Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

I am going to start off the debate using arguments that I have used in past debates. Part one will be my argument and part two will be my rebuttals. Part One: 1. The New Testament is a Reliable Source: a. There are precisely 5,686 New Testament documents (written in Greek) that we now have that are believed to have been written by the end of the first century. We even have a document written by John that was composed 29 years after the death of Jesus. And according to scholars, when these documents are compared to each other, and checked for accuracy, they are 99.5% accurate. This is really significant when speaking of ancient documents. There is really no doubt that we have the original information from the original documents. That said, we only have seven copies of Plato"s Tetralogies and they were composed over 1,000 years after his death and scholars still accept the documents as valid. There is also the fact that there are also over 19,000 New Testament documents that were written in Latin and in other languages. Therefore it is reasonable to say that we have the exact words that the people of the time period wrote about Jesus. b. People in the New Testament have been proven outside of the Bible to have existed. John the Baptist for example was mentioned by the historian Josephus. And James, the brother of Jesus has also been confirmed outside of the Bible. The link at the bottom of this paragraph lists more people that have been confirmed outside of the Bible (including King Herod). Therefore, since the New Testament has many people that have been confirmed to have existed, we can conclude that the documents are historically accurate. Link: http://www.ucg.org... https://carm.org... c. Places in the New Testament have been confirmed to have existed. Luke, for example, mentioned "thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error" (http://www.everystudent.com...). Then of course there is the Sea of Galilee, Capernaum, Bethsaida, and etc..that have all been confirmed to have existed (). The point is that the Bible mentions real places which shows that it is historically reliable. d. Events mentioned in the Bible have been confirmed to have happened. The crucifixion of Jesus is an example of a real event recorded by Josephus (https://carm.org...). Then there is the fact the the New Testament mentions many Jewish events that still took place such as passover. All of these events are things that we know happened. e. The information is accurate because it was written by real people who wrote about real people, real places, and about real events that took place. For example, when a person reads the gospel of Matthew, they are reading an eyewitness account of the events that took place. And because the document mentions real people, real places, real events, and details only an eyewitness would know...the source is reliable. There is no good reason to deny the reliability of the New Testament. f. Then there is the embarrassment factor. A good indicator of a source's reliability is that it mentions things that happened that were embarrassing. For example, the crucifixion of Jesus was something that was incredibly embarrassing for the early Christians and yet the gospel writers included it in their writings. These people worshipped Jesus as their God and it was horrible to see him murdered butt naked on a cross like some kind of criminal. Then there is the fact that the historian Luke records women discovering the empty tomb. Back then, the testimony of a women was not highly valued. It was embarrassing for Jesus" tomb to be discovered by women. Therefore the New Testament is reliable due to the embarrassing events that it mentions. In conclusion, it is reasonable to say that the New Testament is a reliable source because we know we have the original words of the author's, real people are mentioned, real places are mentioned, and because real events have been included in the New Testament. 2. Jesus... Is Called God-John 1:1,18; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1. Has the names and titles of God-The Lord (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21), I AM (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58), and Savior (Isaiah 43:11; Titus 2:13). Has Attributes of God-Omnipresence (Matthew 18:20; 28:26), Immutable (Hebrews 13:8), Eternal (John 8:58), Omnipotence (John 11:38-44; Matthew 28: 18-22), and Omniscience (Matthew 16:21; John 4:28; 11:17). Did Works of God-Creating/Sustaining (John 1:3,10; Hebrews 1:2, 3; Colossians 1:15-17), Forgiveness/healing (Isaiah 29:18; Mark 2:1-12), and Calming the Storm (Psalm 107:28-29; Matthew 8: 23-27). Is Due Honor and Worship-John 5:22-30; 20:28 3. He died and rose from the dead according to the people who lived during the time period. Matthew-https://www.biblegateway.com...... Mark-https://www.biblegateway.com...... Luke-https://www.biblegateway.com...... John-https://www.biblegateway.com...... Paul also has something to say about it-https://www.biblegateway.com...... Even the brothers of Jesus (who previously disbelieved in the deity of their brother) came to believe that Jesus was God. Think about that for a moment...what would it take for you to believe that your brother (if you have one) was God? Would it take a resurrection? Nevertheless they became Christians. Part Two: I will quote my opponent and then respond to what they wrote. "There for we may conclude that the Non-Testament must teach in accordance with the Torah enable to be valid at all." I think it is more accurate to say that those who were inspired by God are fit to write scripture. "So now we see Jesus allowing his disciples to harvest wheat on Shabbat, something completely contrary to the law. Just one of many examples." This law was apart of the old covenant. It previously existed to foreshadow the rest people would find in God. That said, the Sabbath law has been done away with (Col 2:16) since Jesus has died for us. The Sabbath represented the rest and the holiness we would find in Jesus. And the fact is that even when the law was in place, it represented part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God's requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. Not only that, but the whole animals sacrifice system was there to foreshadow what the messiah would do for us. That is also why no one sacrifices animals anymore. It is no longer necessary under the new covenant. "He also fit ZERO prophecies, and no those 365 non-prophecies fulfilled by Jesus are not valid, a lot of them are very vague that just about anyone could fit, like being born of a woman, being a Jew, having enemies, or dying." My opponent just made a large claim with no support. I now ask them to try and support there claim. "Isaiah 53 isn't valid either cause first of all it isn't a Messianic prophecy." a. Fruchtenbaum points out, "All of the ancient Jewish writings " the Mishnah, the Gemara, (the Talmud), the Midrashim and many others " all regard this portion of Scripture as relating to the Messianic Person."[15] It was Rashi, around 1050 A.D. who first suggested that it refers to Israel. However, Rashi"s views sparked fierce debate with the great rabbi Maimonides strongly opposing Rashi"s claims" (https://carm.org...). b. The source above also states that "There are a number of reasons why this passage refers to the Messiah. First, this passage mentions an individual person. The references are in the singular. Commenting on verse 8, Fruchtenbaum notes, "This One, who is Messiah, is quite distinct from "my people," who are Israel."[10] Elwell notes, "While it is true that Isaiah does not explicitly link the title Messiah with the Servant of the Lord, identifying both figures as one and the same person is justifiable."[11] Both are uniquely anointed (Is. 61:1), bring light to the Gentiles (Is. 55:4; cf. 49:6), neither is pretentious at the first appearance (Is. 7:14-15; 11:1; cf. 42:3; 53:1), they both have the title of the Davidic "branch" (Is. 11:1-4), and they both are humiliated and exalted (Is. 49:7; 52:13-15). In the Old Testament, "my people" is always a reference to Israel. However, Messiah will be killed for the sins of Israel.[12]" "Second of all Jesus didn't fit it, he didn't live a long life or have children (Isaiah 53:10), and he wasn't rich (Isaiah 53:12)." a. The Bible doesn't say that he didn't have children b. The verse about children most likely referred to those who believed in him (Christians). c. How does that verse indicate that the messiah would be rich?