בֵּית לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה, צָעִיר לִהְיוֹת בְּאַלְפֵי יְהוּדָה;

מִמְּךָ לִי יֵצֵא לִהְיוֹת מוֹשֵׁל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם.

Properly translated, it states: " for you, Beit LehP3;em Efratah, although you are too small to be counted among the 'thousands' of Y'hudah—yet, even so, the one who is to be My ruler in Yisraél will come from you, because his roots were [from you] in the ancient times".

Micah is saying that Beit Lehem, while small and insignificant, one day it would come to be considered King-Messiah’s “home-town”, because it was the birth place of his ancestor King Dovid.

Called out of Egypt

Simply put, Hosea says nothing about the Messiah. READ the verse IN CONTEXT:

“"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.”

The chapter is referring to ISRAEL, not to someone born a few hundred years later.

The Lineage

My opponent states he must be a descendant of Isaac, Jacob, and David. Once again, this is circular reasoning.

On a more serious note, the genealogies is passed from the father. Because Jesus was born of a virgin, he has no legal right to the throne, nor does he have any lineage going back to David.[1]

Jesus entered the Temple

Malachi 3 is talking about the 3rd temple, not the 2nd temple. Indeed, as Jews for Judaism notes in Contra Brown:[2]

In this passage the prophet speaks of a visitation of the Divine into the Temple. But it does not specify in which Temple the manifestation will occur. The prophet simply states that the Master will enter His sanctuary suddenly. This could refer to the future ThirdTemple [sic] as easily as it could refer to the Second. This passage cannot be used as evidence that the Messiah must come before the destruction of the SecondTemple [sic], because the prophecy does not indicate which Temple it is referring to.

What this passage does tell us is that when the manifestation does occur, it will not be a Christian manifestation. Christianity believes that the sacrificial system and the Levitical priesthood were terminated with the advent of Jesus. Malachi has a different message. Malachi teaches that the Levites will be purified so that the offerings of Israel will be pleasing to God exactly as they were in days gone by. There is no way that one can repudiate the Levitical priesthood together with the sacrificial system and claim to fulfill this prophecy at the same time.

Jesus’ birth will be accompanied with great suffering and sorrow

Read the context. Jeremiah is referring to the Babylonian captivity.

C2) Jesus fulfilled the purpose of the Messiah

Daniel 9

Because Daniel 9 is such a difficult prophecy to understand, I have included a video to help understand what I am going to say. My opponent does not need to respond to the video, it is simply there for clarification purposes.[3]

In fact, Daniel 9 states that the messiah CANNOT come before the destruction of the 2nd temple. Who then were the “messiahs” in Daniel 9? Actually there are two, and nowhere does it say HA-Mashiyah or THE Messiah.[4]

The first “anointed one” is King Cyrus and the second “anointed one” is King Agrippa.

Finally, the phrase “…cut off, but not for himself…” does not appear in the Hebrew. It actually says “and he will be cut off and exist no more.” In the Bible, the phrase “cut off” is a punishment for the wicked.

Prophet like unto Moshe

If you read D’varim 18:14-22, you will find that this is not a prophecy; rather it is establishing the office of the prophets and God is promising the Israelites that he will send other prophets after Moshe

21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.

Jesus Claimed to be the Messiah

So what? So did a lot of other people. Indeed, as Jesus himself stated to beware of “false prophets” and “false messiahs.”

Isaiah 9

Isaiah 9 is horribly mistranslated.

כִּי־יֶֽלֶד יֻלַּד־לָֽנוּ, בֵּן נִתַּן־לָֽנוּ, וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה עַל־שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּֽלֶא־יוֹעֵץ־אֵל־גִּבּוֹר־אֲבִי־עַד "שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם"׃

...a boy has been born for us, a son has been given to us, and one day the responsibility of kingship will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity has named him "Peace-Prince".

This is past-tense so this child has already been born. This is in reference to King Hezekiah.


The proof-texts used by Christian missionaries to prove Jesus is the Messiah is based on very weak claims, mistranslations, and quoting out of context.

WHO is the Messiah? We don’t know for sure. One thing is clear: when the Messiah DOES come, no belief will be required as we will KNOW that it has happened.

Over to con.

[1] In Jewish Law, the mother gives the Jewish soul and the father gives the genealogies. See Numbers 1 and the book of Ezra-Nehemyah

[3] Video by Michael Skobak and Jews for Judaism CA

[4] Actually the Hebrew Bible NEVER uses the term “THE Messiah” in reference to the Messiah that will come in the future!



Rebuttal to Born in Bethlehem:

My opponent says that its circular reasoning for saying Jesus is the Messiah because he was born in Bethlehem. However, he never shows how. I was simply just showing that was one of the requirements for the Messiah, and Jesus fulfilled it.

I properly translated Micah 5. It’s obviously referring to the Messiah because it says “My ruler will come from you”. Who is the ruler? Obviously the Messiah, and the Messiah would come from King-David. This proves 1) The Messiah would come from Bethlehem 2) The Messiah would be from the lineage of David. Jesus fulfilled both of these, so my opponent didn’t really disprove my argument, but actually supported it.

Rebuttal to Called out of Egypt:

No this is a prophecy concerning the Messiah who would come out of Egypt. It’s a prophecy using the Messiah as ISRAEL. Jesus came out of Egypt from his birth back to Bethlehem.

Rebuttal to the The Lineage:

My opponent makes the claim that Jesus could not be the Messiah because he does not descend from David. This is silly. Jesus was legally related to Joseph and thus came from the line of David through Joseph (Matthew 1) AND descendant of David through Mary (Luke 3). Moreover, Jesus was a descendent of David through His REAL Father, God. Any one of these three is sufficient in establishing Jesus Davidic lineage. The idea that he could not have descended from David through Mary is without justification.

Rebuttal to Jesus entered the Temple[2]:

Malachai 3 says that the Messiah would “prepare the way for the Lord”. Jesus drove out the temple of the money changers in Matthew 21:12, and Mark 11:15-16. Jesus also fulfilled Psalm 69:9 “Zeal for your house will consume me”. Jesus has zeal for the Father’s house since his people were destroying it.

Rebuttal to Daniel 9[2]:

Even if Daniel 9 is referring to the 3rd Temple, that does not automatically disqualify Jesus as the Messiah. This prophecy could just be a future prophecy for Jesus. This is perfectly in line with Christ, either in the tribulation or second coming or rapture, etc.

Rebuttal to Prophet like unto Moses[3]:

My opponent says that Deuteronomy 18: 14-22 is not referring to the Messiah but to Multiple prophets. However, verse 15 is written in the singular pronoun “he” and “him”.15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—“ The rest of the context is just a warning against false prophets. However, this doesn’t refute that Jesus is the Messiah, nor does it refute it as a prophecy of the Messiah to come. For Christ himself said in John 5:46, when speaking to the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.”

Rebuttal to Isaiah 9[1]:

My opponent accuses me of misrepresenting Isaiah 9. However, what I translated is pretty much the exact same thing he said. In fact I will quote the Hebrew down here below.

“Ki-Yeled Yulad Lanu ben Nitan-Lanu”

My opponent also makes the assumption that Isaiah 9 is referring to King Hezekiah, but how is this possible? There are several reasons why this is false. If you look at the language of Isaiah 9:6-7, you will see that it refers to the ideal King of Israel a.k.a. “The Messianic Hope”. Or in other words, it is referring to God’s presence here on earth. Now my opponent agrees that it is past-tense, so this would make perfect sense that it is referring to God who is pre-existing. In fact there are four terms or attributes used to describe the King. Verse 6 obviously transcends a human being. The word for wonderful counselor is pele in pele yo’etz was used in Judges 13:!8 regarding the name of the Angel of the LORD(In verse 22 he’s identified as God). El Gibbor means Mighty God is obviously a title for the Holy one of Israel. Father of Eternity or Avi’ad refers to God in Isaiah 10:20-21. And Prince of Peace or Sar Shalom is referenced in both the Talmud and Scripture that refer to the Name of God as Peace (Shab. 10b, Judges 6:24). How can king Hezzekiah be the Messiah God? It doesn’t logically follow from the context. This is obviously referring to the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled this in his birth since he was born of a virgin, and the names are Titles that represent who he is.

My opponent makes the claim that Jesus could not be the Messiah because he does not descend from David. This is silly. Jesus was legally related to Joseph and thus came from the line of David through Joseph (Matthew 1) AND descendant of David through Mary (Luke 3). Moreover, Jesus was a descendent of David through His REAL Father, God. Any one of these three is sufficient in establishing Jesus Davidic lineage. The idea that he could not have descended from David through Mary is without justification.




Debate Round No. 3


Thank you for your response. As my opponent did not refute my opening statements, please extend those arguments.

Fulfillment of Scripture

Born in Bethlehem

I already shown that even if Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem, this doesn’t prove Jesus is the Messiah. Notice the circular reasoning:

  1. 1. The Messiah must be born in Bethlehem

  2. 2. Jesus was born in Bethlehem

  3. 3. Therefore, Jesus is the Messiah

  4. 4. But how do we know Jesus is the Messiah?

  5. 5. Because he was born in Bethlehem….

And so forth….

Though my opponent never really addressed the fact that the text does not support that the messiah must be born in Bethlehem; rather, the messiah will have roots in Bethlehem “from old, from ancient days. This, of course, is a reference to King David.

Finally, notice what verse 4 says: “And he shall stand and shepherd his flock yin the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. 5 And he shall be their peace.”

From this we see that this King Messiah will fear the Lord – so obviously he cannot be God. Secondly there will be peace on earth and Israel will be secure. Obviously none of these occurred.

Out of Egypt

So the Messiah is called “Israel.” Let’s look at more of the context and see if this is supported by the text.

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols.

So, the Messiah was called out of Egypt and the more he was called the more he was sacrificing to Baal and burning sacrifices to idols. All this while being God in the flesh? Give me a break! Please tell me where in Hosea 11 does it hint that it is talking about the Messiah.

Lineage Argument

Once again, circular reasoning which has not yet been addressed. Logically, we can put his arguments as follows:

  1. 1. The Messiah will be a descendant of

    1. a. Abraham

    2. b. Isaac

    3. c. Jacob

    4. d. David

    5. 2. Jesus was a descendant of A-D

    6. 3. Therefore, Jesus is the Messiah.

Notice the circular reasoning.

“The idea that he could not have descended from David through Mary is without justification.”

Wrong. I gave Numbers 1 where each of the genealogies goes through the father. Everywhere genealogies is listed in the T’nach, it always goes through the father and son.

Let’s say that a man from tribe “A” marries a woman from tribe “B.” Which tribe does their son belong to? The answer: tribe “A.”

Third Temple

I am not quite sure what my opponent is referring to. Please expand in the next round.

Daniel 9

The problem with the second-coming hypothesis is that the idea of the second coming is found nowhere in scripture. I could easily say that my late grandfather was the messiah and he’ll fulfill the messianic prophecies when he returns.

I am out of time. I will finish responding in the next round.



Circular Reasoning[1][2]:

I would like to thank my opponent for the response. On a more serious note, my opponent seems to have a misunderstanding of circular reasoning. This is something I would like to clarify because it is frequently brought up against me.

The Definition of Circular Reasoning is: When one of the premises of the argument is the conclusion of the argument.

Example: “Jesus is the Messiah because Jesus is the Messiah.”

Example: “Circular reasoning works because Circular Reasoning Works.”


So now that we have an understanding of circular reasoning, I challenge the voting audience to be the judge and see if my opponent’s accusations are true or false.

Rebuttal to Fulfillment of Scripture

Born in Bethlehem[4]:

My opponent says that the text of Micah 5 is a reference to King David. This is logically impossible. It is referring to the Messiah coming from the lineage of David and ruling Israel. Look at Micah 5:2 “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,

who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,

from you shall come forth for me

one who is to be ruler in Israel,

whose coming forth is from of old,

from ancient days.”

Ancient of Days is the Biblical name used for Yahweh in the OT. It was used in Daniel 7:22” Until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.”

Also it is saying that the Ruler would come from God since it says “Forth for me”

Second, How can this be a prophecy about King David as the ruler, when King David existed in 1000 BC, and Micah existed in the early to middle 600s? That logically doesn’t make sense. How does this logically follow that because the Messiah would fear the Lord that he is therefore not God? If God is three persons in one: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Jesus being the Son of God. God the Father in the New Testament was referred to as God, then that means that Jesus would fear the Father, in the sense that he would set an example amongst the people of how to live for the Lord since Jesus and the Father are one and they have a unified relationship between one another much like a Husband and wife.

Rebuttal to Out of Egypt[3]:

The context of this verse speaks of the relationship the Lord had with the nation of Israel. The Lord loved Israel (Exodus 4:22-23) and rescued the people from slavery under Pharaoh, bringing them into the Promised Land. The analogy is that of God as the father and Israel as the child.

Matthew uses Hosea’s statement to show that the coming of the Messiah is an extension of the Lord’s love to His people. Matthew does not say that Hosea had Jesus in mind when Hosea 11:1 was originally written. Instead, Matthew says that the experience of Jesus matched what Hosea had written about Israel. Jesus was God’s Son, and He made a trip from Egypt to the land of Israel. Matthew was showing that Jesus completed what began with the exodus, connecting Jesus with the promise of Abraham and the leadership of Moses. The “calling” of God’s “son” (Israel) began in ages past and found its completion in the coming of Christ to fulfill the Law and the Prophets.

Rebuttal to the Lineage Argument:

My opponent still claims that I haven’t given any reasons to think that Jesus came from the lineage of King David. However, in my previous rebuttal, I provided three possibilities as justification for Jesus as the Messiah. I will list them again.

  1. 1. Jesus was legally related to Joseph and thus came from the line of David through Joseph (Matthew 1).

  2. 2. Jesus was a descendant of David through Mary (Luke 3).

  3. 3. Jesus was a descendent of David through His REAL Father, God.

All three of these are justification or warrant for how Jesus being the Messiah. So I don’t see the problem here.

Rebuttal to the Third Temple and Daniel 9:

I was saying that some of the prophecies concerning the Messiah are future/end-time prophecies. Just because they didn’t happen in Jesus’s time, doesn’t automatically disqualify Jesus as the Messiah.

For example: Jesus will establish his political reign after the rapture and second coming Be a (Isaiah 2:3, 11:2-3,6; Daniel 7:14)

Daniel 9 could be an end-time prophecy yet to be fulfilled. That doesn’t mean that Jesus is not the Messiah, when he fulfilled all the other prophecies in his lifetime.





Debate Round No. 4


Thank you for a fun and exciting debate. As this is the last round, I wish to make a summary of the arguments and closing statements.

First it should be noted that my opponent didn't even begin to address my opening arguments on why Jesus is not the Messiah. As such, my arguments stand and I strongly urge a vote for "pro."

Proper lineage

I've shown even if this is the case, that does not prove Jesus is the Messiah. Moreover, I've shown Jesus' lineage was incorrect as the lineage goes from father to son and the mother's lineage is irrelavent.

Out of Egypt

I've successfully shown that this is an out-of-context quote. The "types and shadows" or "smoke and mirrors" argument does not work because it is unsupported by the text. All of the Messianic prophecies in which I have shown to be messianic prophecies are clear and concise. Hosea 11 cannot be talking about the Messiah.

Second Comming Failure

The idea of the second coming in relation to the failed prophecies of Daniel 9 and others is unsupported and begging the question.

Out of time. Have a Good Shabbat!



Final Conclusion/Closing Statements:

I would like to again thank Pro for this great and exciting debate, which is considered to be such a controversial topic among the Jewish community today, as it did 2000 years ago.

As we can see, I gave very good reasons for thinking Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Son of God, who was promised to save Israel and the world from it's sin. I showed several prophecies and gave meaningful insight as to how each prophecy was fulfilled in the person of Christ. Christ Jesus fulfilled over 350 prophecies+, and we can clearly see that in the Old Testament.

My opponent didn't really prove me wrong, as he accused me of circular reasoning throughout most of the debate. However, I gave justification to each of my arguments and used the context, as well as the original Hebrew to support the prophecy of the Coming Messiah Jesus. An end time prophecy that has not yet happen is not a failed prophecy. For in order for a prophecy to be failed, it must have not happened at a certain time that it was supposed to happen. But as we can see, Christ Jesus fulfilled the prophecies in his life time (Example: Dwelling in the 2nd Temple before 70 A.D.), and since he proved to be the Messiah, those other few prophecies are future prophecies waiting to happen. When taken inconsideration, the evidence for Jesus being the Messiah is overwhelmingly amazing. To argue otherwise is without justification.

Have a good Shabbat as well!
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
@ Dilara
This accusation is false, see and
Posted by Dilara 4 years ago
The Talmud book (jewish holy book) says Jesus is boiling in semen and sh*t in hell for being a false messiah, sorcerer and b*stard. It also says Mary was a w*ore
Posted by janetsanders733 4 years ago
Matthew and Luke both give Jesus's lineage. Jesus was a descendant from Mary and from God the Father, so he count's.
Posted by Buckethead31594 4 years ago
Furthermore, Con argued his case using the New Testament as a means to conclude that the prophecies were confirmed through Jesus. Of course they would have been confirmed- the New Testament was formed under the intention of proving Jesus' divinity.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
I might try reading this another time, I got to the point where it was claimed that Jesus was never a political leader... (still almost certainly going to vote pro, even if I find a couple statements really funny)

Also "and they called the whole community together on the first day of the second month. The people registered their ancestry by their clans and families, and the men twenty years old or more were listed by name, one by one," -Numbers 1:18 (NIV)
I doubt con caught the error, but even glancing over other versions that mention fathers, it's an accounting thing, not a claim that only the father passes on DNA.
Posted by Buckethead31594 4 years ago
This looks interesting. I'll be following this one!
Posted by MysticEgg 4 years ago
My language side cried at the beauty, here. :')

Hebrew, yes?
Posted by AnsweringAtheism 4 years ago
Sorry for using the Hebrew-ized names so much. If you have any questions as to what the English-equivalent of the name is, please ask in the comments.
Posted by Defender1999 4 years ago
For concerning about fulfilled prophecies, Jesus did fulfil some of the major prophecies written by the prophets during his lifetime. Jesus was a descendant of David and Solomon as recorded in Matthew's genealogy, the many different "messiahs" does not refute that Jesus is the one and only Messiah, the prophets and prophecies in some books like Genesis 3:15 and Abrahams' promise by God is pointing out to a clear one person and individual messiah. It is clear from the OT, they were prophesying of one individual Messiah that will bore the sins of the people and die for the people. It is also clear that the Messiah is too a king and a political leader (The second coming of Christ will take this position of office). Ezekiel 46:16-17 is not referring to the Messiah, but ordinances for the prince of what he should do during the Sabbath day of worship. It is clear from the context, it is not the Messiah, but just rules and guidelines for worship. Joseph, jesus' earthly father, held rights to the David's throne while Mary's line is tracing of a biological line back to David. Malachi 3:1, 23-24 was fulfilled by John the Baptist- John affirms this that he was the messenger in John 1:23. Prophecies 3,4,5 and 7 refers mainly to the Coming of Christ (Where Jesus will take the position of being a king and a military commander for Israel). Both the suffering servant and the King Messiah are both roles of Jesus Christ, he fulfilled the first while the second he will affirm by His second Messiah. Isaiah 11:9 seems to be referring to a Second coming where Jesus will rule the earth (this too also probably apply to the preaching of the Gospel of Christ). Too, in Romans, Paul stated everyone knows God by nature's revelation and their own conscience.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was missing one vital detail in its premise. Con used the New Testament to confirm his arguments while Pro, obviously, denied the New Testament. In other words, both debaters didn't share a similar foundation for which to debate. Conduct was shared: both sides presented their cases with patience and integrity. S/G is shared: I've noticed grammatical errors from both sides. Sources goes to Pro, because he provided a large and diverse amount of references. I feel that Con could have improved this, as he was missing sources in his rebuttals. Nonetheless, I feel that arguments should go to Con for a few reasons. Firstly, Pro never addressed Con's final argument regarding Micah's prophecy, secondly, I feel as if Con's rebuttals were better. He adequately explained how Pro did not fully understand the circular fallacy. Ultimately, this was a tough decision. But like I said, had this have been a debate based solely on the Old Testament, Pro would have won.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Tricky debate, both sides were going very strong... however abstaining due to 2 hour video... If I skip the video, pro's side might not be clarified enough to me; if I watch it than con is equally at a disadvantage in terms of character limit.