The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

There are no true messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,155 times Debate No: 17927
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)




Resolved: There are no true messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus.


My opponent can use any prophecy from the old testament or any verse from the old testament that he thinks can be attributed to Jesus. I will prove how it is not attributed to Jesus, taken out of context, or anything I feel can blow the "proof texts" out of water.


The word "messiah" comes from the Hebrew word "moschaich" [a]. The name means "anointed one."

Round 1: My opponent will bring forth 3 prophecies he feels can be attributed to Jesus.

This debate works like the contradiction debates that RA and I have done.
a. I think I spelled that right.


I would like to thank my opponent for issuing this debate, and look forward to an exciting and engaging dialogue.

I accept the terms as listed.

Prophecy 1: The Messiah would be born in the Town of Bethlehem

Old Testament Text: Micah 5:2 -

New Testament Text: Matthew 2:1ff

Not only does the New Testament Record that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Matthew and Luke, but the Jews of the day indicate that they understand that Messiah will be born in Bethlehem.

Prophecy 2: the Messiah's ministry will be one of both spiritual and physical healing.

Old Testament Text: Isaiah 35:5-6 -

New Testament Text: Luke 7:20-22 -

When John the Baptist asks for Jesus to confirm his identity as Messiah, he points him to the fact that Messiah will heal people of their maladies. Specifically, he cites blindness and spiritual oppression. The Gospels record him doing all of these things, and Jesus himself believed that this evidence was enough to identify him as Messiah.

Prophecy 3: The Messiah would suffer a substitutionary death for the sins of Israel

Old Testament Text: Isaiah 53:5-6 -

New Testament Text: Luke 23:32ff and pars. - and 2 Corinthians 5:21 -

The passion accounts clearly match up with the "piercing" and "crushing" described in Isaiah 53. Beyond that, Jesus's death served as a substitutionary attonement, according to Paul, where he "became sin" for us. This is in line with Isaiah's language that "our iniquities" would be "laid upon him."

I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for this debate.

Born in Bethlehem.

My opponent states that the Jews understood the Messiah to have come from Bethlehem. Under what basis do you make such a claim?

Micha 5:2 (ESV)

"But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me who is to be a ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from old, from ancient days.


They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for so this is written by the prophet: "And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, you are by no means least among the rules of Judah; from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel"

Did you notice that misquote? Micha defines it as Bethlehem Ephrathah as a clan--NOT a city! It does not matter what city or town the messiah will be born in. Rather, this texts shows where his families origins lie [1]

In Hebrew, the word for Bethlehem is Beit-Lechem, the house of Lechem. It can refer to a city or a clan. We know that this case means clan because it says so.

In other words, the city has nothing to do with the messiah--but the clan has everything to do with such a thing. Note the phrase: "whose origin is from old" simply means that the messiah will come from a long lineage.

Note that in 6:8 "he has told you, O man, what is good, and what the L-rd requires of you: only do justice, and to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your G-d..." It does not say to worship Jesus but behave as God requires of you [2]

More problems with Micha 5

The very next verse states this: "Therefore, He shall deliver them until the time a woman in confinement gives birth. And the rest of his brothers shall return upon the children of Israel." In other words, this is a prophecy that states that the Messiah will gather up the Jewish people and bring them back to their original homeland. Every Jew knows this [3].

"And he shall stand and lead with the might of the Lord, with the pride of the Lord, his God: and they shall return, for now he shall become great to the ends of the earth."

The messiah is going to have the L-RD (YHWH) as his God---not be God himself. This verse prophecises that the Jews will return to the Torah worship and to full Judaism.

There are many other problems, but that is just what I'm listing for this debate.

Prophecy 2: the Messiah's ministry will be one of both spiritual and physical healing.

I had to re-read Isaiah 35 numerous times in efforts to fully understand it. I encourage my opponent to read it in the proper translation [4]

What’s going on in these passages? Well, if we read the surrounding verses, it is obvious that Isaiah is telling the people that Hashem will return them to Israel and make their enemies suffer. When the world sees what G-d has done—their eyes will be open—their ears will be open—to the glory of G-d and the fact that G-d “kept to his word” and saved the Jews. (A common theme in Isaiah).

Moreover, the Messiah does not have to perform ANY MIRACLES at all [5]. That is the Jewish understanding. Rather, he must fulfill the messianic prophecies.

Subsitutionary Death

Isaiah 53 is one of the suffering servant songs. Who is the suffering servant? ISRAEL!

  • “You are My servant, O Israel” (41:8)
  • “You are My servant, Israel” (49:3)
  • see also Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20

Isaiah makes it clear that Isaiah is talking about Israel. Now why would one of the suffering servant songs be referring to a messiah when the other songs are referring to the nation of Israel?

Let’s take a deeper look at Isaiah 53:5-6 [6]

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

This verse describes how the humbled world leaders confess that Jewish suffering occurred as a direct result of “our iniquities” – i.e., depraved Jew-hatred, rather than, as previously claimed, the stubborn blindness of the Jews.

Isaiah 53:5 is a classic example of mistranslation: The verse does not say, “He was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities,” which could convey the vicarious suffering ascribed to Jesus. Rather, the proper translation is: “He was wounded because of our transgressions, and crushed because of our iniquities.” This conveys that the Servant suffered as a result of the sinfulness of others – not the opposite as Christians contend – that the Servant suffered to atone for the sins of others.

There is no need for the Messiah to atone for others because G-d will forgive all those who repent. (Isaiah 55:6-7, Jeremiah 36:3, Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33, Hoseah 14:1-3, Jonah 3:6-10, Proverbs 16:6, Daniel 4:27, 2-Chronicles 7:14).

(6) We have all strayed like sheep, each of us turning his own way, and God inflicted upon him [Israel] the iniquity of us all.

The nations realize that their lack of proper leadership (“shepherd”) caused them to treat the Jews with disdain. They further acknowledge how punishments that should have befallen the nations were averted through Israel’s suffering.

What’s more? JESUS SINNED! Therefore, he could not have been our perfect sacrifice. Remember that Jesus is not above G-d’s law no matter how hypocritical the Pharisees were.

Sin 1: Jesus took from and changed the Torah!7

Deuteronomy 13:1

All that I command you, take care to do it; you shall not add to it, and you shall not diminish from it.

What did Jesus have to say about this?

Matthew 5:17-19

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say to you till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

Did he walk the talk?


Leviticus 20:10 - And a man who commits adultery with [another] man’s wife, [he] who commits adultery with the wife of his friend, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Matthew 5:27-28(KJV)
– (27) Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: (28) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. [See also Jn 8:3-11[5].]

In other words, a man becomes guilty of adultery even if he only thinks about desiring to be with a woman he has seen

This is what the Torah says concerning this type of desire:

Deuteronomy 21:10-11 – (10) When you go forth to a war against your enemies, and the L-rd your G-d has delivered them into your hands, and you have taken them captive; (11) And you see among the captives a beautiful woman and desire her, you may take her as your wife;

For a man to desire a woman [ (hashaq); e.g., Gen 34:8] is not necessarily sinful. Quite to the contrary, it can be a prelude to marriage.




Thank you to Kohai for his contribution.

Prophecy 1

My opponent has made a few significant mistakes.

The first is making a significant point out of the word "Ephrathah." Simply put, Ephrathah was another, more ancient name for Bethlehem. We see this clearly when we look at Genesis 35:19 and Genesis 48:7 which both use the ancient name of the town (Ephrathah) and then offer explanatory notes that this place is the same as the Modern (At the time of writing) Bethlehem.

So Rachel died, and she was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem) (ESV)

Furthermore, my opponent misunderstands the meaning of the word "Bethlehem." He is correct that the word breaks down to component parts of "Beth" and "Lechem." However, "Lechem" is not a person or family name. Lechem is the Hebrew word for Bread [A], so the town of Bethlehem is the "House of Bread" and likely refered to the dominant trade in the area.

Next, there is no record of a clan called Bethlehem or Ephrathah. Even if there were, the Clan of Bethlehem would have been a subdivision of the tribe of Judah. And since the town of Bethlehem is where David was from, it is logical to think that his geneology also traces back to this lost clan of Bethlehem. Since Jesus is descended from David, he is also from the clan of Bethlehem.

In fact, Kohai's own source supports this. It writes:

"Actually, the text does not necessarily mean the Messiah will be born in that town, but that his family originates from there. From the ancient family of the house of David will come forth the Messiah, whose eventual existence was known to God from the beginning of time." (Emphasis Added. See Pro Footnote 2.1)

Even if this prophecy was refering to the family lineage of the Messiah, rather than the geographical town of Bethlehem, Jesus still fulfills this prophecy, seeing that he was born of the lineage of David. However, this is a moot point, since there is no record of there ever being a Clan of Bethlehem.

In regards to the misquote of "Clan" to "Rulers." Ancient Hebrew did not utilize vowels during the time of Micah or Jesus. As such, there were sometimes words that were ambiguous due to their spelling. For example, both the words King and Queen utilize the Consonant structure /MLK/ while King is "Melech" and Queen is "Malkah." The words for Clan and Ruler are similar, and it is likely that the difference is simply that. The Study notes on Micah 5:2 in the Archeology Study Bible state:

"The 'clans of Judah' is read as the 'rulers of Judah' in Matthew 2:6 by using different (and probably correct) vowels with the Hebrew consonants." [B] This is an auxilary issue that does not change the meaning of the content.

Finally, my opponent still has not accounted for one simple fact. The Jews of Jesus' time believed that this passage was a prophecy regarding the location of the Birth of the Messiah. Does my opponent propose that he understands Hebrew and Messianic Prophecies better than 1st century Jewish sages?

There are other points in his response to this prophecy that are simply redhearings to the argument. Whether or not Jesus claimed to be God and Messiah would not be God (although this is arguable) is irrelevant. The simple fact is this: The prophecy states that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Whether this refers to the geographical location of his birth, or his family lineage, both of these requirements were fulfilled by Jesus.

Prophecy 2

Again, my opponent believes he is in a better position to understand Messianic Prophecy than a 1st century Jew. Why should we believe that the passage in Isaiah means anything other than what it says? Even my opponent's so called "proper translation" plainly reads "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped." If John the Baptist (a person the first century Jews acknowledged as a prophet) understood this to mean that the Messiah would have a ministry of supernatural healing, and Jesus (Also a first century Jew well versed in the Scripture) believed the same thing, why should we question it? My opponent simply asserts that we should read this as a spiritual blindness and deafness being removed, but gives no real support for why.

Until he does so, we must assume this passage means exactly what it says. The eyes of the Blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped." Both of these things are acomplished in Christ.

Prophecy 3

My opponent asserts that this passage is refering to Israel and not to Messiah. He also argues that a proper translation of the prefix "-mi" which is added to the beginning of the words "wounded" and "crushed" is "because of." The second argument is moot, since because of can be translated multiple ways. This prefix is equivalent to the Greek "Dia," which we see is the prefered preposition used in the Septuigint translation of this passage. Dia can mean anything on a range from "on account of" which is the Christian understanding of this passage, or "because of" which is Kohai's understanding. However, regardless of this issue, we must ask "How have Jews historically understood this passage?"

The answer is simple. While not unanimous, a good representation of Rabbi's throughout the ages believed this passage to be about Messiah, and NOT Israel. [C]

We see in the Talmud Sanhedrin (Ca 98b) that the author cites this section and says "Messiah ...what is his name? The Rabbis say,'The leprous one'; those of the house of the Rabbi (Jehuda Hanassi, the author of the Mishna, 135-200) say: 'Cholaja' (The sickly), for it says, 'Surely he has borne our sicknesses' etc. (Isa.53,4)."

We also see Manmonides writing in the 12th century AD "Likewise said Isaiah that He (Messiah) would appear without acknowledging a father or mother: 'He grew up before him as a tender plant and as a root out of a dry ground' etc. (Isa.53:2)."

Finally, we see Rabbi Moses Alschech writing in the 16th Century BC "Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view."

It is clear that even before the time of Christ, Rabbis were reading Isaiah 53 as referencing Messiah. Simply put, my opponent's statement of what Jews believe Isaiah 53 is about MAY represent the understanding of the current Judaism, however historic Judaism disagrees. However, even recent Judaism often asserts that this is a Messianic prophecy. One cite records "Even today, followers of Menachem Schneerson (1902-1994), the Grand Rabbi of the Lubavitcher Hasidic movement, apply Isaiah 53 to him as an individual, believing him to the Messiah who suffered."[D]

What follows after in my opponent's argument is an attempt to show that Jesus is not Messiah by identifying times when Jesus broke Torah. While my opponent's argument is certianly defeatable, there is no need to war against it. This is a red hearing of massive scale. This debate is not about if Jesus was Messiah or not. Only if there are messianic prophecies that we can say Jesus fufilled. My opponent's burden of proof is to show that the prophecies I have put forward cannot be claimed to have been fulfilled by Jesus, and he has not thus far fulfilled his burden of proof in this area. My burden of proof however is simply to provide, as defined by the terms of the debate, three prophecies which Jesus fufilled. However, in order to secure the terms of the resolution, I must only prove one since if Jesus fulfilled even one prophecy, we cannot say "There are no true messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus."

This far, I have shown three that can be possitively attributed to Christ.

[A] Ethelyn Simon, Irene Resnikoff, and Linda Motzkin, The First Hebrew Primer, (Third Edition, Oakland: EKS Publishing Co., 2005), 73
[B] Archeological Study Bible, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 1486
[C] The following quotes and more can be found at;
Debate Round No. 2


Welcome to the 3rd round of the debate. Again, I wish to thank ReformedArsenal for accepting this debate.

Born in Bethlehem

My opponent does not even bother to respond to the blatant contradictions. Since he apparently feels we need to consider the 1st century Jewish perspective, let me point out this verse:

John 7:41-43 (KJV)

Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, “Of truth this is the Prophet.” Others said, “This is the Christ.” But some said, “Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scriptures said, ‘That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?’” So there was a division among the people because of him.

Apparently, there were some people that believed Jesus was born in Galilee, not in Bethlehem. Consequently, they questioned whether or not Jesus was messiah. There is still a division today among NT scholars, many of whom believe Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, rather, he was born in Galilee.[1]


My opponent does not even bother to respond to this serious contradiction and thus I extend that argument.


I will concede the point that the Jews thought that the messiah would be from Bethlehem just for the sake of debate. Therefore, my opponent needs to respond to this blatant contradiction, along with the fact many scholars do not believe Jesus was even BORN in Bethlehem!!

Spiritual and Physical Healing

Again, for the sake of this debate, I am conceding the fact that the Jews thought that the messiah would bring about healing.

Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.

If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,

and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"

you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.

You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.

What we see from those verses from Deuteronomy 13, is that people can work signs and wonders who are not from G-d! Therefore, my opponent needs to prove that Jesus was from G-d and not one of those tests as given in Deuteronomy 13. Quite honestly, given the fact that I have given a sin that he committed and the other facts throughout this debate, it does seem likely that Jesus was a case that failed this test.

Substitutionary Death

I have pointed out a major sin Jesus committed and my opponent calls it a red herring. Actually, this is a serious accusation against Jesus. If he did sin, then the prophecy was completely unfulfilled and the “work” on the cross is completely pointless. This is a serious accusation my opponent failed to respond to, thus I extend that argument.

[1]Some of the leading proponents of this view are: Dr. Marcus Borg, Hundere Distinguished Professor of

Religion & Culture, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, the late Dr. Robert W. Funk, who was

Chairman, Graduate Department of Religion, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, Fr. John P. Meier,

Professor of New Testament, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, and Dr. Steve Mason, Professor

of Humanities & Ancient History, York University, Toronto, Canada.



Prophecy 1

My first point of response is to quote Kohai. In the comments of this debate, prior to engaging, Kohai agreed that the Gospels were legitimate historical data, and agreed not to attack them. He wrote:

""Is the NT legit history?" (Quoting me)

For sake of this debate, yes...although I can argue it is not. I'm not going to attack the historical aspect of NT--just what it says."

As such, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke acknowledge that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. John and Mark are silent on the location of his birth.

Furthermore, my opponent quotes Borg who questions the historicity of Matthew and Luke. However, Borg's opinion on this matter is irrelevant. The confusion amongst the people in the Gospels is irrelevant (it was not uncommon in an era with no internet or electronic filing to not be sure where a person was born). The Gospels either state explicitly that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, or are silent on the matter. As such, we must assume that Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem and fulfills thi sprophecy. Furthermore, I could cite as many, if not more, scholars who do believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Craig Blomberg, NT Wright, Ben Witherington III, William Lane Craig, just to name a few). My opponent simply has committed an appeal to authority fallacy here.

Prophecy 2

My opponent misses a significant point. We are not debating on if Jesus was indeed the messiah, nor are we debating if he was or was not from God. The resolution of this debate only contains within its scope if there are messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. Anyone who had a ministry of supernatural healing can be said to have fulfilled this prophecy... regardless of if they are Messiah or from God. My opponent has conceeded that this prophecy states that Messiah will have a ministry of supernatural healing, and he conceeded the historical accuracy of the Gospels. And no one can deny that the Gospels report that Jesus had such a ministry. As such, we can affirmatively say (given the concessions of my opponent) that Jesus fulfilled this particular messianic prophecy.

Prophecy 3

My opponent claims that since Jesus sinned (I am not conceeding that he did), then he could not have fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 53. My opponent is backtracking on himself... he previously claimed that Israel was the fulfillment of this prophecy, surely he is not claiming that Israel did not sin! Furthermore, the text of the prophecy in Isaiah 53 says nothing about being sinless. No where in its 12 verse is the requirement of a sinless life listed for fulfillment of this prophecy. While Jesus being a sinner DOES present major problems for Christian theology, it does not present any roadblock to his fulfillment of this prophecy.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3


Thank you, ReformedArsenal, for such an exciting debate. You have responded ever so quickly to my arguments. This is, of course, the final round and I wish my opponent the best of luck in the voting period.

Born in Bethlehem

Again, for the sake of the debate, yes, the NT is reliable history. (This would actually be an interesting debate), and my opponent has yet to explain away any contradictions.

Remember: Just because a document is “reliable” does not mean that it is free from contradictions, nor does it mean that every single thing is actual historic fact. Thus, I extend the contradiction argument.

All what my opponent does is cite other scholars feeling that he was born in Bethlehem—SO WHAT! That does not answer the fact that numerous scholars also feel that he was not, nor does it answer the blatant contradiction that has serious consequences.

Remember, the verse I cited divided people because they felt he could not be Christ (i.e. messiah) because of his birth place.

Remember: The Messiah has to be from both DAVID AND SOLOMON, but Luke’s account of the genealogy gives David then Nathan.


Okay, for debate I’ll even concede the point that Jesus healed people. However, so has a lot of people who clearly were not messiah.

Substitutionary Death

My opponent still hasn’t responded to the fact that Jesus sinned, thus extend that argument.

My opponent claims that it doesn’t matter if he sinned or did not. Folks, I contend that it does matter. Take a look at the following verse:

2 Corinthians 5:21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Thus if Jesus sinned, there would be a major contradiction there.

The Bible teaches Jesus never sinned, but I proved otherwise. Remember, for the sin offering, the lamb must not have any blemishes—that includes internal blemishes as well.



I apologies to my opponent for a terrible round, but needed to finish the debate before school starts.




  1. Born in Bethlehem.
    1. Contradicted;
    2. Scholars feel that he was not;
    3. No rebuttal.
  2. Physical healing and spiritual healing.
    1. Not messianic (though conceded).
    2. Many people have “healed” other people.
    3. Does not prove he was messiah.
  3. Substitutionary Death
    1. Sin of Jesus.

i. Substitutionary sacrifice could not have sinned.

ii. Not responded.

Reasons for Voting

Conduct: I feel my opponent shown superb conduct and feel that this should be tied.

Spelling and Grammar: My opponent made numerous spelling and grammar mistakes thus I wish to have that vote, not that it is super important.

Arguments:I will the voters decide.

Sources: We both used several sources, although I feel his were a bit more reliable with encyclopedia sources and thus wish the source point to go to my opponent.



I will close this debate with a single quote from my opponent.

"Okay, for debate I’ll even concede the point that Jesus healed people. However, so has a lot of people who clearly were not messiah."

This debate is not about if Jesus was the messiah or not. Rather, it was about if Jesus fulfilled any messianic prophecies. My opponent has conceeded both the fact that prophecy states that Messiah will heal people, and that Jesus healed people. While my opponent is correct that this does not prove that Jesus is Messiah, it does negate the resolution. Since at least one messianic prophecy has been possitively attributed to Jesus, the resolution that "There are no true messianic prophecies that can be attibuted to Jesus" does not stand, and therefore Con carries the arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
I really enjoied the debate
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
Told you I'd finish.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
I'll believe that when I see it.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
I will. I have a day left
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
You have heard it said "Do or do not, that is the question?".

But I say to you "Will Kohai finish this debate, that is the question?".
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
That was quick...
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
Arguments coming tomorrow. I have the 1st "prophecy" complete.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
Just drop those rules.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
You still haven't clarified how we delineate "It needs to be completed in it's entirety--not just a few words of the prophecy;" or how we define "It needs to be an actual prophecy;"
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jd6089 5 years ago
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: poor debate over all, but cons was less poor.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro took too broad a thesis. Mark is a construction from the messianic prophecies. I think he could have tightened "true messianic" to exclude things like born in Bethlehem, but instead he debated it and lost. I liked Pro's R3 sources but in context they were people contradicting the NT history and arguing for an alternate history, so they were irrelevant.
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
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: Pro was scrambling to salvage his argument every time con pointed out the problems. Pro was unable to prove how the prophesies in the Bible were not in fact referring to Jesus.