The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points

Jesus was 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,298 times Debate No: 17213
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)





Pro will argue that Jeus was not and cannot be Messiah. I will be using Jewish sources, OT scripture and logic. Please no semantics.

Round 1 is acceptance only
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: First rebuttals
Round 4: Second rebuttals
Round 5: Closing statements, no new arguments

Burden of Proof:
I, pro, have the entire BOP in this debate. It is my BOP to show Jesus was not Messiah. Therefore; any argument for Jesus' messianic heritage is invalid.

Thank you to whoever accepts this challenge. My opponent MUST be a Christian.


I look forward to seeing your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I am looking forward to it.

1. Jesus is not messiah because he did NOT fulfill Messianic prophecies

In order to find out why Jesus did not fulfill messianic prophecies, we need to find out what the messiah is suppose to do.
  1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
  2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
  3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
  4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
If the alleged messiah fails one prophecy; then he is not messiah.
It is clear hisoric proof that Jesus did not fulfill any of these.

But second coming, you say? The Hebrew scriptures state that the messiah will clearly fulfill this the first time. There is no mention of a second coming in all of the Torah.

2. Jesus is not messiah because he did NOT embody the personal qualifications

A. Messiah as a prophet

The Messiah will be the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (see Isaiah 11:2 and Maimonides-Yad Teshuva 9:2)

Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of the world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra,, then the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the final prophets.

Jesus was not a prophet; he was born some 350 after the last prophecy.

However, it is possible for the prophecies to re-generate.

B. Descendent of David

According to the Hebrew scriptures, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

The Messiah must descend on his father's side from King David. (see Gen 49:10, Is 11:1; Jer 23:5 etc). If the claim was true that he was born of a virgin, he had no father--and thus cannot fulfill that messianic prophecy. Mary's line does not matter.

C. Torah observance

The Torah states that all the mitzvot are forever binding. Anyone who attempts to change the Torah is a liar and shall immediately be identified as a false prophet.

3. Mistranslated verses referring to Jesus

A. Virgin birth

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from verses in Isaiah 7:14 describing an alma as giving birth. Alma means and always meant a young woman. However, Christian theologians came by much later and translated as virgin. This accords Jesus' birth whith the 1st century pagan ideas of mortals giving birth from gods.

B. Suffering Servant

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44). Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.




I would like to thank my opponent for proposing this debate, and for taking the time to gather the sources and arguments that he has.

On with the debate.

1) Jesus is not messiah because he did NOT fulfill Messianic prophecies

1.1) The passage in Ezekiel is describing what the LORD will do. The consistent usage of the 1st person personal pronoun (I) finds it's antecedent in the LORD, not in Messiah.
1.2) Again, the person speaking in this passage is the LORD himself, not messiah. Again we see continued use of the 1st person personal pronoun in this passage.
1.3) Once again the author is referring to the LORD, not Messiah. In this passage we see the usage of the 3rd person personal pronoun (He) finding its antecedent in the LORD. "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, [...] that he may teach us his ways. [...] He shall judge between nations."
1.4) Once more, this passage is referring to what the LORD will do, not Messiah.

Furthermore, my opponent says "The Hebrew scriptures state that the messiah will clearly fulfill this the first time." There is no mention of a second coming in all of the Torah." This statement is unproven and simply an assertion with no evidence.

Due to the fact that the passages that my opponent uses to demonstrate what Messiah would do actually referring to the LORD, and the fact that my opponent has not given any proof that the second coming of Messiah is contradictory to Torah, this contention can be dismissed. It holds none of the force that my opponent claims it does.

2) Jesus is not messiah because he did NOT embody the personal qualifications

2.A) My opponent claims that Jesus could not have been a prophet, because prophecy cannot exist if the majority of Jews are not in the land. However, again, this is an unsupported assertion. Until my opponent provides some sort of support for this assertion, it falls to the wayside.

Furthermore, in the Olivet Discourse, Jesus accurately predicted the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This seems to be a confirmation of his prophetic ability.

2.B) Where is it written that the messianic bloodline cannot pass through the mother's side? None of these passages are explicitly patriarchal in their nature. They simply imply that Messiah will come through the line of David (or through Judah in the case of Genesis 49), there is no mention of this only happening through the male bloodline. My opponent also claims that the Messiah will be entirely human with no "supernatural qualities." On the contrary, the Prophet Isaiah tells us (Chapter 9) that Messiah will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6) The prophet Isaiah was convinced that the coming child who would be born would be called God and would be Everlasting. Those sure seem to be the "supernatural qualities" that my opponent claims Messiah would not have. When given the choice between who is a more reliable expert on Messiah, I will take the Prophet Isaiah over my opponent any day of the week... and twice on Sunday.

2.C) My opponent claims that anyone who attempts to change or modify the Torah is a liar and must be a false prophet. However, he has not given any proof that a) Jesus attempted to change Torah, or B) that his assertion is true. In fact, Rabbi's throughout the ages have been reinterpreting Torah law. We see this in the Pharisee's of Jesus' day who had added stipulations to Torah (For example, a limit on how many miles one could walk on Sabbath). We see this in modern rabbinic teaching in that the sacrificial system is no longer necessary. In fact, the Talmud itself is a collection of these reinterpretations. Jesus was doing nothing different than what other rabbis of the day were doing, in taking the words of Torah and reinterpreting them for his context.

3) Mistranslated verses referring to Jesus

3.A) My opponent claims that the word "alma" always means young woman and not "virgin." He also claims that this translation was introduced later by Christian theologians. This, however, is inaccurate. In the Septuagint (LXX), which is the Greek Translation of the Old Testament, we see that the translators chose the Greek word "Parthenon" when deciding on a Greek equivalent for "alma." Now, the LXX was translated between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC, by Jewish scholars wishing to provide a version of the OT for the largely Hellenized world. These Jewish scribes, hundreds of years prior to Jesus' birth, saw the word "alma" as "parthenon" which only means "virgin" in Greek. My opponent's assertion here s patently false.

3.B) My opponent claims that Isaiah 53 cannot be referring to Jesus or the coming messiah. While my opponent's interpretation is one of many possible interpretations, he has shown no conclusive evidence as to why this is the only viable interpretation. Isaiah 53 speaks of bearing the sins of others for their forgiveness. For the healing that would come to others through the striping and bruising of the "man of sorrows." Where else in the OT Scriptures do we see any description of Israel that includes them suffering on behalf of others. Where do we see that the persecution that Israel would undergo would somehow serve to heal the rest of the world? Nowhere. Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible do we see any indication that Israel will serve as a substitute for the sins of others, as Isaiah 53 seems to imply. Rather, the punishment of being led into exile was not done to redeem others... it was done as a form of judgement by God. My opponent's interpretation ignores this fact.

A brief summary

1) My opponent has confused the deeds that the LORD would do and the deeds that Messiah would do in the verses he has listed. As such, Christ not fulfilling them does not disqualify him as a potential Messiah. Furthermore even if they did apply to Messiah, there is no reason that these events could not take place during the second coming, as my opponent's assertion that Messiah will have only one coming is an unsupported conclusion at this point.
2) My opponent claims that Jesus did not fulfill the character qualifications of Messiah in that he cannot possibly be a prophet as prophecy ceased when the last prophet died and in that Jesus did not descend from David on his paternal lineage. However, both of these claims are simply assertions put forward by my opponent in an interesting exercise of begging the question.
3) My opponent points to what he claims are later Christian interpolations on Hebrew texts. However, in the case of "alma," we see Jews translating this word as "virgin (parthenon)" in the Greek version of the OT (LXX). In addition, my opponent has not given a reason why the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 is impossible, and his interpretation ignore several key facts about Israel's exile. Namely that the exile does not serve to redeem anyone of their transgressions and in itself was actually a form of judgement on the people of Israel for their wicked and idolatrous ways.

As you can see, my opponent's argument is based on misrepresentations of OT Scriptures, unproven assertions, and faulty information. At this point, he has not fulfilled the burden of proof of which he says he has "the entire BOP in this debate."

Thank you. I look forward to the responses of my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2


Shalom! Welcome to the 3rd round. It is finally nice to be debating with someone that knows what they are talking about. Anyway, on to the case. I had to type this up in the last hour so this isn't a full rebuttal. Sorry.

RRC1) My opponent contends that it is what the L-RD is going to do, NOT Messiah. At first, this seems convincing when we look at the language. However, when we fully understand the context by reading the before and after verses; we see that it is, in fact, talking about messiah.

More on this later.

Furthermore, my opponent says "The Hebrew scriptures state that the messiah will clearly fulfill this the first time." There is no mention of a second coming in all of the Torah." This statement is unproven and simply an assertion with no evidence.

I obviously cannot type out the entire Jewish Bible to prove that there is no second coming in the Jewish scriptures. So, if you want to, find a verse in the old testament that refers to that--and I will drop this claim.

Read the Torah for yourself. is a complete, free proper translation of the scriptures.

Please check my sources that I have in the first round if you really wnat to get a good understanding.

RRC2) I will be making sub points here.

RRC2A) Furthermore, in the Olivet Discourse, Jesus accurately predicted the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This seems to be a confirmation of his prophetic ability.

My opponent has not proved this. Give me a source and show me, in the New Testament, where he made this prophecy. Might I remind you, not every prophecy is from G-d; neither is every miracle, sign or wonder.

"Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them," you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the L-RD, your G-d, is testing you, to know whether you really love the L-RD, your G-d, with all your heart and with all your soul." Deuteronomy 13:1-4

Case proven. Just because you make an accurate prediction does not mean it is from G-d. I especially like the bolded part of that passage. If you add or subtract from the law, you are a false prophet and should be killed. Paul is a classic example. He tried to change the kosher law--he subtracted from the law and thus is a liar! Same is true with Jesus.

RRC2B) "that Messiah will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6) The prophet Isaiah was convinced that the coming child who would be born would be called God and would be Everlasting."

Correct. Obviously Jesus died and is not everlasting. Furthermore, let us look at the real passage in Isaiah 9:5-6

"For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty G-d, the everlasting Father, and called his name, "the prince of peace." To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the L-RD of Hosts shall accomplish this."

Bolded is mine. The L-RD of Hosts shall accomplish this! From that verse alone that YOU have cited, you have proved my case. Jesus died; therefore, he was not everlasting!

RRC2C) "We see this in modern rabbinic teaching in that the sacrificial system is no longer necessary." Do you know why it is unecessary? It is unecessary because there is no temple! Sacrifices officially ended in 70 CE when the temple was destroyed. In fact, there are Jews like myself that want to resume sacrifice. In Ezekiel, we see a resume of sacrifice when the messiah comes and builds the 3rd temple.

Let us take a good luck at one of those laws that Jesus broke.

John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"


RRC3) Again I will be using subpoints.

RRC3A) Actually the Septuagin is not accurate. There are 15 INTENTIONAL mistranslation in there. Source: see the source for additional info!

RRC3B) I will go line by line and explain Isaiah 53

(1) Who would believe what we have heard! For whom has the arm of God been revealed!

In this opening verse, the leaders of the world are SHOCKED at the fact that Israel has been saved. The arm of G-d always denotes a reference to the Jewish people. (Deut. 26:8). (See also Exodus 3:20, 6:6, 14:31, 15:6; Deut. 4:34, 7:19; Isaiah 51:9, 52:10, 62:8, 63:12; Jeremiah 21:5, 27:5; Ezekiel 20:33; Psalms 44:3, 89:11, 98:1, 136:12).

(2) He formerly grew like a sapling or a root from dry ground; he had neither form nor beauty. We saw him, but without a desirable appearance.

This imagery of a tree struggling to grow in dry earth is a metaphor for the Jewish struggle in exile. A young sapling in dry ground appears that it will die. The Jews were always a small nation, at times as small as 2 million people, threatened with extinction. In this verse Isaiah describes Israel’s miraculous return from exile, like a sapling that sprouts from this dry ground. This idea appears throughout the Jewish Bible (see Isaiah 60:21, Ezekiel 19:13, Hosea 14:6-7, Amos 9:15).

(3) He was despised and rejected of men, a man of pains and accustomed to sickness. As one from whom we would hide our faces, he was despised, and we had no regard for him.

This was obvioulsy contradicted by the popularity of Jesus. People came far and wide. Although he died a criminals death, this verse implies a LONG history of rejection--this is contradictory to Jesus.

(4) Indeed, he bore our illnesses and carried our pains – but we regarded him as diseased, stricken by God and afflicted.

Throughout the centuries of Israel’s exile, many nations persecuted the Jews on the pretense that it was God’s way of “punishing” the “accursed” Jews for having stubbornly rejected the new religions. In these verses, until the end of the chapter, the nations confess how they used the Jewish people as scapegoats, not for the “noble” reasons they had long claimed.

Indeed, the nations selfishly persecuted the Jews as a distraction from their own corrupt regimes: “Surely our suffering he did bear, and our pains he carried...” (53:4)

(5) He was wounded as a result of our transgressions, and crushed as a result of our iniquities. The chastisement upon him was for our benefit; and through his wounds we were healed.

Note: the KJV Bible, and most other bibles, translates as a result to for. This is inaccurate. The most accurate is "Because."

(5) He was wounded as a result of our transgressions, and crushed as a result of our iniquities. The chastisement upon him was for our benefit; and through his wounds we were healed.

Understand that the result of our transgressions is mistranslated as for our transgressions. This is the most accurate translation. Since I am running out of room, I'll give you my source for this; some copied, most changed/paraphrased.



Thank you again for posting your response and for proposing this debate. It has been enjoyable thus far and I am looking forward to another lively round.

On with it!

RRRC1) My opponent claims that the context does not support that this is the LORD acting rather than Messiah. He claims he will return to this assertion later, but never does. As my rebuttal stands unaddressed, this point continues to hold no force.

In terms of my statement that my opponent needs to prove that Messiah must fulfill all requirements on "the first time around", my opponent has the burden of proof to prove his claim, not I to disprove it. Until my opponent offers some sort of positive proof that his claim is substantiated, it is, by definition, unsubstantiated and holds no force.

My opponent encourages the reader to "Read the Torah for yourself." It is not acceptable to ask the reader to build your argument for you. You have made the statement, it is your job to support it. Simply pointing at a resource is not an argument.


RRRC2.A) Matthew 25:1-2 - Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

My opponent seems to imply that Jesus encouraged people to "go after other gods." This is a false accusation and lies unproven by my opponent.

My opponent also claims that Jesus subtracted from the Kosher law. However, I would challenge him to prove this. In every instance of Jesus commenting on the Law, he actually increases the requirements of the Law to include heart attitude in addition to actual behavior.

RRRC2.B) My opponent claims that since Christ died that he is not everlasting. However, the Gospels record that he was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven. My opponent has thus far treated the Gospels as accurate historical accounts, and therefore also acknowledges the resurrection.

I am unsure what purpose emphasising that it is the zeal of the LORD accomplishing this has. It changes nothing about my point.

RRRC2.C) The reason that the sacrifice is not necessary is irrelevant. Please show me in the Bible where it says that sacrifices can only be offered at the Temple? Before there was a temple, people offered sacrifices. (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, All the Judges [who didn't even sacrifice in the tabernacle], any prophet or priest during the rule of Saul or David) What was different about that? My opponent cannot simply make assertions without proof. Regardless of the reason, Sacrifice was mandated and now has been rescinded, and being that there has been no divine word from God (remember, my opponent claims that prophecy is impossible), these rabbis who have done this have done so autonomously.

The violation of Shabbat that my opponent points at is Jesus spitting in the mud, then putting mud on someone's eyes. Seeing this as a violation of Shabbat is a later rabbinical addition that is not present in Torah. My opponent is going to have to do better than that.

RRRC3.A) My opponent claims that there are 15 intentional mistranslations in the LXX. However, his source provides no evidence to verify this. Furthermore, my opponent would need to show that alma was one of those intentional translations to hold any force. He has not done so, and until he does my point still stands.


1)My opponent claims that the phrase "arm of God" always denotes Israel. However, even in his first verse (Deut 26:8) we see that it is referring to a personified arm of the LORD. It is describing the MEANS by which God brought Israel out of Egypt. The same is true in each of the verses my opponent cites. They are referencing the power of God and anthropomorphizing him to make it comprehensible. God saves by his outstretched arm: It is a way of talking about his strength and power.

2) It is true that the Bible uses this metaphor for Israel at times, however that does not mean that it uses it consistently or uniformly. In Isaiah 11 and Jeremiah 23 my opponent stated that the Bible describes the coming Messiah and refers to Messiah as a branch coming forth from Jesse. So it s obvious that while the Bible does sometimes use this agricultural metaphor for the nation of Israel, it also uses it as a metaphor for the coming Messiah.

3) People continually rejected and reviled Jesus. In his home town they tried to throw him off a cliff (Luke 4:28-30), they saw him as just a carpenter's son (Mark 6), his own family thought he was crazy (Mark 3:21). Many walked away from him at various points in his ministry or found his teachings to be too difficult to follow. All of this culminates in the fickle rejection of people who hailed him as king one day, and cried out for him to be crucified the next. Even his closest disciples abandoned him. It sure seems like he was not as popular as my opponent seeks to make him... and sure seems to fit this "LONG history of rejection" seeing that he was rejected from the very beginning of his ministry all throughout his ministry, up to the moment of his death.

4) It is not the other nations who claim that God is punishing the Jews for their disobedience, the Prophets themselves say that the LORD is using the other nations to punish them. In Jeremiah 21 we see that God tells Judah that he will give them into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar as punishment for their refusal to repent. While I am sure it is true that some nations have used this excuse, we see clearly from the Hebrew Bible that God uses foreign nations to Judge Israel. This has been happening since the time of the Judges, throughout the reign of Saul and David, and all the way through the divided monarchy.

5) Again, my opponent simply asserts that his translation is a better one than mine. However, the translation committees of every major translation (who have advanced degrees in Hebrew). The Hebrew grammar is ambiguous if "Because of" (as a result of) or "For" (On behalf of) is preferred. However, when we look at the last portion of the verse which says "through his wounds we were healed" which is not ambiguous we are given clarity as to what the author meant. My opponent still needs to explain why Israel's wounding brings about healing. Why is Israel being offered up as a sort of substitution for others? Furthermore, Isaiah is a Jew... so the word "our" refers to the Jews. So we are left with a picture of Israel being wounded for its own transgressions, being crushed for its own iniquities, and ultimately being healed through its own wounds. The picture that my opponent paints is inconsistent and nonsensical.

Another brief Summary:

1) My opponent still has not showed that these passages refer to Messiah rather than the LORD. My rebuttal has been left unaddressed. Furthermore, my opponent continues to offer no positive proof that his assertion of a "One change only" Messiah. Until he does these things, this point must be discarded.
2) The thrust of my opponents argument is that since Jesus disobeyed the law that he cannot be a true prophet. However, Jonah disobeyed God and was still a true prophet, and my opponent has not shown any real instance of Jesus breaking Torah, what he has shown you is an instance of Jesus spitting on the ground and putting mud in someone's eyes. He also seeks to show that since Jesus died, that he cannot be Messiah. However, he has used the Gospels as valid historical data in his appeal to them for Jesus' "violation" so he must explain why the resurrection accounts are ahistoircal.
3) My opponent finally claims that the LXX is inaccurate, but does nothing to prove this. Until he does, we can take it as reliable translation work by Jewish scholars in the 3rd Century BC. Additionally, my opponent sought to show that Isaiah 53 does not and cannot refer to Messiah. I have rebutted this by showing that his assertions are baseless and misguided.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3


I feel that I made many mistakes in this debate. One of those mistakes is that I did not share the BoP--BIG MISTAKE. Another big mistake is, I'll admit, to being ignorant to some of the texts.

I greatly appologiese to my opponent for poor quality responses. I want to focus on more serious debates and get a better understanding of the texts. I'll man up and admit that I was wrong. Therefore, I resign this debate.

RA, you have always been such a challenge to me. You have given me a headache at times and gave me so many things to think about. Thank you. I resign.



My opponent has resigned. Please vote accordingly.

In the words of my opponent. "ALL SEVEN POINTS GO TO CON!"
Debate Round No. 4


Yes, ALL SEVEN POINTS GO TO CON! Please do not vote for me for any reason. In fact, I'll give you all the reasons here

Conduct: I misused passages
Selling/Grammar: I made some mistakes in speling
Arguments/sources: Con used better sources.

Thus all seven points go to con.


My opponent puts it well.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by K2inPRC 6 years ago
Congratulations to both pro and con for your fruitful debate. I would like to refer a question to con if he would not mind answering. In Luke 3:27 it is mentioned in Jesus' genealogy that he is a descendant of David through Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, making him of the line of Jeconiah, however we also know that Jeconiah's seed was cursed (Jeremiah (22:28-30)) that they shall never sit on the throne. If this is true (which for the sake of debate we will assume is) How can Jesus be Messiah, or in effect, even just a King of sorts in Judah (we may assume according to the OT that the Messiah must be a king (Jeremiah 23:5-6, Ezekiel 37:21-28)) How is this discrepancy explained? Furthermore, when Jesus is called King of the Jews, it is always by others. In fact when he is asked by Pilate if he is the king of the Jews, Jesus reply "thou sayst" Mark 15:2, Matthew 27:11. Any learned answer would be appreciated. Thanks
Posted by GMDebater 7 years ago
Thank you...I will gladly admit when I am wrong. Besides, it just makes me look like more of an idiot when I continue a worthless debate.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 7 years ago
I agree with Cliff's voting comment. It takes someone with humility to admit when they are unable to continue debating. Kudos.
Posted by GMDebater 7 years ago
thanks. i know how to find good topics. At least I'm [no longer] a troll.
Posted by Gileandos 7 years ago
Very exciting debate! I am glad you guys chose to debate it.
Posted by GMDebater 7 years ago
Why? The Torah is still the OT
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 7 years ago
Dang it! This would have been awesome to debate
Posted by GMDebater 7 years ago
In other words, I'll be using the Torah (old testament) and use some Hebrew scripture.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 7 years ago
I don't think I want to take a debate when I have no idea what I'm up against.

When you say "Jewish" sources... what do you mean? How do we establish what is authoritative on who the messiah can be?
Posted by GMDebater 7 years ago
I have a very strong argument. Reformed, I want you, contradiction or skepticsaskhere to accept ;)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: GMDebater ought to be shown respect for his humility. I genuinely appreciate such an attribute. All points go to ReformedArsenal.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Not every debate goes your way, but that is how you forfeit with class.