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

Was Jesus the 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 days ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 371 times Debate No: 95776
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)




1. Don't use faith as an argument
2. Don't ignore my arguments by saying I'm going to hell
3. You must provide objective facts to prove your stance
4. You must provide Messianic prophecies that are messianic prophecies, not just anyone can fulfill, and that Jesus fulfilled.
5. Google docs are permissible.
6. I will argue that Jesus was neither the Messiah nor was he G-d according to the Hebrew scriptures.
7. My opponent must prove that Jesus was both G-d and the Messiah according to the Hebrew scriptures.


Due to an error in posting my debate, I was forced to re-make my argument into a Google Doc. This is permissible by the rules.

Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 1


Prophecies must be specific:
I know that I have to provide messianic prophecies, I did that in my contention 3. These prophecies are specific. But for some reason my opponent needs them to be more specific. For example, my opponent would only believe a Messianic prophesy if it said "Jesus will be born on April the 6th at 11:03 P.M and at 4:00 he will do this...". But unfortunately, there is no such thing as a prophesy that specific. Prophesies don't often say exactly when and where it is going to happen. But for some reason, that is what my opponent believes a prophesy is.

That is why rule #4 is unfair. All the messianic prophesies that I provide won't be specific enough for my opponent. That's why he will and has already disproved many prophesies because "Well I could do that" or "This specific person could do that too".

Although my opponent uses his knowledge of his own ability to disprove some of these prophesies, Jesus was the only person that did and can accomplish these prophesies. My opponent wasn't crucified, (compare Psalm 22:16 and Zechariah 12:10 with John 19:33"37) My opponent did not rise from death (compare Psalms 2:7; 16:10 with Acts 13:33), and made it possible for all the dead to rise (compare Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2 with Matthew 27:52"53).

The prophecies that I have provided talk about the saviors life almost exactly as he lived it. Jesus Christ was the only person to fulfill ALL of those prophecies in order. So I don't think you can disprove my prophecies just by saying "I'm thirsty".

The "suffering servant" as a messianic prophecy:

By seeing the dual pictures of the messiah in the Old Testament, we can see that the messiah will come two times to this world, once as a "Suffering Servant" and once as a powerful celestial king.

My opponent looks beyond the life of the Savior's first coming. The goals of the first coming of the savior was to: Teach His gospel, establish His Church, and Preform the atonement and be resurrected. But my opponent looks beyond Jesus Christ's life and says that his life was no big deal.

My opponent says that Isaiah 53:3 has nothing to do with the savior, but Isaiah beautifully writes this chapter to describe the saviors Atonement.

As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for sins, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him or her to be reconciled to God. Jesus Christ was the only one capable of carrying out the Atonement for all mankind. Because of His Atonement, all people will be resurrected, and those who obey His gospel will receive the gift of eternal life with God.
As descendants of Adam and Eve, all people inherit the effects of the Fall. In our fallen state, we are subject to opposition and temptation. When we give in to temptation, we are alienated from God, and if we continue in sin, we experience spiritual death, being separated from His presence. We are all subject to temporal death, which is the death of the physical body.
The only way for us to be saved is for someone else to rescue us. We need someone who can satisfy the demands of justice"standing in our place to assume the burden of the Fall and to pay the price for our sins. Jesus Christ has always been the only one capable of making such a sacrifice.
Only He had the power to lay down His life and take it up again. From His mortal mother, Mary, He inherited the ability to die. From His immortal Father, He inherited the power to overcome death. He declared, "As the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself" ( John 5:26).
Only He could redeem us from our sins. The Savior was able to receive this power and carry out the Atonement because He kept Himself free from sin: "He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them". Having lived a perfect, sinless life, He was free from the demands of justice. Because He had the power of redemption and because He had no debt to justice, he could pay the debt for those who repent.

Jesus's atoning sacrifice took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary.
The Savior continued to suffer for our sins when He allowed Himself to be crucified.

On the cross, He allowed Himself to die. His body was then laid in a tomb until He was resurrected and became "the firstfruits of them that slept" ( 1 Corinthians 15:20). Through His death and Resurrection, He overcame physical death for us all.

Jesus Christ redeems all people from the effects of the Fall. Through the Savior's gift of mercy and redeeming grace, we will all receive the gift of immortality and live forever in glorified, resurrected bodies.

Although we are redeemed unconditionally from the universal effects of the Fall, we are accountable for our own sins. But we can be forgiven and cleansed from the stain of sin if we "apply the atoning blood of Christ". We must exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized for the remission of sins, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

So, now that I have explained the Atonement, let me show you how Isaiah 53: 3-5 talks about His life and His Atonement.

(V.3) "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief..." Although Jesus was full of love, He was still "despised and rejected" because of the harden hearts of men. My opponent mentioned that Pharisees only hated him but that is not true. At His crucifixion, people did horrible things to him. They put a crown on thorns on his head and called him "the king of the Jews". They whipped Him, Spat upon him, and made him carry his own cross. The people had a chance to save him at the Passover (releasing a prisoner at Passover was a regular thing to do), but they chose someone else. So He truly was "despised and rejected of men".

(V.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." For the Atonement, like I have explained, Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world. He felt our iniquities, or pains and sufferings, and trials. With his strips we truly are held. Because he preformed the Atonement and died for us, we can repent and return to live with our heavenly father again as resurrected beings. That truly is beautiful.

Jesus"s prophecy fulfillments are invalid:

Hypocritically, my opponent talks about context. But I remember him saying in an earlier debate that "context doesn"t change the meaning". Also, double-hypocritically (if that is even a thing), I'm not taking these Messianic prophesy scriptures out of context, my opponent is. He take Isaiah 9:1 out of context and uses it to say that I'm taking it out of context. But in fact, I used this scripture with verse 2 attached to it. These two verses explain how "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light", and they saw that light "by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations." In Mark 4:1"34 (also Matt. 4: 12-23) we read that while on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, Jesus Christ taught several parables to a multitude of people. Many people saw Christ's light by the sea of Galilee. So, this prophesy is valid because it shows how Jesus would teach by Galilee.

My opponent also disproves Zechariah 9:9-10 by just saying that it is just some king. But that is wrong, this is a symbolic Messianic prophesy of Jesus Christ.

Even Jewish scholar Garrett Smith agrees: "This isn't just any king. The prophet tells the people of Israel to be joyful, to get excited, because the promised one, the one sent from God, the long awaited king, is coming. And so this passage has been interpreted as messianic; that is, it is often supposed that the king in this passage is none other than the Messiah, the savior of Israel."

The Messiah as our savior:
1. My opponent is right, the bible never really goes into much detail about God's family. But that doesn't disprove that God has a son. But, in Isaiah 9: 6 (a messianic prophesy) it says: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given".
2. Jesus had to take upon himself mortality so that He could perform the Atonement.
3. I see that all of these scriptures agree that sin is not good. But with the Atonement, we can be forgiving of these sins (because we will all eventually sin). "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" Isaiah 1:18.
4. Ya, there is only one savior, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
5. In Jeremiah 31:35 it doesn't say anything about it being an "abomination for a father to sacrifice his son".
6. This is extremely disrespectful and falls under the scare-crow fallacy. God didn't screw around with a teenager. I can't even begin to think about how you got this idea into your mind. As a miracle and prophesy, Jesus was born to a virgin. God gave his only begotten son, so that He may save us through the atonement (see John 3: 16).

The NT has been corrupted:
First of all, this is an ad homien fallacy. This has nothing to do with the debate, rather the Christian church.
Second of all, I know that the New Testament has been corrupted. It's sad, but it is to my belief that modern day prophets have fixed the corruptions in the bible.
Finally, The Old Testament has been corrupted too. Don't think that it is just the New Testament.

His conclusion:
Jesus Christ will fulfill all of these prophesies at the second coming.

"Further, if you are worshiping a man, a physical being, praying to this man and considering this man to be G-d- that"s idolatry." This is also a scare-crow fallacy and in violation of rule two by pretty much saying "I'm going to h-ll".

I urge you to vote for the pro side of this debate.


My opponent talking about context in an earlier debate.
Debate Round No. 2


You might want to use a google doc this time, it's lengthy:


Yes, It was kind of long...

Part Two:

Thank you, Google docs.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent cited a boo that didn't make any cases at all for his argument, rather it just told us what Christians believe. So, here is a great book on why Jesus is not the Messiah for everyone to look at:


"Jesus the Christ" supported my argument and rebuttal. It did follow rule #5 by using google docs. Therefore, it is valid evidence that my opponent must accept.

It's funny how my opponent can rely on another's work to make a point, but for some reason I can't.

My opponent completely ignored my evidence in the last round. Therefore, if he doesn't disprove that "Jesus the Christ" supports my case, I will assume that he can't come up with anything to disprove it. Then, I will claim victory.

Remember, two can play at this game.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent doesn't seem to understand the idea of "plagurism," I quoted someone else on a subject, and that is totally different from simply plagurizing the work of someone else and posting it as your argument. Another point, I believe at the beginning of the debate (in round 1 or some other way) I stated that the character limit is 25,000, which well exceeds a 1,000 page book that my opponent plagurized and posted as his argument.
You cannot post someone Else's work as your own argument, you can quote them on a few occasions, but you cannot present someone Else's work as your entire case, especially if you didn't put it in parentheses, and you made no case of your own.
Again, for this round my opponent has no argument of his own, and violated conduct by plagurizing material from someone else. I have nothing to respond to since he didn't provide a case, and, in effect, forfeited that entire round to me. I thank my opponent for his generosity, he just handed me this debate.


First of all, It's spelled as "plagiarism", not "plagurism".

Plagiarize (definition by Merriam-Webster dictionary): to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas.

It would have been plagiarism if I would have stated "I have written this book called Jesus the Christ and these are my own words." But I didn't. I respectively gave it it's own glory and did not try to pass it off as my own work. Maybe my opponent should have actually looked up what plagiarism is (and how to spell it right) before making an argument on it.

Also, with your definition of "plagurism", why am I the only one held accountable for it? My opponent claims that I used plagiarism because I used a book as evidence for my argument. But my opponent also posted a book of his own in round 4: in violation of his own definition of "plagurism". Therefore, if I should be punished for his definition of "plagurism", then he should also.

"I believe at the beginning of the debate (in round 1 or some other way) I stated that the character limit is 25,000"

My opponents round 1 states as follows:

1. Don't use faith as an argument
2. Don't ignore my arguments by saying I'm going to hell
3. You must provide objective facts to prove your stance
4. You must provide Messianic prophecies that are messianic prophecies, not just anyone can fulfill, and that Jesus fulfilled.
5. Google docs are permissible.
6. I will argue that Jesus was neither the Messiah nor was he G-d according to the Hebrew scriptures.
7. My opponent must prove that Jesus was both G-d and the Messiah according to the Hebrew scriptures."

My opponent stated nothing about character limits in his round 1, as he claimed. Therefore, he seems to be trying to make up last minute rules so that my argument for round 3 is no longer permissible. This is unjust, unfair, and down right unacceptable in a debate.

I did not use "Jesus the Christ" as my entire case, it was evidence for my case that helped support my contentions and my rebuttals. You can see the structure and base of my case in round 1, if you'd like.

It's funny that my opponent would make this attack against me, he doesn't even have case of his own. My opponents every round is just a rebuttal, he has not structure for a case or anything that would support that Jesus is not he Messiah. His entire case is just a giant leach feeding off my debate. Therefore, it is hypocritical for my opponent to attack my case with this claim without even looking at his case.

So I forfeited the entire last round to you huh? Well, my opponent just spent the entire last round complaining about his definition of "plagurism". He just wasted the final round to complain?! Where is a conclusion on why he believes that Jesus was not the Messiah? My opponent should have closed out his burden of proof. You could have restated your contentions (well, if my opponent had any) or gave us a final thought on why Jesus isn't the Messiah. Yet, you wasted your final chance to speak because I violated your own definition of "plagurism". Well, I guess we could say that my opponent is the generous one, because he just handed me this debate on a silver platter. Thank you RonPaulConservative.

So the question is, why did I post an entire book as evidence?

Well it is simple. I was just getting sick and tired of my opponent's extremely annoying tactics that I had give him a taste of his own medicine.

First of all, my opponent used google docs to write a 10 page rebuttal. That is a plethora of evidence to fact check and a lot of work to analysis. I guess my opponent didn't feel the need for a limit, that's why he used google docs. According to, I am only given three days to cover my opponent extremely long rebuttal. I have a life outside of, so it was going to be extremely difficult to go over his 10 page rebuttal in just three days (I am also at a extremely busy time in my life right now). My opponent also wanted to make it clear that if I didn't go over his points, then that meant that I couldn't defend them anyways. The worst part was that my opponent would constantly message me and post in the comments the remaining times in the debate. This constant nagging got really annoying after a while. So I had the challenge of fact checking 10 pages of my opponents rebuttal, with a time limit of 3 days (in my already busy schedule), by going over EVERY point (or my opponent would automatically claim victory), and to be nagged by my opponent 24/7.

So, after going through this living H-ll of a debate, I decided to show my opponent how it felt of be put through this. I posted a book, which made my argument extremely long, like my opponents. Then I explained in it that my opponent must fact check and disprove all of the claims I made with the help of this book. If he didn't, then I explained that he probably couldn't find a way to attack it, like he did to me. Finally, I decided to do a little bit of nagging for myself (as you can see in the comments section) by posting remaining times in his messages and in the comments section. This was just to show my opponent how it felt to go over a ridiculously difficult argument while being constantly annoyed.

I hoped he learned a lesson on being a little bit more mature and professional during a debate.

I'm sorry if I was a little bit mean during this round. I have tried to be nice throughout this whole debate, but everyone gets angry when they get constantly annoyed. I apologize.

Ok, now to close out my case.

I have effectively proven that Jesus Christ is the Messiah with my 3 contentions.

Contention 1: The Jewish Nation looked beyond the Mark (why people reject Jesus as the Messiah).
Contention 2: Many misinterpreted the prophecies foretold about the deliver.
Contention 3: Jesus was prophesied.

I have provide a plethora of prophecies that only the Messiah could accomplish. Jesus Christ fulfilled all of those prophecies regarding his mortal life. Christ provided us with the Atonement, which allows us to change ourselves from committing sin. We can be forgiven of our sins, and return to our father in heaven. Jesus has also provided us with teachings that will help us come unto Christ, and to help us out on our journey here on earth. It is quite beautiful to me that Jesus Christ would provide me with all these things so that I can be happy and live with my family in eternal joy.

It's kind of hard to prove if Jesus was the Messiah or not. But one personal way to find out for yourself if Jesus was the Messiah is to pray about it. Ask God if Jesus Christ is His son. The Holy Ghost will bear special witness unto you that Jesus is the Christ and the Messiah. I assure you that you will find love and joy in and through Jesus Christ, as I have.

I love Jesus Christ, and this is my testimony of Him. I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

I strongly urge you to vote for the Pro side of this debate. I would like to thank you for your time and thank RonPaulConservative for this debate.

Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by chrislee125 5 days ago
I'm sorry for getting mad at you. It's just frustrating when you won't listen to a thing that I say. Just please stop talking and let the voters vote. Please?
Posted by RonPaulConservative 5 days ago
Wow, my ex-opponent knows that he is still wrong so he resorted to Ah-Hominid attacks,
very surprising, I almost didn't expect that one!
Posted by chrislee125 5 days ago
You know what, I can't even deal with annoying, ignorant, bigots in the comments section. Go ahead, say every ignorant claim that comes into your head to try to confuse the voters.

I would like to advise the voters to not pay attention or vote on this mess that my opponent has caused in the comments section. Please, place your judgment only on the debate.

DO NOT let my opponent lead you to a false conclusion. Your conscience should decide the winner of this debate, not my opponent.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 5 days ago
Then you restated your case and didn't respond to any of my rebuttals.
Posted by chrislee125 5 days ago
You know the truth, I know the truth. Let's let the VOTERS find the truth. I don't want to talk about it because well... ummm... oh ya the DEBATE IS OVER. Please stop trying to continue this debate in the comments.

Let the people vote with fair judgement, not while you are nagging them with ignorant claims in the comments.

Also, yet agian, my case is in round 1. Please, check it out.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 5 days ago
You know it!
That's why you don't want me to talk about it!
You STILL didn't [provide a case of your own!
Posted by chrislee125 5 days ago
STOP! That is false. Let the Voters decide that. We are in the voting period, not the "Let's continue the debate in the comments section" period.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 5 days ago
You didn't make a case in that round, you only posted a book
Posted by chrislee125 5 days ago
I used "Jesus the Christ" as evidence to support my argument. I did not pass it off as my own work or argument. Please look at the real definition of plagiarism in my round 5.

"Jesus the Christ" was on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints website; Which is free to everyone to look at. I even gave a link to the book if you wanted to read it from the website. It would only be unauthorized distribution if I had copied it off and then sold it for my own profit.

I would like to ask RonPaulConservative to stop making arguments and claims against me. The debate is over, let the people vote.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 5 days ago
Its still unauthorised distribution
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Theguy1789 6 days 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that Jesus was the Messiah while Con showed how those prophecies are not legitimate prophecies, pro dropped this point, and con responded by attacking pros previous argument. Pro responded by posting someone else book, and con responded telling him that this book doesn't prove anything, and cited a book of his own (hypocrisy). Thus arguments to con, and I would have given him conduct too on account of plagiarism, but con did the same thing too, so conduct is a tie.