The Instigator
Jellon
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

The Jewish religion should identify Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,682 times Debate No: 60935
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (91)
Votes (4)

 

Jellon

Pro

First round is acceptance.
For the purpose of this debate, different weight will be given to various Jewish writings.
1) The Tanakh (aka Old Testament) will be considered holy scripture.
2) The Mishna and Gemara will be considered trustworthy teaching.
3) The B'rit Hadasha (aka New Testament) will be treated equally as all other ancient texts.
Wylted

Con

I accept and plan to use plain english as much as possible so as not to come off pompous an to make the debate more readable.

I also apologize profusely for not being Jewish. I know my opponent preferred to debate a Jewish person.

All joking aside I wanted to take a moment to highlight what my opponent has to do to win this debate. His burden of proof is actually incredibly large, probably a lot larger than he considered before making this debate. The New Testament even if taken as fact does't show Jesus fulfilling every single messianic prophecy.

Even if every prophecy is fulfilled there are also a few other qualifications that Jesus falls short of meeting. As my opponent has stated we will be treating the NewTestament as a historical document, and like any historical document we'll likely have to use common sense as well as some other tricks that historians commonly use to seperate fact from fiction.

I don't think we'll spend too much time on that though, since even if it's taken as 100% true Jesus still falls short of being the messiah.

Good luck to my pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Jellon

Pro

Definitions:
Tanakh - Old Testament. These are the scriptures generally accepted by Jewish people
B'rit HaDasha - New Testament. Hebrew for New Covenant
Yeshua - Jesus

I really don't want to debate over specifics of accuracy of the B'rit HaDasha (New Testament). We have agreed to treat the B'rit HaDasha as any other ancient text with the understanding that it isn't completely fabricated. This should not be a debate over whether or not Yeshua is fact or fiction. I want to focus the debate on two topics: what did ancient Jewish Rabbi's look for in the Messiah, and did Yeshua (Jesus) meet those criteria. Most such debates center on the Tanakh (Old Testament) prophecies. The rebuttals usually follow by reinterpreting the verses. However, the Mishna are ancient rabbinic commentaries on the Tanakh and are thus less ambiguous. Where they need further explanation, we can look to the Gemara, which is a set of ancient rabbinic commentaries on the Mishna.
There are competing prophecies in the Tanakh regarding the nature of Messiah. This led to controversy among rabbis over how to identify Messiah. This led ancient rabbis to believe in two Messiah figures: Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. Messiah ben Joseph is believed to be insignificant. He suffers and dies. Messiah ben David comes and restores peace and prosperity to Israel. It was agreed that Messiah ben Joseph would come before Messiah ben David [1] [2]. There are a number of differing opinions among ancient rabbis as to how or why Messiah ben Joseph would suffer and die.
One of the key prophecies on which the belief in Messiah ben Joseph is found in Isaiah 53 [3]. Modern rabbinic interpretation of this passage claims that Israel is the suffering servant that pays for the sins of the entire world. There are many problems with this interpretation. First of all, this interpretation came in the middle ages in response to Christian claims that Isaiah 53 referred to Messiah. According to modern Jewish scholarship, the earliest reference to this interpretation comes about 284 C.E, well after the establishment of Christianity [5]. Rabbis have agreed for centuries, even as last as the 16th century, that Isaiah 53 refers to Messiah [6] [7]. Although there is a single ancient reference to this anti-missionary interpretation, there are too many other rabbinic writings that say the passage refers to Messiah that the argument is really one sided [8]. Both the Orthodox and JewsForJudaism movements agree on is that Isaiah 53 is the strongest evidence that Yeshua is the Messiah [8]. If Isaiah 53 is referring to the Messiah, there is a strong correlation with basic story of Yeshua in the B'rit HaDasha. Also, the suffering servant described in Isaiah 53 is called blameless, which is not something credited to Israel.

It is interesting to note that the idea of Messiah was a popular topic until about Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi in 200-250 CE compiled the Mishna. The Mishna almost never references Messiah; the Talmud, which was written before then, had many references to the Messiah [9]. The change seemed to occur in response to Christianity. Not only so, but the actual scriptures were modified in order to discredit Christianity [10]. We know this by comparing the Septuagint, Masoretic text, and the dead sea scrolls. It is also interesting to note that Israel made it a goal of theirs to take control of the dead sea scrolls as quickly as possible. After they achieved this, discovers found in them slowed dramatically. I have been unable to find a Jewish source that admits the Talmud agreed that Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah. There appears to be a targeted cover-up by the Jewish religion. This is an indication that they know that the scriptures appear to point to Yeshua as the Messiah, but they do not want to admit to it.

I should revisit the idea of two Messiah's. The second Messiah is believed to come in power and usher in the Messianic age where there is peace. The prophecies of the B'rit HaDasha concerning the return of Yeshua directly correlate to the prophecies regarding Messiah Ben David.

The Messiah is prophesied to be in the line of David. Records of the line of David were lost when the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. If someone today claimed to be the Messiah, then that prophecy could not be verified. The lineage of Yeshua includes King David.

Daniel 9 [11] is also a strong indicator that Yeshua is the Messiah. It describes Messiah being killed. There is no debate over whether or not this passage refers to Messiah [12]. After that event, the city and the Temple will be destroyed. There was a great fire in Rome in 64 C.E. [13] and the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E [14]. The biggest debate here is the interpretation of time. In Hebrew, the word for week is also the word for seven. For this reason, the author of Daniel uses the words, "seven of days" when he refers to a week to be specific. Although this prophecy uses the word for week/seven, it does not say "seven of days". It would be inconsistent with both history and the reading of the book of Daniel to interpret the Hebrew word as "week". So the debate is over what the word should be translated as instead of week. It just so happens that if we interpret it as seven of years instead of seven of days, the math works out to be around the time of Yeshua. All the prophecies line up. Now a skeptic would like to say that Daniel was written after the fact, or close to the fact. However, the book of Daniel was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and we now have great confidence using both radiometric and paleolithic dating to say it was written before the time of Yeshua [15]. It is uncanny that the seven of years interpretation of Daniel aligns so well with all of the prophecies contained in it, which indicate Yeshua is the Messiah. Although it is possible this interpretation is wrong, it is still reasonable evidence in favor of Yeshua.

So we have evidence from the Talmud that Isaiah 53 is about Messiah, and the prophecy aligns with the claims regarding Yeshua. Yeshua fulfills both the traditionally expected Messiahs. The prophecy of Daniel that predates Yeshua strongly indicates that Messiah came as the same time as Yeshua.

Looking forward to your response. I know you said it would take 3 days, but I hope you surprise me. :) Good luck.

1) http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com...
2) http://www.menorah.org...
3) http://www.blueletterbible.org...
4) http://www.doxa.ws...
5) http://www.answering-christianity.com...
6) The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, Driver & Neubauer, reprinted by Wipf and Stock Publishers 1999.
7) http://www.jewsforjesus.org...
8) http://www.kregel.com...
9) http://www.bibleandjewishstudies.net...
10) http://www.oodegr.com...
11) https://www.biblegateway.com...
12) http://carm.org...
13) http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...
14) http://www.chabad.org...
15) http://www.biblearchaeology.org...
Wylted

Con

My opponent has chosen to use Hebrew where English would be more appropriate and make his argument easier to read for voters. If any of the voters struggle to grasp his argument I urge them to dock him spelling and grammar points as that should be titled communication points anyway.

This round I will ignore my opponent's arguments and provide rebuttals in the next round.

INTRODUCTION

According to Rabbi Shraga Simmons;

"1. Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2. Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3. Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4. Jewish belief is based on national revelation."
[1]

Any sources outside of the bible will be placed in the sources section. For bible verses you can go to biblehub.com. My arguments will resemble the outline Rabbi Shraga Simmons just provided.

Jesus Did Not Fulfill the Messianic Prophecies

One thing that the messiah is supposed to do us usher in a period of world peace(Isaiah 2:1-4, 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34).

This is going to come as news to my opponent but Jesus did not usher in world peace. Also Jesus stated that he didn't come for peace directly. In Matthew 10:35 Jesus says:

"For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--

It's also pretty obvious we aren't in an era of world peace by just cutting on CNN for 5 minutes. Christians try to compensate for the fact that Jesus didn't usher in world peace by saying "oh he'll do them in the future", but that's really just cheating in an attempt to turn Jesus into some sort of messiah. I could say I'm going to fulfill these prophecies in future. It doesn't make me the messiah to make promises.

There are other prophecies Jesus hasn't fulfilled as well.

"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 R13; on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9)."[2]

Jesus hasn't done any of that. It's pretty clear from just that, that Jesus isn't the messiah. Let's dig deeper though.

Jesus Did Not Embody the Personal Qualifications of Messiah

The most notable qualification of being the messiah that Jesus didn't fulfill is being a prophet. The messiah is supposed to become the greatest prophet ever 2nd only to Moses (Targum - Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides - Yad Teshuva 9:2).

"Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE."[3]

Jesus came on the scene hundreds of years after the prophecy ended and therefore can't be a prophet and certainly can't be the messiah.

Jesus is also supposed to be descended from King David in his father's side (Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) However it's claimed that Jesus was born from a virgin.

The messiah is also supposed to be a normal human born of human parents and not with magical abilities. (Numbers 23:19, Maimonides "Guide for the Perplexed).

It is also stated in prophecy that The messiah would bring the Jews to full Torah observance. (Deut. 13:1-4) However, Jesus constantly went against the Torah and even contradicted it. You can see several examples of Jesus violating the Sabbath in the bible. One example is in John 9:14 when Jesus makes a paste violating it. However there are numerous other examples.

Mistranslated Verses "Referring" to Jesus

There are a lot of verses in the Old Testament that supposedly refer to Jesus. In Isaiah 7:14 it discusses an "Alma" giving birth. Later Christians interpreted this to mean Virgin but it actually means a young woman.

Isaiah 53 supposedly refers to a suffering servant and is interpreted by Jesus to be a prophecy about Jesus. However Isaiah makes it clear that it is referring to servant of God as the nation if Israel (Isaiah 43:8), and stated it numerous times.

Jewish Belief is Based Solely on National Revelation

The Jews know that eyewitness testimony is shaky and that national revelation is how they come to their beliefs and always will. Funny enough it is said that God actually gives charlatans(AKA Jesus) the power to perform miracles in order to test the Jews (Deut. 13:4).

sources
[1] http://www.aish.com...
[2] ibid
[3] ibid
Debate Round No. 2
Jellon

Pro

It is no wonder to me why Con didn't want to give a rebuttal to my arguments this round. I followed the one source Con gave and found it to be an expanded version of the argument he presented and in the same order. In some cases, he just used copy and paste directly, and perhaps modified a few words to avoid direct plagiarism. I believe Con should be docked points for not showing how much content he uses from the one reference he gave.

That aside, I already addressed several key points Con made. Much of the argument is centered on the unfulfillment of certain Messianic prophecies. I previously addressed that by showing from Jewish sources that the Jewish people expected two Messiahs. There was debate in the Jewish community over whether it was the same Messiah that came twice, or two different Messiahs. The first Messiah to come, Messiah ben Joseph, would suffer. The Talmud writes that he wouldn't be very notable, because he wouldn't really accomplish anything. The second Messiah is the one we should look forward to. Yeshua Jesus meets the criteria for Messiah set by the Talmud by having two comings.

Con cited Aish saying, "Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE." However, there is no qualification for this statement by either Con or Aish. If this statement were to be taken as fact, than we would need to remove books from the Bible. For example, Daniel was written in the land of Babylon during the Babylonian captivity. The Jewish people did not occupy the land at that time. Daniel is as book full of prophecy, including prophecy about Messiah. I pointed out in my opening arguments that there is no dispute among Jews as to Daniel 9 referring to Messiah because the Hebrew words are so specific it can't refer to anyone else.

Con claims,
"Jesus is also supposed to be descended from King David in his father's side (Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) However it's claimed that Jesus was born from a virgin."
However, I looked up every single one of those references. I agree that they support the idea that Messiah should come from King David, but there is no requirement that it be on his father's side as Con incorrectly claims. Given that quote was almost copy and paste from his reference to Aish, he probably didn't bother looking up the verses for himself to realize that. However, Biblical scholarship shows that both Mary and Joseph were descendants of King David [1] [2]. Not only is Con's claim not supported by the verses he quotes, but the criteria he claims wasn't met is supported as being met according to the B'rti HaDasha (New Testament).

I am perplexed by Con's statement, "The messiah is also supposed to be a normal human born of human parents and not with magical abilities. (Numbers 23:19...)." For the benefit of the voters, I shall quote the verse here.
"G-d is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through?" NLT
This verse does not indicate a lack of "magical abilities". It does not indicate "normal human born" either. If anything, it would indicate no human parents at all. But we see the intent of the verse is not a prophecy about Messiah, but rather a contrast between the characteristics of humans and G-d.

Con claims that Yeshua Jesus broke Sabbath. However, these claims are off based. There isn't one example Con could propose to which there is no answer. The only one Con gave was that "paste" was made. If John 9:14 were to be looked up, the reader would find that the paste was mud which was then used to heal a man's eyes. Even when Yeshua Jesus spoke a man's healing without doing any other work, the Pharisees still accused him of working on the Sabbath. Yeshua Jesus pointed out that if one of their children or animals got stuck in a well on the Sabbath, they would be willing to pull it out (Luke 15:4), which is far more work than was done to heal on the Sabbath. The accusation of the Pharisees was based on strict interpretation of the Law. On one occasion, the Pharisees accused him of eating with unwashed hands (Mark 7:1-13). This is not a scriptural commandment anywhere, and it is additionally stated in the text that this is a tradition. If the Pharisee's make accusations against breaking the Law over things that are not even in the Law, then they are not a credible witness as to what constitutes breaking the Law, including the Sabbath.

The virgin birth was agreed upon by the 70 rabbis who translated the Tanahk (Old Testament, Hebrew Scriptures) from Hebrew into Greek. The Greek version of the Tanahk is called the Septuagint. The contention isn't over whether or not the Septuagint specifically prophecies a virgin birth, it does. The contention is that it was mistranslated by the authors of the Septuagint [3]. The oldest copy of the Septuagint we have dates back to 150 BC [4] [5]. I have shown that even those against the virgin birth admit the existence of the prophecy before the declaration of its fulfillment in the New Testament. There is no debate among scholarship. Beyond that, even if that prophecy didn't exist, we can't prove that Mary was a virgin, and the New Testament isn't accepted by the Jewish people. It's a mute point that I've spent far too much time on.

I have already addressed the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, but since Con used it in his opening without giving a rebuttal, I will add to my earlier argument. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain ancient texts that go back into B.C.E. The Dead Sea Scrolls support the idea that the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is actually a singular person, not the nation of Israel [6] [7]. In my opening arguments I quoted from the Talmud where Isaiah 53 is attributed to Messiah, and 17th century Jewish scholars who agree.

Con states, "Funny enough it is said that God actually gives charlatans(AKA Jesus) the power to perform miracles in order to test the Jews (Deut. 13:4)"
This is another perplexing statement which I hope Con will clarify.

Deuteronomy 13:4 New Living Translation (NLT)
4 Serve only the Lord your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him.

I doubt Con can easily substantiate the claim. It is a slightly modified version of an exact sentence in his Aish source.

1) https://bible.org...
2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
3) http://www.harrington-sites.com...
4) Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 44
5) http://www.provethebible.net...
6) http://www.doxa.ws...
7) http://dss.collections.imj.org.il...
Wylted

Con

I used a single source for my arguments. I used citations and quotation marks in every instance of me using another person's words. I was also pretty open about using the same framework. If you feel like I was unfair than just don't count any of those arguments. The BOP is on my opponent and I can win this debate by just using rebuttals anyway.

INTRODUCTION

My opponent's entire case rests on Isaiah 53. This is a big mistake. All I have to show is that my interpretation of Isaiah 53 is more reasonable than pro's and I win this debate. I'll take this relevant point by relevant point, and you'll see how he's had to really distort the original meaning of Isiaih 53 as well as invent (dig up may be more appropriate) some kooky theories to make his arguments work.

The Meaning of Isaiah 53

If you fully read Isaiah 53 (found here https://www.biblegateway.com... 53 ), you'll see that it's clearly talking about the nation of Israel. The writer is trying to be poetic or just writes funny and continually refers to Israel as a servant or in the singular sense as if talking about a person.

When I first read the popular verses from Isaiah, I read them out of context and thought it was an amazing description of what happened to Jesus. Here is one verse so you can see what I mean.

Isaiah 53:5
"5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

Amazing right? Here is one thing I want to bring your attention to. This verse is in past tense, it's not a prophecy. The "he" refers to Israel which I'll show you here in a minute. The writer is simply being poetic in his description of a past event that hit Israel pretty hard.

Now my opponent is going to point out that a few long dead Jews thought this verse was in reference to some messiah figure. He's not going to explain the why or how but just show some old dead Jewish guy thought it was the case. Does this guy believe everything dead Jewish guys tell him. I mean if a dead Jewish guy told him he was the messiah, would he believe him?........

Oh yeah, that's right.

You may be asking yourself: "How does this guy know that Isaiah 53 is about Israel and not Jesus? (Besides the usage of past tense)" Well that my friends is a little something I like to call context. Let's go back to when this guy started his poetic rendition of the hardships of Israel. It's not too far back

Isaiah 41:8
"8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend."

Here Israel is called servant and you can see all kinds of examples of this author referring to Israel as servant or him or some other singular way. I encourage the readers and even the voters to read Isaiah 52 and 54. It's extremely clear that both chapters refer to the nation of Israel. (It will just take a minute, again visit biblehub.)

This is called context. The bible is translated and written in plain English. I encourage everyone to look at the context.

" According to modern Jewish scholarship, the earliest reference to this interpretation comes about 284 C.E, well after the establishment of Christianity"

For one it's hard to get ahold of writing from much earlier than that. Another thing is that it's irrelevant what they thought. I could care less how Jews interpreted those passages 2,000 years ago. There is this odd appeal to nostalgia. People believe that the older something is the more accurate or pure it is, but that's bologna.

My opponent is stating that Jews didn't hold a particular interpretation of Isaiah 53 until 200 and something AD. You can't say Jewish scholars all of a sudden became less accurate at interpreting scripture merely because Christianity came on the scene, that good sir is ludicrous (not the rapper).

Doublemint Gum Double Messiah

I want to take a moment to quote my opponent's source:

"When and how this Messiah-conception originated is a question that has not yet been answered satisfactorily. It is not possible to consider Messiah b. Joseph the Messiah of the Ten Tribes."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

Let me put what he's using as a source and evidence for a double messiah in more plain English. Here it is in my own words.

"We don't know how the hell those dead Jewish guys came up with the double messiah theory."

Dude, you can't just say some dead Jewish guys came up with a theory for a double messiah, so that makes the theory valid. You need to provide some supporting evidence, especially when your theories are so far in left field. So far pro has failed to support this theory except to say dead Jewish guys believed it once.

Another thing is that the double messiah theory is a cop out. As I've shown in my previous round Jesus did not meet the qualifications of the messiah. My opponent has chopped off the qualifications Jesus didn't meet to form some argument based on some obscure ancient double messiah theory.

At this point it doesn't even matter what argument I bring up. My opponent is going to say: "that may be true for the other messiah, but not Jesus".

There is another reason the double messiah theory is a cop out. The story of Jesus as told in the bible would indicate a single messiah. This is why when Jesus failed to meet the qualifications of messiah, he promised to complete them When he returns at some later date which still hasn't occurred. Jesus and his followers didn't buy this double messiah theory and were probably unaware it even existed.

CONCLUSION

My counter rebuttals will follow in the next round. Just to summarize things for the readers. My opponent hasn't really offered any credible evidence for his position. He's equated the beliefs of others as evidence for his position or evidence against mine.

Every single one of his arguments have basically been a logical fallacy known as....

Genetic fallacy- is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.

I want to end this round by providing a list of my opponent's most amusing genetic fallacies......

"I have been unable to find a Jewish source that admits the Talmud agreed that Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah. There appears to be a targeted cover-up by the Jewish religion. This is an indication that they know that the scriptures appear to point to Yeshua as the Messiah, but they do not want to admit to it."

"There are competing prophecies in the Tanakh regarding the nature of Messiah. This led to controversy among rabbis over how to identify Messiah. This led ancient rabbis to believe in two Messiah figures"

" Modern rabbinic interpretation of this passage claims that Israel is the suffering servant that pays for the sins of the entire world. There are many problems with this interpretation. First of all, this interpretation came in the middle ages in response to Christian claims that Isaiah 53 referred to Messiah."

"It is interesting to note that the idea of Messiah was a popular topic until about Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi in 200-250 CE compiled the Mishna. The Mishna almost never references Messiah; the Talmud, which was written before then, had many references to the Messiah"

"I previously addressed that by showing from Jewish sources that the Jewish people expected two Messiahs."

Debate Round No. 3
Jellon

Pro

Con: "My opponent's entire case rests on Isaiah 53. This is a big mistake."
Con refused to give a rebuttal in round 2 to my round 2 arguments. When Con claims that my entire argument rests on Isaiah 53, Con is only addressing my round 3 rebuttal. Con has completely ignored my opening arguments which include Daniel 9 which is a better argument than Isaiah 53 in my own estimation.

Con: "My opponent is stating that Jews didn't hold a particular interpretation of Isaiah 53 until 200 and something AD. You can't say Jewish scholars all of a sudden became less accurate at interpreting scripture merely because Christianity came on the scene, that good sir is ludicrous (not the rapper)."
In this case, there is a strong argument that older sources are more pure. After Christianity was established, the Jewish religion had to counter the claims of Christianity. In other words, later interpretations of the Bible would be bias against Christianity. Any Jewish writers that came before Christianity would be unbias on the matter specific to Christianity, because they wouldn't know of it. Additionally, the Bible was written in the mother tongue of ancient Jewish writers, giving them a clearer understanding of the intent of the original authors than even modern Hebrew speakers. The 70 rabbis who produced the Septuagint would also be unbias toward Christianity, because the Septuagint was produced hundreds of years before Christianity began. The authors of the B'rit HaDasha (New Testament) quoted the Septuagint heavily. The oldest manuscripts of the entire Bible we have are from the Septuagint [1]. Additionally, the Septuagint was quoted by early Jewish historians such as Philo and Josephus [1].
The veneration with which the Jews had treated this version [the Septuagint] (as is shown in the case of Philo and Josephus) [because Philo and Josephus quoted the Septuagint], gave place to a very contrary feeling when they [the Jews] found how it could be used against them in argument: hence they decreed the version, and sought to deprive it of all authority. [1]

As I previously pointed out, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide evidence that Isaiah 53 was altered after the establishment of Christianity to refute the claims of Christians. The Great Isaiah Scroll predates Christianity and differs from the Masoretic texts found after the establishment of Christianity in meaning, specifically in the chapter of Isaiah 53 [2]. To be specific, the ancient Great Isaiah Scroll agrees with the ancient Septuagint where ever it disagrees with the modern Masoretic text used by Jewish scholarship today. So the claims that Con makes regarding Isaiah 53 are based on changes to the text that occurred only after Christianity was established. Con seems to agree with my assertion that the modern Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 was established after Christianity was established. This furthers my assertion that modern Jewish thought on the Bible is bias. Contrary to Con's assertions, this is why it is important to go back to the earliest commentaries possible.

Con provides a modern reference stating that Messiah ben Joseph couldn't be the Messiah of the Ten Tribes. However, this reference does not provide a single premise by which that claim can be tested or falsified. It appears to be an assertion of bias against Christianity, and not an assertion of fact based on available evidence.

In contrast, I have provided evidence from unbias, ancient Jewish scholarship providing evidence that Yeshua Jesus did in fact meet the prophetic criteria not just of Daniel 9 and Isaiah 53, but of additional prophecies such as the lineage from King David.

I provided a rebuttal of Con's assertion that Messiah had to come from David on his father's side even though he didn't have an earthly father. I showed that both his mother and his adopted father were in the line of David. Con failed to address my rebuttal. In fact, Con failed to address the majority of my objections to his opening arguments. Con seems to either consider his opening arguments are trivial or simply not understand his opening arguments, which is dumbfounding considering his claim to not have plagiarized.

Con provided so little objection in his previous round that I have very little to give a rebuttal to. Given I have opening arguments left unaddressed, I maintain my assertion that the rejection of Yeshua Jesus as the Messiah is based on bias instead of available evidence. I have shown the post-Christian alteration of the Bible in support of this bias.

1) http://www.ecclesia.org...
2) http://www.ancient-hebrew.org...
Wylted

Con

"Con cited Aish saying, "Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE." However, there is no qualification for this statement by either Con or Aish."

This is not true. There is qualification for this sentence that hasn't been touched as far as a rebuttal is concerned the point still stands. The following prophecy should clear things up.

Isaiah 43: 5-6

Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;

I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;


"If this statement were to be taken as fact, than we would need to remove books from the Bible.

The Bible was written by a lot of different authors across many different time periods it's contradictions don't surprise me nor do anything to help your case.

"However, I looked up every single one of those references. I agree that they support the idea that Messiah should come from King David, but there is no requirement that it be on his father's side as Con incorrectly claims."

Joseph's lineage doesn't matter, because he isn't the father of Jesus. Mary's lineage doesn't count, because she is a woman. That's just how the bible works like it or not. Throughout the bible the lineage of everybody from Adam and Even to King David is traced only using males and their male offspring. Not any other example of a woman begatting something exists until Jesus arrives on the scene. Jesus is a false messiah.

The real Messiah needs to be descended from King David through the males and on his father's side. It's Jewish tradition to trace genealogy from the father's side. If Jesus is claiming to be the Jewish messiah he need's to meet this obligation.

"I am perplexed by Con's statement, "The messiah is also supposed to be a normal human born of human parents and not with magical abilities. (Numbers 23:19...)." For the benefit of the voters, I shall quote the verse here.
"G-d is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through?" NLT"


The point of the verse is to show that God is not man or like man. John 1:1 explains that Jesus is God.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I ran out of room to discuss Daniel 9 in the previous round, but I'll briefly bring it up here. Jesus doesn't fit the qualifications of God so this Daniel 9 isn't really important but;

Biblical Scholars are confused about what Daniel 9 means, but all Christians seem to agreement over the meaning (conveniently enough). I interpret it to mean that after the destruction of the 2nd temple, this would begin the process of purifying Israel to get it ready for the messiah. I realize this is the most literal interpretation but fail to see why it shouldn't be taken literal.
Debate Round No. 4
Jellon

Pro

First, Con quoted Isaiah 43 which is a prophecy regarding the gathering of Jewish people from all over the world back to Israel. This is not an indication, as Con claims, that "Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry." I agree that if prophecy only occurred when most Jewish people of the world were in Israel, then we would have to remove books from the Bible, but no such claim is made in the Bible itself.

Con continues to assert that the prophecy concerning the line of King David must be on the father's side. In today's time, Jewish people agree that in order to be Jewish, you must have a Jewish mother. There is a precedent for this in the Talmud [1]. The requirement that Messiah come from King David specifically on his father's side is simply not in the scriptures. The record of who is in the line of King David was lost. I again point out that there is no point in having a prophecy that cannot be validated. The fact that Yeshua Jesus was in the line of David is enough to fulfill the prophecy. Numbers 1:(which Con didn't mention yet) is a description of history and is not enough to show that all prophecies about linage are a reference to the father.

Con continues to fail to address Daniel 9 with any level of credibility. Although Con only used 3000 of his 8000 character limit last round, I fear he will attempt to address it in the last round without giving me any chance to give a rebuttal. This is a dubious tactic given Con's lack of attention to the topic for the past 2 rounds. I couldn't find any sources to back up Con's literal interpretation of Daniel 9, so I am unable to give a response ahead of time. Nonetheless, I will continue to further the argument for Daniel 9.
The Jewish rabbi's appear to know and deny that Daniel 9 is about Yeshua Jesus. I have already shown that the scriptures, especially Isaiah 53, were changed in the second century in order to rebut Christians. Con has not denied this, yet. A second century rabbi wrote in the Talmud a curse on anyone who attempts to calculate the day of Messiah's coming using Daniel 9. Another rabbi expounded upon the curse by claiming that a lay person would come to the conclusion that the time of Messiah has already passed, yet Messiah has not come [3]. This is, of course, a rebuttal to the Christians interpretation of Daniel 9. However, the Christians were not the first to give this interpretation to Daniel 9. The Mishna interpreted Daniel 9 as being a 'week of years' (7 years, as opposed to a week of 7 days) [3]. Although the Mishna was written by non-Christian Jewish rabbi's after Yeshua Jesus, the date of this interpretation was pushed further back by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls [4]. There are several Messianic Texts Qumram found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which predicted that Messiah would come between 3 B.C.E. and 20 C.E. based on Daniel 9. These texts refer to the coming of two Messiahs. Some of them refer to the Messiah as the son of G-d or even the first born son of G-d. One used termonlogy such as, "G-d begets the Messiah." Because these writing pre-date Yeshua Jesus, there could be no bias in them on the subject. The Christian interpretation of Daniel 9 is the most popular before the coming of Yeshua Jesus. Although I cannot affirm there is no competing interpretation, I cannot find one that dates that far back.
Daniel 9 mentions the destruction of the temple and the city after the death of Messiah. Both of these things happened after the death of Yeshua Jesus in the order given by Daniel 9. There is evidence that Jewish rabbis attempted to downplay the importance of the book of Daniel by moving it from the "prophets" category to the "writings" category [5].

When I claimed that Yeshua Jesus is Messiah, I didn't also claim divinity. But for the record, the divinity of Messiah had advocates before the coming of Yeshua Jesus based on Isaiah 9 where the prophet lists a name for G-d among the names of the coming Messiah [6]. Isaiah 9 describes the coming Messiah as a child born for us.

Thanks Con for giving me the opportunity to debate this. Good luck in the future.

1) http://www.beingjewish.com...
2) http://www.messiahnj.org...
3) http://amazingdiscoveries.org...
4) http://www.hebrew-streams.org...
5) http://www.hebrew-streams.org...
6) http://www.provethebible.net...
Wylted

Con

My opponent has failed to support his arguments at all. Every single one of his arguments have either been an appeal to authority logical fallacy or a genetic logical fallacy. He actually comes into this debate stating it is his intention to use an appeal to authority.

From round 2:

". I want to focus the debate on two topics: what did ancient Jewish Rabbi's look for in the Messiah, and did Yeshua (Jesus) meet those criteria."

That's not how you win a debate. You need to build a case and this I'm just pointing his fingers at dead Jewish guys and saying "hey those guys looked for this in a messiah". That's interesting that there was a sect of Jews that believed in this double messiah theory, but irrelevant without some supporting evidence as to why that theory should be accepted. It being convenient to your case isn't a good reason to accept it.

DOUBLE MESSIAH

Let's take a momxplore the evidence my opponent has provided.

from R2: "There are competing prophecies in the Tanakh regarding the nature of Messiah. This led to controversy among rabbis over how to identify Messiah. This led ancient rabbis to believe in two Messiah figures: Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. Messiah ben Joseph is believed to be insignificant. He suffers and dies. Messiah ben David comes and restores peace and prosperity to Israel. It was agreed that Messiah ben Joseph would come before Messiah ben David"

This is an appeal to authority. Some ancient rabbis had this theory, but my opponent fails to support this theory himself. We need me facts to back up this theory not just pointing us to long dead rabbis who believed it.

from R2: "Modern rabbinic interpretation of this passage claims that Israel is the suffering servant that pays for the sins of the entire world. There are many problems with this interpretation. First of all, this interpretation came in the middle ages in response to Christian claims that Isaiah 53 referred to Messiah. According to modern Jewish scholarship, the earliest reference to this interpretation comes about 284 C.E, well after the establishment of Christianity"

This is a genetic fallacy. This interpretation of Isaiah 53 isn't rejected, because the facts have been shown wrong, or because the rabbis have been shown to make errors in their judgement. It's rejected because of where the interpretation came from. You'll notice a theme in my opponent's arguments. He accepts all bible interpretations of Daniel 9 if they came from Christians or of Isaiah 53 if it came from the sect of Jews he mention that existed prior to Jesus coming on the scene. After Jesus comes on the scene all Jewish interpretations of these passages are rejected.

How messed up is that. My opponent is rejecting modern Judaism's interpretation of things not because they have been shown wrong, but merely because they haven't accepted Jesus as the messiah.

another example of a genetic fallacy from R2 " I have been unable to find a Jewish source that admits the Talmud agreed that Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah. There appears to be a targeted cover-up by the Jewish religion. This is an indication that they know that the scriptures appear to point to Yeshua as the Messiah, but they do not want to admit to it."

from R3 "That aside, I already addressed several key points Con made. Much of the argument is centered on the unfulfillment of certain Messianic prophecies. I previously addressed that by showing from Jewish sources that the Jewish people expected two Messiahs."

Again he is misleading you by implying that the Jewish people were expecting 2 messiahs when in fact it was only a small sect, but more importantly he is saying we should accept the 2 messiah theory because some Jewish people did prior to Jesus coming on the scene. This is another appeal to authority. He's failed to show why the double messiah theory should be accepted. Saying that people used to believe it at one point isn't enough.

From R4: "In this case, there is a strong argument that older sources are more pure. After Christianity was established, the Jewish religion had to counter the claims of Christianity. In other words, later interpretations of the Bible would be bias against Christianity"

You can see my opponent isn't correcting course in later rounds. He is still leaning heavy on these genetic fallacies. This one he claims older sources are more pure an unbiased should be trusted because of their age, while newer sources should be distrusted because they are from Jews who haven't accepted Jesus as messiah.

I've also pointed out that this double messiah theory wasn't something believed by Jesus or his followers, because if it was they wouldn't have tried to implement the messiah installment plan where he fulfills some prophecies now then the rest later.

UNFULFILLED PROPHECY

Jesus needs to be descended from King David on his father's side. The fact that he isn't means he isn't the messiah. Jesus was born by immaculate conception and can't possibly be descended from David father's side. My opponent fails to really address this adequately. You can reread every single one of those boring begats in the bible and you won't find a single one until you come to the New Testament. You won't find them, because this is how the Jews counted and kept track of their lineage back then.

Earlier in this round my opponent brings this new argument about a Jewish person needing to be Jewish by being born to a Jewish mother, but this tradition besides being a new argument didn't exist in the time Jesus. Seeing as how Jesus must meet every single prophecy this fact alone is enough for me to win the debate, but there is more. He didn't accomplish the most important prophecies as my opponent admits and tries to overcome with this 2 messiah theory.

Isaiah 53

My opponent asks you to accept his interpretation for Isaiah 53 and yet if you go back I'm the one that completely breaks it down for you. He never does this. He points out how some other people interpret that passage but fails to show why you should interpret it that way, like I do in round 3. He just expects you to take his word that's the way the chapter should be interpreted. I'm sorry pro but that's not good enough, you need to show why those verses should be interpreted that way as I did in round 3.

DANIEL 9

I guess my opponent thinks this is his strongest argument because not only does he demand I not add any new arguments about Daniel 9 in this round, but he the proceeds to make new arguments about Daniel 9 himself. My opponent gave a claim of this chapter's propr interpretation and I gave a counter claim. mine was supported by as much evidence as his was. He honestly just uses appeals to authority and the genetic fallacy to advance this argument as he's done with every one of his arguments.

CONCLUSION

My opponent hasn't overcome the massive BOP he created for himself. This is a clear win for me. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
91 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Emilirose 2 years ago
Emilirose
SNP1: That would suggest that Yeshua wasn't even a real person, which most historians agree that he was.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
Not entirely true. School in those days consisted of learning the Tanahk. The authors of the Brit Hadashah frequently quote from the Septuigint, even the untrained authors.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Emilirose: Yes, because the authors of the New Testament didn't have an Old Testament to look at. It is impossible for them to have made it up.
Posted by Emilirose 2 years ago
Emilirose
That argument would be valid if it were not for the fact that Jesus (Yeshua) did fulfil prophecies.

Your assertion: "even Bar Kohba has a greater possibility to be Messiah be Jesus of Nazareth", is incorrect.
Posted by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
Will catch you up later, busy now. Then we will go on.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
As one week actually practices Judaism, I can tell you that Jewish traditions mostly come from rabbinical commentary on the Scriptures. There are other sources though. Baptism is common in Judaism but not mentioned anywhere in the Tanahk. Chanukah isn't from the Tanahk either. The liturgy is based on the Scripture (just like commentary) but isn't commanded by Scripture. The Shema is in the Scriptures, but the fact that it is a prayer or considered holy is a tradition, not given in the Scriptures. Traditions observed around the holidays are rarely from the Scriptures. For example, counting the omer is a tradition involving specific prayers and daily readings from psalm 119. This tradition isn't in the Scriptures either. I can keep going for a long long time and give more specifics.
Oh by the way, the idea that we are waiting for a Messiah is also from rabbinic commentary of the Scriptures. Some Jewish people don't believe in a physical Messiah, just a Messianic age.
Your idea that the Tanahk is the basis for Judaism is only partly correct. Tradition is a very large part, and many of these traditions came from rabbis. In fact, the specifics of how to keep kosher and Sabbath are both rabbinic traditions that vary among Jewish groups.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
1) the OT being the standard is your bias. It isn't part of the debate.
2) no one is allowed to change the structure of the debate in the middle of the debate. Besides, con stated that we can't trust dead Jews. He didn't show why. I showed that my sources predate the alleged Messiah, thus my sources aren't bias. I proved that modern Judaism is bias, to which con had no argument.
you admit to giving S&G points based on convincing arguments which is obviously against the voting standard. I'm glad you didn't do that this round.
Posted by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
@Jellon, beinf biased and being in CON/PRO position is not the same thing. As far as seen, CON never argueed something just because he thinks so or some think so. When argued, he argued through standart measurement which is OT.

2. You say that in round 1 you said commentaries to be reliable, but CON showed otherwise by saying: "we cant believe in every word of dead jews" it is as simple as that. Yes, commentary is sayings of some either dead or alive jew(s). CON sealt this very easily. I am not docking you because you used commentary but that used commentaries are shown by CON to be not reliable. Yes, several times I voted for grammar for somebody who I deduced to have better arguements because I never care grammar.

3. I never vote for something outside of the debate nor did I do in this debate. I never said Bar Kohba to be in the contention of this debate, I just gave example.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
Not sure if you know, but voting is based on the contents of the debate, and not what's not in the debate. Bar Kobah can't be part of your voting decision if you think about such things. Wylted didn't propose any other possible Messiah figure, so such possibilities can't be a factor in your decision.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
I'm not sure if you noticed that round 1 defined Jewish commentary as being reliable sources. The Mishnah is nothing but rabbinical commentary on the Tanahk. You can't dock me for using commentary when it was defined in round 1 by the author of the debate (me) as being a valid source. Overall, your vote does not meet the standards of DDO. I can't help but notice that many times you've explicitly given spelling and grammar points to whoever you think had the best argument. You've been here longer than I have. You should know better by now.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
JellonWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments had big fallacies that went short to defeat con, although it was strange to see both parties just seemingly extending rather than doing anything else, as whiteflame also notes
Vote Placed by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
JellonWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CON made better arguements. why: 1. the topic is Jesus to be identified as messiah, PRO started trying to show that Isaiah 53 and daniell 9 refers to messiah but the topic was not "do they refer to messiah" and it has nothing with "Jesus should be identified" 2. CON gave references from OT, which says messiah will be from DAvid, PRO simply said "it does not require" but since OT says it will be from David I conclude that this arguement of COn is not refuted. 3. PRO's arguements are based on interpretations of rabbis but the topic is not "do rabbis agree with christians" simply, this is also not arguement which CON showed us easily such as: "every word of jews is not to be true". since PRO's arguements were based on RABBIS(not OT) while CON used OT(what Judaism is based on) conduct vote goes for CON. majority of sources used by CON was sources which directly takes us OT while PRO's arguements were based on biased sources. p.s: I dont care grammar and spelling.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
JellonWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
JellonWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro as con was rude in the debate. The topic is "The Jewish religion should identify Yeshua as Messiah" therefore Pro is justified in using Jewish sources as evidence along with the Tanakh to support his claims. He explains the differences in translations and how bias was introduced in his sources. Early on, he explains why Yeshua is the candidate for the Messiah in Isaiah 53 by eliminating Israel as a possibility, so arguments go to him. Con simply resorts to more personal attacks rather than sources refuting Pro's interpretations. Pro refutes Con's arguments with his sources, so sources go to Pro.