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

Jesus is not 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,668 times Debate No: 20264
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (4)





Jesus is not the messiah promised in the Old Testament.


This debate is NOT about whether or not Jesus existed, rather, we will examine the claime that Jesus is the Messiah under the light of Jewish scriptures.

Similar debates have been done here


You may disagree with these definitions and adopt your own, but the following definitions are offered to clarify the resolution as I have expressed it.
  1. "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus" is a proposed historical human being whose character began the myth of the character of Jesus in the Christian gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The historical "Jesus" has a biographical profile roughly corresponding to the profile of the character of Jesus in the gospels (i.e. home town of Nazareth, baptism by John the Baptist, traveling preacher, twelve disciples and crucifixion in Jerusalem). [1]
  2. A "messiah" is a term used for one who is anointed. The word "messiah" literally means an anointed one. [2]
Positions of Opposing Contender

My contender must show that either my arguments are false, or he may show that Jesus is indeed the Messiah.

  1. Round 1 is acceptance only.
  2. Absolutely no ad hominem attacks: This will result in an automatic loss.
  3. Do not introduce new arguments in the last round.
  4. If you wish to forfeit, then please post it; do not let the time run out!
  1. Acceptance
  2. Opening Arguments
  3. Rebuttals/Cross-examination
  4. Rebuttals
  5. Closing

I wish my partner the best of luck.


1. For the definition of Jesus, please see ApostateAbe's unrelated debate here:;



I accept this debate. I thank my opponent for the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1



Thank you for agreeing to debate this important issue with me. I ask that my partner keeps an open mind and I will do the same.

==My case==

C1: Jesus did not qualify to be the Messiah

According to prophecy, there are 5 requirements for one to be the Messiah (keep in mind that this is before one can even think about being anointed):
  1. He must be Jewish
  2. He must be a male
  3. He must be of the tribe of Judah
  4. He must be a descendant of David
  5. He must be a descendant of Solomon as well. (II Samuel 7:12-17; I Chronicles 22:9-10)
According to the New Testament, Jesus was indeed male and was (most likely) Jewish. However, there is a problem: Jesus was purportedy born of a virgin. When we look at Jewish law, tribal lineage comes only through the father. [1] Secondly, when examining Mary's genealogy givene in Luke, it comes from Nathan instead of Solomon. Finally, Matthew lists a king who was cursed; namely, the king known as Jehoiakim. In Jeremiah 22, there was an eternal cursed place on him that no descendant of his shall ever prosper sitting on the throne. The Ryrie Study Bible notes: "had Jesus been the natural son of Joseph, then he could not have prospered sitting upon the throne of David because of this curse." [2] The only problem with this "explanation" is that it would logically follow that Jesus had no legal claims to David's lineage.

C2: Jesus was a false prophet

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah is going to be the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses , yet Jesus was indeed a false prophet. In order to understand who a false prophet is, we must understand the Laws surrounding a false prophet:
  1. If a false prophet prophesized and the prophecy fails, he is a false prophet. (D'varim 18:21-22)
  2. Anyone who changes the Torah is a false prophet.
  3. Anyone who attempts to bring the Jewish people into idolatry is a false prophet.
Let's see if Jesus passes our litmus test.

A. Failed prophecies?

Mattai 24:1-2, "And Yéshu (Jesus) went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to she him the buildings of the temple. And Yéshu said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be throne down."

So, did this happen? Was the temple torn down so that "not one stone was left upon another, that was not throne down"? Well, take a look at this photo

This shows one part of the enclosed wall that Herod the Great built around the temple in the 1st century BCE; is apparent this prophecy failed.

B. Change the Torah?

Point 1: The Law of Burial

Matthew 8:21-22 states: "And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead."

What utter disrespect! Burial within 24 hours of death is commanded for an executed criminal; hence, the Oral torah tells us that this is also a proper procedure for an innocent person! [3] Rather than allowing his disciple to properly bury his own father, Jesus demands that the disciple follow him and "let the dead bury the dead." This also violates the command to honor and respect one's parents as well. Compare this event to Elijah who allowed Elisha to give proper goodbyes to his parents and delayed their journey together because of that.

Point 2: Dietary laws

Matthew 15:10-11(KJV) – (10) And he called the multitude, and said unto them, 
Hear, and understand: (11) Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but
that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Christians understand this passage that Jesus done away with the dietary restrictions perscribed to them in the Torah. (indeed, Paul confirms this). [5]

C3: Jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophecies

Now we know who the Messiah is (see C1), we can now go forward to understand what the Messiah is going to do. As we already concluded, the messiah is going to be an ordinary man--not a demigod.

1) The messiah is to bring an eternal peace between all nations and people (Isaiah 2:2-4; Micha 4:1-4; Ezekiel 39:9). Obviously there is no such peace. 40 years later, the temple was destroyed.

2) The Messiah is going to bring about universal knowlege of G-d and full Torah observance.

We have already seen that anyone who adds or subtracts from the Law is a false prophet. One of the tasks of the Messiah is to bring us back into Torah observance. [6]

3) Gather the Jews to Israel (Ezekie 36:24)

The Messiah is going to gather together the lost tribes of Israel and bring us back into the promise land; yet we are still lost and still in exile!


Jesus is not the Messiah because he did not embody the personal qualifications to be the Messiah, he showed himself to be a false prophet, and did not perform the Messianic requirements. [7]

Thank you!

==Notes and Sources==;



It is, indeed, an honor to debate against Mr. Infidel once again. As of now, it seems that we are "even" in our current standing as debaters; so let us discover which direction the tides will turn. May we come to truth.

~Rebuttal Round Two~

C1: Jesus did not qualify to be the Messiah

To an extent, I agree with my opponent on the alleged "five" requirements for one to be the Messiah. I will address each subpoint with needed focus. Note that of which I don't appeal to, I agree with:

He must be of the tribe of Judah

"Tribal lineage comes only from the father."

a.) We must observe the law for what it’s worth. Among the many prophecies surrounding that of the expected Messiah, the Old Testament speaks of how the Messiah will be “born of a virgin.” (Isaiah 7:14) This very piece of evidence discredits my opponent’s argument, for Israel was expecting the Messiah to come from a virgin.

b.) Regarding the lineage, however, from a legal standpoint; Jesus was in fact the *son* of Joseph.
- In the culture of ancient Israel, inheritance from father to son was so significant and essential that, for all legal intents and purposes, Jesus was Joseph's son, even if he was not Joseph's biological son. Thus, Jesus can be recognized as "Solomon's son" through Jesus' step-father, Joseph. [1]

c.) The only accounts of which my opponent basis this contention off of are two verses in the Old Testament: Genesis 49:10 and Micah 5:2.

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” -Micah 5:2

- It is possible that “Bethlehem Ephrathath” (in the context of this verse) is not a city, but a person.

Don't believe me?

“These were the descendants of Caleb. The sons of Hur the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal the father of Kiriath Jearim,” (1 Chro. 2:50)

- Ephrathah was an alternate spelling of Ephrath; the wife of Caleb. [2]

He must be a descendant of Solomon

"When examining Mary's genealogy given in Luke, it comes from Nathan instead of Solomon”

First of all, I would like my opponent to elaborate on exactly how II Samuel 7:12-17 and I Chronicles 22:9-10 ascertain the supposed fact that Jesus would be a descendant of Solomon. From what I read, there is no reasonable foundation to base such a claim.

Secondly, Joseph, Jesus' step-father, was a biological descendant of Solomon. But since Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, he was not a biological descendant of Solomon; in fact, neither was Mary. [1] [3] However, from a legal standpoint, (as I stated earlier) Jesus would be considered a "descendant of Solomon" in regards to the strict standards of a lineage within the Jewish culture, as agreed with by my opponent.

The Curse

- Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, therefore, he didn’t fall victim to this “curse.” I have already established that Jesus was the legal son of Joseph and for all intents and purposes, Joseph’s son.

Although, we have to wonder why Matthew would ever have included Jeconiah (son of Jehoiakim) among the ancestors of Jesus if this so obviously disqualified Jesus from being the Messiah. In fact, the Scripture shows that the curse was only short-term, if not altogether reversed by God. See source for details. [4] [5]

C2: Jesus was a false prophet

Failed prophecies

My opponent takes this verse out of context. Jesus was referring to the End Times, as in, the end of the world. [6] All one has to do is look at the very title of the passage in the Bible:

"The Destruction of the Temple and the Signs of the End Times"

Within this entire passage, Jesus devotes himself to explaining the End Times; so this subpoint is invalid.

Changing the Torah

Where in the Torah does it state that the Messiah (God) does not have the authority/right to change anything? If Jesus was God, he would be more qualified than anybody to change the laws and customs of the past.

The Law of Burial

Why would Jesus respond in a seemingly harsh manner? The purpose of His response may have been twofold. The first purpose was to encourage the disciples to faithfully follow Him. The second purpose and perhaps more importantly, was to teach correct theology. The concept of gathering the bones of one’s ancestors is deeply embedded in the Hebrew Scriptures and reflected in Israelite burial practices (Gen. 49:29; Judges 2:10; 16:31; I Kings 11:21, 43, etc.). However, by New Testament times, the concept had taken on a new meaning. According to the Rabbinic sources, the decomposition of the flesh atoned for the sins of the dead person (a kind of purgatory) and the final stage of this process was gathering the bones and placing them in an ossuary (Meyers 1971: 80-85). Jesus confronts this contrary theology. Only faith in Christ’s redemptive work on the cross can atone for sin, not rotting flesh or any other work or merit of our own (Heb. 9:22, 26; Acts 4:12; Eph. 2:8, 9). Jesus may have rebuked him rather harshly because he followed the corrupted practice of secondary burial. [7]

Dietary Laws

Out of context. If one observes the verses leading up to Matthew 15:10-11, one will discover that Jesus was addressing the crowd in light of hypocrisy on the Pharisee’s part, and that people will come to worship Jesus with their mouths, but not with their hearts. (prophetic?)
This prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. Upon the return of Christ, will we be at peace with each other and at no time sooner.

C3: Jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophecies

Ordinary Man?

I find it interesting how my opponent concludes this, when The Jews of Jesus’ time were expecting a “superhero,” not a carpenter. This is one reason they persecuted him, because they simply would not believe he was who he said he was.

These *opinions* no longer hold any credence, since I have dismantled my opponent's logic earlier in this rebuttal. However, for the sake of the debate, I will address his points.

The Messiah is to bring eternal peace between nations

This prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. Upon the return of Christ, will we be at peace with each other and at no time sooner.

The Messiah will bring about enlightenment/knowledge of God, etc.

Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law.
If Jesus was God, (which makes the most sense in this debate and would explain a lot of things) he would have the right to change, subtract, or add to the law. But he did not; he fulfilled the law of the Old Covenant, and fulfilled every messianic prophecy established.

The Messiah will gather the Jews to Israel

On May 14, 1948 Israel was established as an independent nation. In other words: Prophecy fulfilled. [8]


Jesus is, in fact, the Messiah. It would be foolish to believe otherwise, simply due to the insurmountable amount of evidence. I have given valid reason to believe that he has fulfilled every messianic prophecy set forth. Furthermore, I have proven, contrary to my opponent’s arguments, that Jesus Christ was not merely a man, but God incarnate.

Onto Pro.





[5] Yale Judaica edition translated by William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975), pp. 376-77. Bracketed portions are Braude and Kapstein's explanations.




Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your participation in this debate. It is truly an honor to debate a formidable opponent such as yourself. Now, let's get started!

C1: Jesus did not qualify to be the Messiah

My partner agrees with all 5 criterias, so there is no debating this point.

a) Tribal lineage only comes through the father

Isaiah 7:14 does not talk about a virgin birth. Let's re-examine this verse in the light of the Hebrew scriptures:

"immanu'él"sh'mov'kara'tbénv'yoledetharahha-al'mahhinneh -The Hebrew text

Let's examine each word.

Hinneh means "behold", or "see." It is a word used by the prophets to denote a declaration of major signifigance, but may be used in common speech in the sense of "there is/are" for pointing something out. Thirdly, it is an eclamation of astonishment rather like the word "WOW!,"

Second is the word ha-al'mah, which roughly translates as "that teenage girl" or maiden. Is this al'mah a virgin or not? Let's continue to find out!

The next two words are harah and v'yoledet. These are critical when translating this verse properly. There can be absolutely no argument abotu the second word v'yoldent which is the singular feminine present participle of the word meaning "to give birth" and it means "[she] is giving birth." In other words, the prophet is telling us that she is not only pregnat, but about to give birth at any moment, and used this present participle to indicate immediacy. [1]

Conclusion: Based on our findings, this woman cannot be a virgin as she is already pregnat and cannot be a virgin. The verse, when properly translated, says "Behold, that teenage girl is pregnat and [about] to give birth to a son..." --nothing related to the Messiah or a virgin birth.

Secondly, when you look at the context of the prophecy, this is something that is happening NOW--not 700 years later. So, the question I ask is: What in this passage indicates to you that this is a messianic prophecy?

b) Adoption

It doesn't matter if he was adopted or not--legally, he is not of the tribe of Judah.

Numbers 36:7 The hereditary property of the Israelites will thus not be transferred from one tribe to another, and each person among the Israelites will remain attached to the hereditary property of his father's tribe.

c) Solomon's line

The question is, who built the temple? The answer is obviously Solomon! Now, 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles tells us that there his lineage would be the established lineage. Look at the verses I provided in the previous round.

d) The curse

What about this curse? Well, if Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, then my partner admits that because Jesus was not a biological son, he didn't inherit the curse; meaning he also didn't inherit the throne of David!

C2: Jesus was a false prophet

My partner says that it is dealing with the end times, yet Christian theology states that Jesus' death marked the end times. Likewise, it is clear from the passage that Jesus was suppose to come back in the time of his followers.

So, what about changing the Torah? Does Jesus have the right to change the Torah? NO! G-d said repeatedly that "this [the Torah] is an eternal law for all generations." [2] Hence, we make this syllogism:
  1. If God cannot lie, then anything he says must be true.
  2. God cannot lie.
  3. Therefore, anything he says must be true.
    1. God said that "this is an eternal law for all generations."
    2. Therefore, the Torah will not change.

My partner fails to grasp the gist of the argument, Jesus did change the Torah law on dietary restrictions. Read the book of Romans where Jesus tells Paul that he has done that.

C3: Failure to complete the messianic requirements

a) Peace on earth

My partner concedes this point. Yet the doctrine of the second comming has no basis in scripture. If anyone fails to complete the Messianic prophecies, why should I accept him as Messiah? It is the equivalent of stating that my grandad was the Messiah and he would complete the rest on his return. Totally illogical!

b) Torah observance

See above. I believe this is refuted where G-d says repeatedly "this is an eternal Law for all generations."

c) Jews to Israel

How did Jesus fulfil this? He didn't even gather the Jews to Israel. Likewise, all the Jews are NOT in Israel, but are still in exile.

Thank you onto con!



2. Exodus 12:14, 12:17, 12:43, 27:21, 28:43, Leviticus 3:17, 7:36, 10:9, 16:29, 16:31, 16:34, 17:7, 23:14, 23:21, 23:31, 23:41, 24:3, Numbers 10:8, 15:15, 19:10, 19:21, 18:23, 35:29, Deuteronomy29:28



I thank my opponent for his prompt reply; now for my rebuttal.

~Rebuttal Round Three~

C1: Jesus did not qualify to be the Messiah

a.) Tribal Lineage comes only through the father

My opponent states the following quote:

“…this woman cannot be a virgin as she is already pregnant and cannot be a virgin.”

Let me begin by saying that there is reason to believe that the interpretation of virgin is correct here. Matthew 1:22-23 makes it clear that regardless of the interpretation of the Hebrew word, whether virgin or young woman, that this prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 was tied to the birth of Jesus who was also God, as reflected in His name Emanuel (God with us) and His nature. The New Testament authors were simply following and reconfirming the pre-established Jewish interpretation of this passage. [1]

However, I agree with my opponent on this one. It is true, the Hebrew words do indicate that the woman in question would be a maiden, and [or] a virgin. Does this bring to raise a conflict? Not at all; let us look at a few logical explanations. The idea that Mary was young when she had Jesus is not an issue for this debate, whether she was or not, this determines nothing. What we need to investigate, is my opponent’s logic.

- Christian doctrine teaches that Mary gave birth to Jesus. How then, does my opponent’s variation of this story change anything? He states how the woman could not be a virgin because she was “already pregnant,” yet, so was Mary; a logical fallacy.

"'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel,' which means, 'God with us.'" –Matthew 1:23

- The key word is not “virgin,” but “will give birth to.” In other words, my opponent has proved nothing.

The problem with my opponent’s argument is that he would never be able to prove that it wasn’t Mary who gave birth to Jesus. We have ample evidence to conclude that it was Mary who birthed Jesus. So far, he has failed to denounce my claim.

Furthermore, my opponent asked me the following question:

“What in this passage indicates to you that this is a messianic prophecy?”

1.) Israel expected a Messiah. This was due in part to the Prophets of Old; Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. God had promised this Messiah

- Considering that Isaiah was a prophet, it would only make sense that he was prophesying about the Messiah in Isaiah 7:14. It looks like Jesus fits the bill.

2.) Secondly, at the end of the verse, Isaiah says that the child will be called “Immanuel.”

What does "Immanuel" mean?

`immānū'el: God with us [4]

Therefore, Isaiah prophesied about the coming of Immanuel; the day that God would be with Man. This day was marked with Jesus’ birth, from Mary.

b.) Adoption

My opponent extends his claim that Jesus was not of the Tribe of Judah because he was not a biological son of Joseph. However true it is that Jesus is not a biological son of Joseph, he is most certainly of the Tribe of Judah:

He will come from the tribe of Judah who is the 4th son of Jacob through Leah; so he does not come through Rachel (Genesis 29:35). He will come from the tribe of Judah which eliminates 11 other tribes, but not any tribe in Judah. Isaiah 11:1 tells us from the many lines of Judah it would be from the line of Jesse. Yet he had 8 sons, so 7 need to be eliminated. Jesse was the father of David (2 Samuel 7:12-17, Psalms 89:20-29, 35-36). The Messiah is to come through the house of David; the book of Matthew written to Jews makes the point that Jesus would come from the line of David who is from the line of Abraham (Matthew 1:1). [2]

Therefore, Jesus was of the Tribe of Judah and of the House of David. Mary was a descendant of David’s son, Nathan; while Joseph was a descendant of David’s son, Solomon.

Both Joseph and Mary were of the tribe of Judah. Extend all refutations.

c.) Solomon's line

I still see no connection; my opponent’s argument has a shaky foundation. Besides, in both verses God addresses the fact that Solomon would be extremely wise, powerful, and sheltered from his enemies. This is a prime example of a short-term prophecy. Now I will proceed to ask my opponent the same question he asked me earlier: “What in this passage indicates to you that this is a messianic prophecy?”

d.) The Curse

Joseph and Mary were both of the line of David; there is no issue of debate here. However, while it is true that kingship must be by bloodline, not adoption, this assumes that Jesus was adopted by Joseph. There is no reason to believe he was, Scriptural or otherwise. In fact, Jesus was counted as legally Joseph’s son and, therefore, available to inherit everything from Joseph. This is because Joseph did not put Mary aside—“divorcing” her within the betrothal period—thereby acknowledging that the baby was legally to be his son. The issue of DNA is irrelevant. DNA might be useful in today’s society for proof of blood lineage, but it has no place in the legal system of first-century Jewish thinking. [3]

C2: Jesus was a false prophet

a.) The Temple

My opponent has not provided any evidence to back up his claim. I stated that Jesus was speaking of the end times when referring to the Temple in this one instance. Even if Jesus’ death did mark the beginning of the End Times, Christian doctrine also teaches that“the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.” -2 Peter 3:10

Has this happened yet? No; so logically, Jesus was referring to an instance much later in the End Times.

b.) The Law of Burial

My opponent has conceded this point. Refutation extended.

c.) Changing the Torah

My opponent provides a valid point. If God promises something, in accordance to his very nature, he would always keep his Word. So there is only one other explanation: Jesus didn’t change the law of the Torah.

Jesus did, in fact, abolish the kosher laws of men. Yet, he did not abolish the kosher laws written within the Torah, but the kosher laws of the Oral Torah; which were conceived by man. Jesus confirms his fulfillment and the preserving of the scriptures in Matthew 5:18.

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

C3: Failure to complete the Messianic requirements

a.) Peace on Earth

I concede nothing. It is my opponent who has conceded this argument. This argument can be considered inconclusive, due to the fact that this certain instance has not yet happened. Adding, who’s to say that this promise must have been fulfilled in the past?

b.) Torah Observance

As I have stated earlier, Jesus did not change the laws within the written Torah, but the laws of Man. He came to “set things right,” and fulfill the scripture. He didn’t abolish, but reaffirmed God’s law.

c.) Jews to Israel

As both my opponent and I agree, God’s promises are unchanging and eternal. There really is only one way that Jesus, himself, could bring about this promise; if he was God. Considering the fact that the first predominately Jewish country in the world was recently established, and that Jews from around the world travel to Israel every year, I believe it is safe to say that this is a prophecy that is happening right before our very eyes; and only confirms Jesus’ position as God.


Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Jesus Christ was and is the destined Messiah to the ancient Israelites. Every prophecy ever established by God, has only been confirmed through his Son; nowhere in history has this ever been re-accomplished. I rest my case.






Debate Round No. 3


Thanks to Buckethead31594 for his intreaguing arguments. As we shall see, he has made some critical errors.

C1: Jesus did not qualify to be the Messiah

a) Tribal lineage comes only through the father

My partner concedes that the Hebrew word ha'alma does not necessarily mean virgin. There are indeed cases of times where ha'almah cannot mean virgin. Likewise, I have shown from the Hebrew that the woman was already pregnat. My partner states that the key words are “will give birth to," but that is incorrect. When translating the verse correctly, the vital words are harah and v'yoledet which indicate something that is immediate and shows that the woman is not only already pregnat, but will give birth to a son [at any moment]. Just because Matthew misused this verse proves nothing.

I asked what shows that this is Messianic and my partner responded twofold:

1) Israel expected a Messiah. However, from this logic, any verse can be about the Messiah. Just because Isaiah was a prophet, it does not show that he was prophesying about the Messiah in Isaiah 7:14. As I stated, if we read the context, the sign is given to Ahaz (and his house) in response to the Greco-Syriac war that is taking place.

2) "The child will be called 'Immanuel.'

Immanuel rather means "with us is God." [1] This does not show that God will become a man. Note that God said repeatedly "I am not a man."

Based on his logic, Elijah, Elisha, and anyone with el in it is God incarnate--which is pure blasphemy.

b) Adoption

Even though both Mary and Joseph were of the tribe of Judah, does not show that Jesus is. Like I said it is determined from their biological father. NOT from the mother.

c) Solomon's line

My partner is having a difficult time understanding that the Messiah must come through Solmon. Let's examine the verses that I gave.

For thus says the Lord: There shall not be cut off to David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel . . . . If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also My covenant be broken with David My servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne. . . . So will I multiply the seed of David My servant. (Jeremiah 33:17-22)

When your [David's] days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, that shall proceed out of your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; if he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men, but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before you: your throne shall be established forever. (2 Samuel 7:12-16; see also 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 2 Chronicles 7:17-18)

And David the king said to all the congregation: "Solomon my son, who alone God has chosen. . . ." (1 Chronicles 29:1)

And all the princes, and the mighty men, and all the sons likewise of king David, submitted themselves to Solomon the king. (1 Chronicles 29:24)
The question we must ask is how God took the kingdom from Saul. The right to the kingship was terminated with Saul's death--no son of Saul ever sat or had a right to the throne. However, Solmon's descendants are different because one would never lose their right to the throne. The punishment for disobedience would be chastening at the hands of men--but not termination of monarchial right. God made an unconditional promise to David that the prosperity of his seed will go through the one who builds the temple (Solomon), who will possess the kingship forever. We therefore understand that all kings will be from Solomon. [2]

(1) All kings of Israel will be from Solomon.
(2) The Messiah will be a king.
(3) Therefore, the Messiah will be from Solomon.

C2: Jesus was a false prophet

a) Second temple destroyed

And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

What is the "things they see"? The temple. It is obviously understood to be the second temple and universally understood by all Christian scholars that Jesus was predicting the destruction of the 2nd temple. Likewise, it was universally understood by the early Christians that Jesus would come back in their lifetime--which obviously did not happen.

Then Jesus answered, "I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.'" (Mark 14:62 NAB) --Here, Jesus tells the high priest that he will live to see the "second comming."

Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:36 NAB)

Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. "Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see all these things, know that he is near, at the gates. Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Matthew 24:29-35 NAB)

Obviously, none of this has happened.

Conclusion: Jesus was a false prophet.

b) Kosher laws

The Oral torah is from God, just like the written Torah is. Likewise, how valid is my partner's claim? Let's look to Peter in Acts 10 to see what he says:

"Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat...

According to the Torah, Jews can ONLY eat animals that chewed the cud or had cloven hoofs. However, this sheet contained all types of animals.

Notice Peter's response showed that he obviously understood the animals to be non-kosher.

Conclusion: Jesus changed the Torah!

C3: Jesus failed to meet the Messianic requirements

1) Peace on earth

My partner makes an incredible claim saying that "who's to show that this promise has not been fulfilled in the past?" History records that shortly after Jesus' death, there was war and the second temple was destroyed--thus beginning our current exile. Certainly sounds like peace on earth? The burden of proof is therefore on you to prove it.

2) Torah observation

This begs the question why church is on Sunday and not Saturday--the Sabbath day.

3) Jews to Israel

This does NOT show Jesus' position as God! This is utter blasphemy. This does not show that Jesus is Messiah, but that the Messiah is going to come VERY soon.


1. Artscroll Tanakh notes on Is. 7:14



I've been very busy, so I'm low on time. I will respond quickly.

~Rebuttal: Round Four~

C1: Jesus did not qualify the messiah

a) Tribal lineage comes only through the father

Regardless which function the words serve, the fact is still there. There is no possible way that my opponent can conclude that this virgin/young woman is not Mary.

1.) Am I the one with flawed logic? It would only make sense that Isaiah was prophesying; this is what prophets were called to do. Besides, if one is to read earlier in the verse, they will discover that Isaiah is addressing the house of David. Now, why would he have done that had it been short-term? Why would he have addressed any house had it not been a prophecy?

2.) As I have stated before, Isaiah was prophesying about the Messiah; it would only make sense, due to the circumstances. Who then, could be anyone else besides this Messiah? It would only make sense that Emmanuel be Jesus Christ; Elijah and Elisha and other "El's" came in their own time. With us is God; God with us, could easily refer to Jesus, given the circumstances.

3.) If two people are born in Russia, and get married and have a child in a different country, does this mean that the child will have no Russian blood? Absolutely not. This argument proves nothing. Jesus was just as much a child of Judah as was Joseph and Mary.

4.) Unfortunately, this still does not prove to be a reasonable argument. Besides my opponent's logic, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Messiah had to descend from Solomon. There is absolutely no Biblical evidence; just my opponent's reasoning. Secondly, the fact still remains; Jesus Christ is a descendant of Nathan through Mary. Yet, since he was never adopted (which only makes sense) he could very well be the descendant of Solomon as well. Nonetheless, I don't think this would matter.

C2: Jesus was a false prophet

a) Second temple destroyed

Again, I extend my case. I give ample reason to believe that these prophecies have not yet occurred. Regarding the issue of the verse where Jesus speaks of this "generation," The generation of people living when those events occur is the generation that Jesus speaks of "not passing" until He returns. Jesus had already told those living during His first time on earth that the kingdom had been taken from them (Matthew 21:43). Therefore, it is imperative that Matthew 24-25 be seen as speaking of a future time and that the word generation is referring to the people alive when the events of Matthew 24-25 are occurring [1]. Secondly, the Messiah had to come before the destruction of the Temple; even the "semi-destruction." I would encourage my opponent to investigate this further via my second source.

b) Kosher laws

As I have stated earlier, Jesus couldn't have changed it.

We should first notice that the subject is food in general, not which meats are clean or unclean . The Greek word broma, used in verse 19, simply means food. An entirely different Greek word, kreas, is used in the New Testament where meat—animal flesh —is specifically intended (see Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 13:8). So this passage concerns the general subject of food rather than meat. But a closer look shows that more is involved.

The first two verses help us understand the context: "Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault" (verses 1-2). They asked Jesus, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" (verse 5). Now we see the subject further clarified. It concerns eating "with unwashed hands." Why was this of concern to the scribes and Pharisees? The covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai was based on many laws and other instructions that ensured ritual purity. Jewish observance, however, often went beyond these in embracing the "oral law" or "tradition of the elders"—passed on by word of mouth and consisting of many additional man-made requirements and prohibitions tacked onto God's laws. Verses 3-4 of Mark 7 provide a brief explanation of the specific practice the Pharisees and scribes were referring to in this account: "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders ..." Notice that food laws are not in question here. The topic is ritual purity based on the religious traditions of the oral law. The disciples were being criticized for not following the proper procedure of ceremonial hand-washing prescribed by these revered religious traditions. [3]

C3: Jesus failed to meet the Messianic requirements

1.) Peace on Earth

The burden of proof has already been fulfilled. This "Peace on Earth" has not occurred yet. I have already denounced my opponent's argument as inconclusive, due to the fact that this does not prove or disprove Christ being the Messiah.

2.) Torah Observation

believe the strongest verse in the Bible that condones Sunday worship is Romans 14:5-6, and although it is not a command to worship on Sunday, it definitely includes Sunday as a day suitable for worship. Historically, it was not until about 100 years after the crucifixion (give or take ten years) that there is any record of "Sunday" becoming any kind of issue in the early church; however, Romans 14:5-6 does provide some proof for the Sunday-keeper to point to scripture for "holding one day above another," as these two verses, I believe are addressing the "Sunday Issue." Yes, I believe that as early as 30-40 years after the crucifixion, there were believers who began to hold that "Sunday" was important, that it was special, and began to think of it as a memorial to the day "Jesus rose from the dead." Romans 14:5-6 does provide some slim evidence of this particular esteem of "one day above others." [4]

3.) Jews to Israel

It would only make sense that this is a confirmation of Jesus' position. For one, the gathering of the Jews is something that is occurring as we speak; although gradual, it is in process. Second, if God is God and in his infinite wisdom, is able to foresee and understand this process, one could only assume that Jesus Christ is God. Why is this? He has already been been to Earth, and fulfilled every single prophecy that has been issued to him.

Case Closed.


Debate Round No. 4


Thanks for the fun debate. This is just the closing round (no rebuttals) and I've nothing further to say or add.


Indeed, this was a fun debate. I thank my friend for the challenge and for his willingness to debate in spite of his stress from schooling. Nonetheless, I believe the resolution can be negated; as Con, I affirm that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Spot on Buckethead. That would be the obvious interpretation. To choose any other interpretation that is non messianic would be stretching very hard.
Posted by Buckethead31594 6 years ago
Gileandos, thanks, we appreciate the insight.
Posted by Buckethead31594 6 years ago
But as for the Context, it most certainly is refering to the messiah.

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin\young woman will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

Who then, pre tell, is this "Immanuel?" It is none other than God with Us.

Who is God with us?

The Messiah, Jesus Christ.
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
*does nothing to debunk the word
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
The Hebrew word in the text could be either young maid or virgin.
There is nothing about the text to suggest one way or the other to usage.

Obviously the Christian Jews who also spoke Hebrew, found no problem with the use of the word as virgin.
For a Jew to complain about the plausibilty of a divine miracle is a weak position and does to debunk the word for "virgin".
Posted by Buckethead31594 6 years ago
Gileandos, please explain.
Posted by Buckethead31594 6 years ago
debating in the comments is pointless. Proceed to propose this in the next round, and I will gladly prove you wrong. As is my was as the contender ;)
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
There is no way to 'debunk' the Hebrew word of virgin in Isaiah 7:14.
It's impossible.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 6 years ago
Sure it does. You said to examine the context, yet the context has NOTHING to do with the MEssiah!
Posted by Buckethead31594 6 years ago
Honestly, that small nuance doesn't change much, considering the evidence.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Neonix 6 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: Overall, both sides argued very well. That being said, Pro had to ignore the sovreign power of God to justify that Christ is not the promised savior. God often works outside the context of his word, meaning, he keeps his word, but not the way you expected it. Moses was promised a land for his people. God kept his word, but not how Moses expected it. Moses only saw the promise land, he never entered it. God works outside the context of our understanding of his words. Great job to both sides.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 6 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: First of all, I'd like to say both Pro and Con did an amazing job. However, I'm giving arguments and sources to Con because A) He showed how much of Pro's sources were taken out of context and B) defeated all of Mr. Infidels points. Good job to you both.
Vote Placed by Wandile 6 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is one of the best that I have come across! Props to both debaters as their efforts are well recognised. Pro had the BOP and as such needed to use more sources to prove his case. Con correctly referenced and utilised a host of credible sources and as such gets the source vote. The arguments were pretty even but it seemed Con edged pro out towards the end and such gets the 3points. Over all, this debate was truly one to remember and kudos to both parties.
Vote Placed by Angelo 6 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments where even, but con had superior sources in all rounds except in 1. So he wins via sources.