The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Ahijah
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Jesus was a false Messiah!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
kohai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,476 times Debate No: 16425
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (40)
Votes (4)

 

kohai

Pro

In this debate, I will argue that Jesus was a false Messiah. My opponent will try to prove otherwise.

Debates are going to begin in the next round. This round is just for the purpose of accepting the debate.

Please show an open-mind through this debate and I ask that whoever accepts this debate is a Christian.
Ahijah

Con

Before hand I want to thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this important subject. So, go ahead, be my guest, you prove Jesus was a false Messiah. You say you wanted a Christian, well you have one, me. And before the debate, for the sake of the readers and myself. I would like to know what your religious beliefs are? This will be helpful to the discussion at hand. Don't try and hide behind a straw-man. Like I said I am a Christian and all I have to substantiate my belief in Jesus Christ is the Bible. But I assure you and the readers this debate. The Bible is all I will need. I will await your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate. I am really unsure as to my religious belief. As of now, I lean mostly towards Atheist/Agnostic.

First, we need to define a few things.

Scripture: In this case, we will be defining scripture as the 66 books of the Bible. This includes the 4 gospels, and both the old and new testament.

Prophecy: A process in which one or more messages that have been communicated to a TRUE PROPHET are then communicated to others by this true prophet. Such messages typically involve divine inspiration, interpretation, or revelation of conditioned events to come. Fortuntelling, oracles, seers, diviners or apocalyptic authors, are NOT considered to be true prophets (from http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Divination (or diviner): To be inspired by God

Messiah: A reedemer figure expected or foretold in one form or another by a religion. In other words, a messiah is any redeemer figure. (Definition from http://en.wikipedia.org...)


Argument 1: Messianic Prophecies that Jesus does NOT fullfil.

Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible. This is also has been prophecied back in Isaiah.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:6

The King James Version mistranslates the Hebrew word "almah", which means "young woman" as "virgin". (The Hebrew word, "bethulah", means "virgin".) In addition, the young woman referred to in this verse was living at the time of the prophecy. And Jesus, of course, was called Jesus -- and is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New Testament.


What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. 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)
D. 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).

The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.

DESCENDENT OF DAVID

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!

(Note these are courtesy of http://judaism.about.com... http://www.evilbible.com...)

Council of Nicea

The Council of Nicea was in CE 325 and its main accomplishment was that it settled the Christological debate if Jesus was or was not God. So, Jesus wasn't really accepted as Devine until 325. Sure, people believed in his divinity, but it was up in the air.

In fact, most of the people in the time before the 4th century held the view that the Father (God the Father in the trinity) is greater than the Son.

http://www.prudentialpublishing.info...


Back to you, con!
Ahijah

Con

I want to thank my opponent for the opportunity to have this important debate. The Bible tells us to be ready to give an answer concerning the hope that is in you. (1 Peter 3:15) And Paul says: I am set for the defense of the gospel (Phil. 1:17) I think it is a good thing to have a discussion about things religious. Knowing that our future happiness depends on the truth laid out in the Holy Bible. I want the readers of this debate to take comfort in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)
Jesus named Immanuel?

In Isaiah 7:14, the prophet Isaiah declared, "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." This is a prophecy that refers to the birth of Jesus in (Matthew 1:22-23) All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel' which means, 'God with us.'" This name means God with us. It does not mean, however, that the Messiah's name would actually be Immanuel.

Many names were given to Jesus saying, "He shall be called," both in the Old and New Testaments. This was how people would refer to Him in these many ways. Isaiah, also prophesied, "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). None of these were Jesus' actual name, but these were descriptions people would use to refer to Him. Luke tells us Jesus "shall be called the Son of the Highest" (Luke 1:32) and "Son of God" (1:35) and "the prophet of the Highest" (1:76), but these were not His name.

The prophet Jeremiah says, "And this is His name by which He shall be called, JEHOVAH, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" (Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:15-16). Now we know that God, the Father, is named Jehovah. Jesus was never actually called Jehovah as though it was His name, but His role was that of bringing the righteousness of Jehovah to those who would believe in Him, exchanging that righteousness for our sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). Therefore, this is one of the many titles or "names" which belong to Him.

In the same way, to say that Jesus would be called "Immanuel" means Jesus is God and that He dwelt among us in His incarnation and that He is always with us. Jesus was God in the flesh. Jesus was God making His dwelling among us (John 1:1,14). No, Jesus' name was not Immanuel, but Jesus was the meaning of Immanuel, "God with us." Immanuel is one of the many titles for Jesus, a description of who He is.

Another one of my opponents arguments is about the virgin birth of Christ. Those who are opposed to the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic passage referring to a virgin birth claim that the word ‘ alm� does not mean "virgin," and that the word used exclusively for " virgin" is the Hebrew word bet�l�. Both of these claims, however, are inaccurate. A careful look at the etymological and semantical aspects of these two words actually documents the fact that there is no single-word-meaning for either Hebrew term. John Walton said, one of the translations of ‘alm� is "young woman," but there are certain nuances to the Hebrew term. After examining all occurrences of the word, and looking briefly at its etymology, Walton gave the lexigraphical definition of ‘alm� as "one who has not yet borne a child and as an abstraction refers to the adolescent expectation of motherhood." In application to Isaiah 7:14, he admitted that virginity seemed to be implied (1997a, 3:415-418). As to the claim that, if Isaiah had meant virgin, he would have used bet�l�, Walton refutes that as well. He says that bet�l� is a "social status indicating that a young girl is under the guardianship of her father, with all the age and sexual inferences that accompany that status" (1997b, 1:783). If the passage was a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus, then bet�l� would not apply since Mary, while not yet married per se to Joseph, was nonetheless no longer under the guardianship of her father.

The Septuagint renders ‘alm� in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which means "a female of marriageable age with focus on virginity" (Danker, 2000, p. 777). The translators of the Greek Septuagint rendered ‘alm� as parthenos, which generally means "virgin," instead of neanis, which generally means "young woman" (Danker, p. 667). Jerome, in his translation of the Bible into Latin, rendered parthenos as virgo, which usually means "virgin" (Dohmen, 10:160). It is interesting that the translators of the Septuagint took the thought of the Hebrew passage and translated it into a Greek word for "virgin." Since they worked about two hundred years before Christ was born, then the translators of the Septuagint could not have been trying to "fit" scripture to a Christian viewpoint, but instead were merely giving the correct translation for the passage. Of the passage in Isaiah 7:14, H.D.M. Spence and Joseph Exell made the following observations:

This information can be found on the (Apoplectics Press Website)

My opponent sets out a long list of arguments in his next tirade. I will answer them in short for the readers' sake. Like my daddy used to say, when you give a hog an ear of corn. Don't give him another one until he has finished the first one. So my opponent will understand the problem with space and time.

He goes on to state:
"What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. 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)
D. 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)."

And I say He did accomplish all of these things.
A.Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
In the Book of Acts 7 we read of Stephens defense: 44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of the testimony in the wilderness, even as he appointed who spake unto Moses, that he should make it according to the figure that he had seen.

45 Which also our fathers, in their turn, brought in with Joshua when they entered on the possession of the nations, that God thrust out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

46 who found favor in the sight of God, and asked to find a habitation for the God of Jacob.

47 But Solomon built him a house.

48 Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands; as saith the prophet,

So under the Christian era God dwells in us! When we become Christians Jesus said in John 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.

22 Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers.

NOTICE 1 Cor. 3: 16 Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

As Christians we are God's temple!

B-D. was accomplished on the Day of Pentecost. When the New Testament church was established.

I am sorry, I have run out of room. But I believe I am off to a good start. And I look forward to my opponent's response to the answers the Bible provides. And to my opponent I would request that he keeps the arguments to a minimum. Seeing we have a limited amount of space. If my opponent wishes, I will answer any of the questions not addressed directly be me. If he will resubmit them in his next speech. But please limit the questions I would like to have room at the end to present my arugments.
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

I thank my opponent for his reply and I am anxious to see how this debate will play out.

First, regarding the point about being called "Immanuel." That is not the same thing as being called "Immanuel" in your own lifetime. It's only by the annonymous writers of the Gospels, written LONG after Jesus died, that he's called "Immanuel" and that is just to make it appear that Jesus fullfilled Isaiah's prophecy. By the way, Isaiah wasn't referring to some Messiah in the long distant future, but a Jewish warrior who would defeat the Assyrians. They were long gone by the time Jesus was born. As with most of your so-called "Prophecies" of Jesus in the OT, you are merely taking things out of the original context.

Oh, for proof just read http://www.biblegateway.com... 8. You'll see that is the fullfillment of that prophecy. Sorry.

Jesus is the anglicized version of the name Yehosha (Joshuah), which does NOT mean the same thing as "Immanuel." In Hebrew, it means "YHWH is salvation." Immanuel means God is with us.

Let us go back to the original Hebrew.

Call קָרָא (According to Strong's) means to call out, recite, read, cry out proclaim; to summon, invite, call for and commission; to call oneself; to be named.

Name שֵׁם (According to Strong's) A litteral name; reputation, fame or glory; memorial, monument.

So we could say that the prophecy says, "Behold, a virgin shall concieve and bare a son and shall proclaim his name immanuel.

Oh, and Strong's just backs me up on the mistranslation. Virgin is this עַלְמָה A young woman, of marriagable age, maid or newly married

Secondly, as to the "virgin birth" prophecy. Nowhere in Judaism is there expressed a belief that a woman can give birth without having had sexual intercourse. All that Isaiah was saying was that a young woman would give birth to the Jewish warrior who would defeat the Assyrians. The myth that Mary was still a virgin when she was pregnant with Jesus is an overlaying of other myths, in which demi-gods were born out of sexual union between a god and a woman. These were common in Greek mythology, and the authors of the Gospels in which Mary is said to have been a virgin, Matthew and Luke, composed them in Greek. They were clearly aware of other Greek myths.
The virgin birth is impossible. Even if it was, the offspring would be a girl--not a boy. Simple biology can prove it!

Besides, what religion in those days did not have a miraculous story of a virgin birth? Answer: NONE! They were copied from other sources and other religions.

As for the rebuilding of the Temple and other accomplishments expected by the Messiah: if it were clear that these things actually happened, there would be very few Jews around. No Jew reads the Old Testament and then the New Testament and believes that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies. You can only say Jesus did if, as your debate opponent said, you take the prophecies as metaphorical. But It's hard to imagine that God would deliberately make it that difficult for people to understand; if he's God and wrote the Bible, I would expect him to leave no doubt in anybody's minds as to whether Jesus was the Messiah, just as he was mind-numbingly specific and clear in the Torah about the hundreds of laws Jews have to follow. Unless he likes fooling some people, or likes to make it useless for us to have powers of reason, in which case I don't think he's God. But the simple answer is that God didn't have anything to do with the writing of either the Old or New Testament, and that Christians want to read into both books so they can feel less frightened of their mortality.

Let's go through the Bible and see how many temples there were.
1) Solomon's Temple--destroyed and rebuilt by 2) Zerubbabel (Eventually became known as "Herod's temple"

You say, the temple has been spiritually built in us. However, the prophecy is clearly describing a physical temple.

B-D was NOT fulfilled on the day of pentecost.

There are also numerous contradictions in the gospels about the death and ressurection of Jesus.

if you need more room, you may use a blog or an out side source as long as YOU wrote it if you need more room

Please include in your debate prophecies and stuff to prove Jesus was the Messiah. I'm interested in seeing why you think he was the Messiah!

Ahijah

Con

To answer your question about the name Immanuel means God is with us. The many times the people around Jesus claimed He was God. This statement alone fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy. For to be in the presents of Jesus and proclaim Him to be God. Is the same as calling Him Emmanuel. It is a statement saying "God is with us." Which is to say Emmanuel. Again I will copy apart of my first reply "Isaiah, also prophesied, "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). None of these were Jesus' actual name, but these were descriptions people would use to refer to Him. Luke tells us Jesus "shall be called the Son of the Highest" (Luke 1:32) and "Son of God" (1:35) and "the prophet of the Highest" (1:76), but these were not His name." These are things that people have called Jesus since His virgin birth.

Call קָרָא (According to Strong's) means to call out, recite, read, cry out proclaim; to summon, invite, call for and commission; to call oneself; to be named.

Name שֵׁם (According to Strong's) A litteral name; reputation, fame or glory; memorial, monument.

The definitions you provide by Strong's definition proves my point Jesus name was called Emmanuel. 1st. Call: means to means to call out, recite, read, cry out proclaim; to summon, invite, call for and commission; to call oneself; to be named. 2nd. Name: A litteral name; reputation, fame or glory; memorial, monument. So by someone proclaiming Jesus to be God, is the same as calling Him Emmanuel. (GOD is with us)

Quote: "Secondly, as to the "virgin birth" prophecy. Nowhere in Judaism is there expressed a belief that a woman can give birth without having had sexual intercourse." End quote.

Of course no one believed it was possible for a child to be born of a virgin. That is the reason we call it a miracle.

Quote: "But It's hard to imagine that God would deliberately make it that difficult for people to understand; if he's God and wrote the Bible, I would expect him to leave no doubt in anybody's minds as to whether Jesus was the Messiah, just as he was mind-numbingly specific and clear in the Torah about the hundreds of laws Jews have to follow." End quote.

Matt 13:14 And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive:

God did not make the Jews or you disbelieve. That is a personal decision each one of us makes by weighing the evidence. As a people, the prophecies concerning Jesus never were understood by the Jews. The Jews rejected the Christ then and they reject Jesus today. The Jews were looking for a King to reign over them on earth and deliver them from the Romans. They are still waiting for their savoir. The same way some religious people here in America are waiting for Christ to set up a kingdom here on earth. Jesus is already reigning in His Kingdom. It is His church here on earth.

Quote: "Let's go through the Bible and see how many temples there were.
1) Solomon's Temple--destroyed and rebuilt by 2) Zerubbabel (Eventually became known as "Herod's temple" End quote.

You forget about the temple Moses built in the wilderness. So that makes THREE.

Now, lets get to the proof that Jesus was the Christ.

The grave was empty. If Jesus was raised, the place were He was buried had to be emptied. His bodily resurrection is indefensible if He remained in the tomb even one hour of day four. If the tomb was occupied Monday, Jesus is less than divine, and there is no hope in Him as Savior.

My question to you where is the body of Jesus?
I sure you do not question the history of the man called Jesus.
All four of the Gospel records explicitly declare that the Lord was dead prior to entering the tomb (Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:44-45; Luke 23:46; John 19:32-34).
The tomb was cut out of solid rock (Matthew 27:60). Tombs, like caskets, generally are not equipped with back doors!
The cave opening was blocked by a massive stone (Matthew 27:60).
The stone was affixed with a seal, and watched by soldiers (Matthew 27:66).
Obviously, it was impossible for Jesus to leave that tomb (apart from the resurrection miracle), let alone to do so without detection.

Second, the tomb did not contain the body of Jesus after the dawning of Sunday. This evidence is gleaned from those on both sides of the issue.

The empty tomb was seen by at least six of Jesus' followers: Mary Magdalene (Matthew 28:1-10), Mary (the mother of James) and Salome (Mark 16:1-8), Joanna (Luke 24:10), and Peter and John (John 20:2-8).
The empty tomb was probably seen by at least a few Roman guards (Matthew 28:2,11-15).
That the tomb was empty was not denied by the antagonistic Jews (they merely attempted to explain why it was empty).
That the tomb was empty was loudly proclaimed on the day of Pentecost in the presence of literally thousands of Jews who most certainly would have denied it if they could (Acts 2:24-36).

If you cannot show a body the resurrection was a fact of history. A fact to big to hide, men have tried throughout history to change this fact.

Quote "There are also numerous contradictions in the gospels about the death and ressurection of Jesus."
I want you to list some of the contradictions you think are in the Gospels. I also want you to answer my one question. Where is the body of Christ? We know he was a historical person. History has tried to cover up the fact he was God. They killed Him and buried Him. History tells of this story, and I am not talking about the Bible account. I am saying secular history says these facts So where is his body?
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Pro

Thank you for replying to my previous argument.

You forget about the temple Moses built in the wilderness. So that makes THREE.

That was a TABERNACLE, different from a temple.

The definitions you provide by Strong's definition proves my point Jesus name was called Emmanuel. 1st. Call: means to means to call out, recite, read, cry out proclaim; to summon, invite, call for and commission; to call oneself; to be named. 2nd. Name: A litteral name; reputation, fame or glory; memorial, monument. So by someone proclaiming Jesus to be God, is the same as calling Him Emmanuel. (GOD is with us)

Sorry. Jesus was NOT God. And here are a few verses to PROVE my point.


And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Is Jesus denying to be god? I think so. Let us take a look at this passage. The bolded part is Jesus speaking.

He says, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." However, if he is God, why is he telling him that there is one that is good--god?

Ye have heard how I say unto you, I go waway, and come again unto you If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I John 14:28

This is Jesus speaking. Here, he clearly states that God the Father is greaer than him. How can you be less than yourself?

another passage

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ setteth on the right hnd of God. Colossians 3:1

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17

If Jesus was God, he cannot have a God.

Quote "There are also numerous contradictions in the gospels about the death and ressurection of Jesus."
I want you to list some of the contradictions you think are in the Gospels. I also want you to answer my one question. Where is the body of Christ? We know he was a historical person. History has tried to cover up the fact he was God. They killed Him and buried Him. History tells of this story, and I am not talking about the Bible account. I am saying secular history says these facts So where is his body?

First with the contradictions in the gospels.

1. What time of day was Jesus crucified?

  • At the third hour: "And it was the third hour when they crucified him." (Mark 15:25)
  • At least three hours later, because at "about the sixth hour" John says that Jesus was still with Pilate before the Jewish crowd. (John 19:14) Also, Matthew (27:45) and Luke (23:44) have Jesus already on the cross at the sixth hour, so they, too, contradict John's account.

Some theologians claim that John is giving the hour in "Roman time," but the Romans reckoned time from sunrise, as did the Jews. So the "sixth hour" would mean the same for both. Also, there is no evidence in the gospel of John to support any theory that the author was counting the hours any differently from normal Jewish custom. The gospel of John was not written in Rome, nor for a Roman audience. For info on the Roman system of reckoning time, see J. Balsdon, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome, p.1. Also L. and R. Adkins, Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome.

2. The second coming of Jesus was a failed prediction.

Jesus predicted that on his return to earth, "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven." (Mark 13:24-27) He even predicted a deadline for it to happen: "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place." (Mark 13:30) The generation he was speaking to did pass away, but the sun still shines, the stars still twinkle in the night sky, and there have been no heavenly passengers riding in on the clouds. Jesus was wrong.

Mark 13:30 is not the only passage that makes such a prediction. We see it also in Matthew 24:34, which uses the same language as Mark. Luke 21:25-27, 32 also has nearly the same wording.
Also, Matthew 16:28 - "There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
And in Luke 9:26-27 - "There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
And Mark 9:1 - "Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."

The Greek word for "generation" means essentially the same as our English word. According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible (1973 ed., p. 1204, note to Matthew 24:34), "the normal meaning of this generation would be 'men of our time,' and the words would refer to a period of 20-30 years."

The theologians often appeal to Mark 13:32 to argue that Jesus was not making a specific prediction about when the end would occur. That passage tells us that Jesus himself does not know exactly when the end will come: "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Here, however, he's just telling us that he doesn't know the exact time when the kingdom of God will arrive. He is still very clear that it will occur sometime during the lifetime of the generation he's speaking to.

Another way in which the theologians try to escape from this embarrassment is to claim that the generation referred to in Mark 13:30, Matthew 24:34, etc. is not the generation Jesus was speaking to, but the generation that will be living at the time these amazing events take place. But this is obviously absurd, because it would mean that Jesus is telling his audience, "Some of the people in the generation that will be alive when these things happen will be alive when these things happen." A statement like this conveys no meaning at all, and there would be no point in Jesus saying such a thing.

3. The genealogies of Joseph given by Matthew and Luke contradict each other.

  • According to Matthew, Joseph was descended from David's son Solomon through 27 generations (David to Joseph inclusive). (Matthew 1:1-16)
  • But according to Luke, Joseph was descended from David's son Nathan through 42 generations (David to Joseph, inclusive). (Luke 3:23-31)

Most of the names in these two genealogies are different, and they do not even agree on who Joseph's father was. Matthew tells us that Joseph's father was called Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke tells us that his father was Heli (Luke 3:23).

There are Christians who claim that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, and Matthew's is that of Joseph, but there is nothing in Luke that remotely suggests that interpretation, and both Matthew's and Luke's lists specifically mention Joseph as the end point.

I am out of room, unfortunately. I will touch on missed stuff later.





Ahijah

Con

Thanks again for your time and attention. Thanks to my opponent for giving me the opportunity to have this debate. I want to began this section by saying Jesus was in fact God as Stated in the Bible. While here on earth He was worship and He was also addressed as being God. But the fact that the Bible said He created is absolute proof of His divinity. In John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.
And no scripture gives us a clearer picture of who Jesus is than Phil 2:6, "Although Jesus existed in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in the appearance as a man, He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow."
Yet, even when Jesus walked the earth in a human body, He was fully divine, "For in Christ all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form" (Col 2:9). God bore witness to the fact Jesus was divine by raising Him from the dead, "Jesus was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:4). And many more scriptures we read also speak to the fact Jesus was God. But I think we have gotten off track somewhat. Our discussion is about Jesus being the Messiah. Or as my opponent says the false Messiah. He ask about the time in which Jesus was crucified.
1) Mark says they crucified him at the 3rd hour. This marks only the beginning of the crucifixion. If someone goes to the hospital for a operation at 9am. That does not mean they are being cut on at the exact time they walk in the door. This is just the time the procedure begins to start. With that in mind. 2) John says: it was about the sixth hour. And he (Pilate) saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King! This is nothing out of the way, as far as time Jesus is being crucified. He was being beaten, they are preparing His for show and time is unfolding. 3) Matthew says: 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. Jesus was on the cross at this time. Luke records the same Jesus was on the cross. 4) Then Matthew says 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? So beginning at 9am and ending at 3pm is the time it took for the crucifixion of Jesus. I don't know why you would have to start a conversation about who watch they were using to figure that out.

Quote "The second coming of Jesus was a failed prediction." The reason my good friend cannot understand what Jesus is saying here, Is because he fails to realize the disciples ask Jesus about the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. They did not ask Him when He was coming back the second time. This is not saying anything about the return of Christ to earth. I added a link here that will take the readers to a website were they can read a small booklet that explains in detail these verses. It is revealing, I suggest pro takes a quick look also.
http://www.padfield.com...

The genealogies of Joseph given by Matthew and Luke contradict each other.

Solution: Luke records the lineage of Mary, and Matthew that of Joseph.
The problem with this solution is that both genealogies explicitly end with Joseph.
Matthew's geneology ends:
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
Luke's begins:
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
So who was Joseph's father - Jacob or Heli? Jacob was his biological father whereas Heli was his father-in-law reckoned as also being his legal father. This would particularly be the case if Mary had no brothers - under the Mosaic law. (Num 27:8) Then upon marriage, the first born son would be reckoned according to the wife's father and receive his inheritance passed down through his mother. (Deut 25:5,6) Such could have been the case with Jesus.
Further, Jewish genealogies were almost always traced via the paternal line.
Today Jewish trace their ancestry via the maternal line. Today if your mother is a Jew, you are reckoned Jewish, but if your father is a Jew, then not. And as I mentioned above, in the case where a man only has daughters, his line would not be cut off, but would be reckoned according to the first born son of the daughters. Jesus was also a special case (after all, how many Jews had no biological father?). So establishing his biological ancestry was important.
Matthew's genealogy of Jesus is recorded in Matthew 1:1-16, and Luke's is recorded in Luke 3:23-38. It has long been known that these two records do not agree with each other. Specifically, they diverge after Solomon, converge at Shealtiel (the father of Zerubbabel), diverge after Zerubbabel and do not converge again until Joseph, the father of Jesus.
Shealtiel probably married the daughter and heiress of Neri, hence is reckoned his son (Luke 3:27).
Note that this also means that the genealogy of Zerubbabel is contradictory. Matthew makes him a descendant of Solomon, David's son. Luke makes him a descendant of Nathan, also a son of David. Since Solomon and Nathan were full blood brothers (I Chronicles 3:5) they cannot both be paternal ancestors of Zerubbabel.
It only takes one instance of a levirate marriage to explain such a divergence in the lines, and such could have occurred with Shealtiel's father, as mentioned above. Then just as Mary and Joseph both had a common paternal ancestor - Zerubbabel, so also Jeconiah and Neri had a common paternal ancestor - David.
In fact, both genealogies are pointless, since both Matthew and Luke then go on to claim that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph.
Jesus was legally the son of Joseph, as such he was called even by unbelievers during his ministry.
Since Mary was probably of the tribe of Levi (see Luke 1:5 in conjunction with Luke 1:36), it is therefore impossible for Jesus to have been the 'Son of David' as was required for the Messiah (Matthew 22:42).
Who says that Mary belonged to the tribe of Levi? It was true that Elizabeth, her cousin, was of the tribe of Levi, but that doesn't make Mary from the tribe of Levi. For don't forget, we have more than one set of grandparents. And each set, in this case, can come from different tribes. It simply means that Mary's paternal grandparents were not the same as Elizabeth's paternal grandparents. Rather, Mary's paternal grandparents were the same as Elizabeth's maternal grandparents.
There is another problem with Matthew's list. Matthew includes Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11), even though the Old Testament records that God cursed Jeconiah, and prophesied that he would never have a descendant upon the throne of Judah. (Jeremiah 22:28-30)
The term "childless" that Jeremiah uses is explained by the statement taht "no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." With reference to a lineal successor, he was "childless."
http://www.bcbsr.com...
It is as simple as that. The Bible does not have any contradictions. It is a divine book, we as humans need to understand we must exhaust every possible explanation before we pass judgement on the inspired book.

I am waiting for the answer to the were about of the body of Jesus. It is an important part of His Messiahship. If He is not here on earth. That would be a good indication, He is where I believe He is. Heaven on His throne. Thanks
Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Pro

I would, again, like to thank my opponent for responding in such a timely manner and for behaving so well in this debate. I admit that it has been a mind-boogler for some arguments.Good luck to you as we head into the final round of this debate. May the best argument win. These videos sum things up pretty much perfectly. My final arguments are in those videos.
Ahijah

Con

I want to thank my opponent for the gracious treatment he has showed to me. Although we disagree vehemently, he has acted in sure away to gain my respect and admiration. I would ask all of those concerned to give his arguments their due. Take a look at the other evidence and make a informed decision. No one argues the fact that Jesus was a historical figure. He was and individual with a small following of men. He lived 33 years and has turn the world upside down. Below I have copied some information that will answer any argument concerning the fact that Jesus was God, the Messiah. I hope anyone who has any doubts about the Messiahship of Jesus will research all information available. The time in this study will make everyone stronger and better able to defend their faith against the one who was a lair from the start.
http://www.padfield.com...
The Prophecy He Fulfilled
The Old Testament contains well over 300 prophecies concerning the Messiah. All of these prophecies were made at least 400 years before the birth of Christ. No one else in all the world could have fulfilled these prophecies.

It appears the gospel of Matthew was primarily written to prove that in Jesus Christ of Nazareth was the fulfillment of all Messianic prophecy. Matthew often records minor events in the life of Christ and then quotes from the prophets to show that His actions were done to "fulfill" prophecy. Here are just a few examples:

The Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14; fulfilled in Matt. 1:22,23)
The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; fulfilled in Matt. 2:5,6)
The Messiah would be "called out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1; fulfilled in Matt. 2:15)
The massacre of innocent male children (Jer. 31:15; fulfilled in Matt. 1:16-18)
The Messiah would be preceded by a messenger (Isa. 40:3; fulfilled in Matt. 3:3)
The Messiah's work would begin in Galilee (Isa. 9:1,2; fulfilled in Matt. 4:12-16)
The Messiah would take "our infirmities" (Isa. 53:4; fulfilled in Matt. 8:17)
The Messiah would teach by parables (Psa. 78:2; fulfilled in Matt. 13:34-35)
The Messiah would enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zech. 9:9; fulfilled in Matt. 21:1-10)
The Messiah would be sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12; fulfilled in Matt. 27:9)
Lots would be cast for the Messiah's clothing (Psa. 22:18; fulfilled in Matt. 27:35)
The Testimony Of John
While John the Baptist was in the wilderness, the Jews sent priests and Levites to him to find out who he was (John 1:19-34). John confessed he was not the Christ, Elijah, nor "the Prophet" (cf. Deut. 18:18). After the baptism of Christ, John said, "I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God'" (John 1:33,34). Later, when Christ went up to Jerusalem, He told the Jews, "You have sent to John, and he has bore witness to the truth" (John 5:33).

In his book on the Holy Spirit, brother Ferrell Jenkins makes this observation: "The baptism of Jesus qualified Him in these particulars: 1. 'It was the sources of His own endowment of Power for the endurance of temptation, for teaching, for casting out demons, and healing the sick, for His sufferings and death, for His resurrection and ascension' (ISBE, 1411a). 2. It qualified Him to bestow the Holy Spirit on the disciples (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 20:22; Acts 1:5)." (The Finger Of God, p. 10).

The Miracles He Performed
"Now Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people. Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them" (Matt. 4:23,24).

As Jesus visited the 240 towns of Galilee, the caravans passing through the country carried reports of His works into the surrounding regions of "Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan" (Matt. 4:25).

Jesus said His miracles were a greater witness to His Divinity than John himself (John 5:31-36). This is because no one in history had ever claimed to be the Messiah and had the ability to perform genuine miracles. The prophets of old were able to perform the miracles, but never claimed to be the Christ. Other men claimed to be the Messiah, but could not perform genuine miracles. While predicting the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus said that "many will come in my name, saying, 'I am Christ'" (Matt. 24:5). Flavius Josephus, a Jewish priest and historian, tells of many individuals who claimed to be the Messiah, including one who had over 30,000 followers (The Wars Of The Jews, 2:3:5).

The Testimony Of The Father
Peter knew that at the baptism of Christ the Father spoke from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17).

On the mount of transfiguration, Peter would see a bright cloud overshadow them, and the Father would again testify of His Son, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5). "This command contains the chief significance of the entire scene. Spoken in the presence of Moses and Elijah, it gave Jesus that pre-eminence which a son has over servants. He is to be heard. His words have pre-eminence over those of the lawgiver and the prophet (Heb. 1:1,2). Peter recognized Jesus as thus honored by this voice (II Pet. 1:16-18)." (J. W. McGarvey, The Fourfold Gospel, p. 420).

The Resurrection
Though our Lord had not yet gone to the cross when He asked His disciples about His identity, we can now look back to the resurrection as the crowning act in proving the Divinity of Christ. The apostle Paul opens the Roman letter by pointing to "Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:3-4).

The very foundation of the gospel rests upon the Lord's resurrection from the grave (1 Cor. 15:3-4). In fact, if there was no resurrection, "then our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor. 15:14).

Conclusion
"God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they" (Hebrews 1:1-4).

Since Christ is God's final spokesman, if we neglect His message, we have missed the great salvation "which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him" (Heb. 2:3).
God Bless all.
Debate Round No. 5
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Aceviper2011 6 years ago
Aceviper2011
Voting for these religious arguements christianity v.s athiest is not right, I sorry but i cannot vote on the religious battles no more the more I read on all religious debates make me angry inside watching people fight over beliefs. Let people be people, no one knows the truth, I not christian nor Catholic but i believe there is a God a creator lol, but who is it to tell me or try and prove me wrong on my beliefs. How does any one know the truth of the past when none of us was alive then, how people sit and right about the bible those are stories of life, i sorry but thats the truth, if you really read the bible they are lessons of life. The stories are suppose to help a person think or do whats right or wrong its a guidence, as for Jesus not being the King of Jews or Messiah how does anyone from our time really know the truth. If you think reading from other peoples views and studies that he is not well they do not know either, not even religious leaders know the real truth about anything. Were all just confused, oh did you know that the bible was changed so many times maybe it was written to keep order in the world. We do not know, has any one forget that we have a right to religion and beliefs, no one is ever going to believe or not believe unless something happens then we all will be crying out for God to save us, believers and none believers. Thats what makes me laugh allot when society that do not have a belief of God they try and prove right to wrong, or wrong to right, but when stuff hits the fan they cry out for god to help them in life danger situations. What i am trying to say why argue religion its a waste of time people will have there beliefs no one will know the truth untill after life. I believe in God try and prove me wrong that he not real, it will not work cause i believe what i want you will just waste your time and life trying to convert or prove me wrong. but good debate but i will not vote you cant prove no one wrong or right on these debates
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
sounds great. After our current debate!
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
Contradiction
Maybe we can have a future debate on the pagan parallels ;)
Posted by Ahijah 6 years ago
Ahijah
Thanks for the vote ReformedArsenal, I was beginning to think you didn't like me:)
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Right--but many more were similar. There are also many MANY other myths that Christians borrowed from. If you want to start a debate about that, we can.

Anyway, Jesus was NOT either liar, lunatic, or lord.
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
Contradiction
Persian Mithra does, but Roman Mithra postdates Christianity, showing a reversed dependence. Moreover, many of these "parallels" are contrived. For instance, Mithra was born of a rock, to call that a virgin birth is to deliberately distort how it actually is. He "atoned" for the sins of the world by killing a bull, not by dying on a cross. There is no resurrection narrative at all -- we only see one emerge several hundred years after the advent of Christianity.

Most scholars don't use the pagan parallel argument, and for good reason. Most "parallels" are instances of what scholar Samuel Sandmel called "parallelomania," which is one deliberately reads Biblical terminology into pagan religions to invent a parallel.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Sorry, Mithra predates Christianity.
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
Contradiction
Roman Mithra postdates Christianity, you've got the chronology reversed.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
I shall refute them.

"I do not know how one can prove "Jesus is a false Messiah". According to the Bible, he performed feats that no other man could do, walking on water, healing the sick, excorised many demons, especially Legion--who fled into a herd of swine, turned wine into water at his birth, finding a coin in the mouth of a fish and so on. Even if I am an Atheist, I would dare to attack the main personage of such a venerable school of faith."

The problem is, We don't have any proof outside the Bible that he has even done those things. Thus the term "Legend." Stories were twisted to show how great Jesus is. There are other religions (i.e. Mithraism) that have Mithra doing the same things! Do you believe their texts? No. So what makes the Bible different?
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
very interesting debate, but:
The fact that Jesus might or might not accomplished what he should have as a Messiah is irrevelant. THe Bible, the chief center of Christianity, treats the birth, life, and death of Jesus in a very holy, and prophetic light that casts him as the Messiah: the miracles that he performs, the fact that he was born of a virgin and therefore the son of god, and the fact that he ascended to heaven after his crucification all gives the nature of a holy being and even confirms the general claim that: (a) he was the son of god, or rather god manifest or (b) he was, at best, a holy being.
I cannot think that the bible, even with the information that PRO gives, can refute one or more of the two claims before.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
kohaiAhijahTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: A bunch of videos for a round. Seriously?
Vote Placed by MontyKarl91 6 years ago
MontyKarl91
kohaiAhijahTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Once again Con's arrogance astounds me. I would have thought that he would have learned that he cannot win with his superiority complex. It is a shame.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
kohaiAhijahTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: If I could take away a conduct point from both of them, I would... Ahijah starts with a classless call out in the first round... and kohai has an entire post that is videos instead of forming his own argument. However, Con had a better overall argument, and was able to answer all the objections that Pro brought up (Bethulah is exclusively virgin in MODERN Hebrew, not ancient Hebrew...) Sources were pretty even.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
kohaiAhijahTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Solid effort from both parties, but difficult to follow and in the middle the resolution seemed to wander to Jesus as man vs Jesus as God. The clincher was the "here is my argument" round from kohai where he listed a bunch of videos, that is not a way to run a debate. 1 pt to Con.