Jesus Christ is the Savior of Man and Son of God

"Firstly, Pro only references Christian verses; which again, as the Messiah (Mashiach) is a Jewish concept outlined in the first five books (Torah) and the Tanakh...cannot be used as a realiable source. Of course the Christian bible is going to proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah--doesn't sufficiently prove that he is so."Con starts off with referencing my lack of O.T. Sources, Yet in my last argument, I had referenced Old Testament Sources 23 Times (Count them if you would like). Therefore the idea I have not used the Jewish Tanakh is False. Secondly, Judaism does not define God,rather God defines Judaism. This has been the accepted Jewish Interpretation for centuries. Lastly, Con argues that the New Testament cannot be used as a source, yet I would have to argue with that point. Firstly, I have used the New Testament to reference the fulfuillment of the Prophecies previously mentioned: The idea that I have to fulfill Cons need for answers to prophecies, while at the same time not referencing the text from which they were fulfilled is ludicrous. Secondly, I have used the New Testament to explain Jesus's views of himself, which is perfectly acceptable in the premise of the debate.Con seems to believe Judaism defines who the Messiah would be, yet this idea is flawed. It has been accepted that God himself defines the criteria for the Messiah; not a Rabbi. To further this argument, as I touched on before, the Jewish community cannot even agree on who the Messiah will be, or what he will do."The verses referenced by Pro do not prove anything, on the contrary, they do not come from an objective source."Not only the Verses, but the evidence I have given is more than enough to prove this to be true for the purposes of this debate. It has been up to Con to rebut these facts, not merely ignore them."Empty claim. It's on Pro to affirm thsi statement and prove that Jesus indeed did peform miracles. Certainly in Judaism (or any other more impartial sources for that matter), there isn't one reliable historical reference alluding to a miracle worker named Jesus. Pro is also going to have to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead."The argument that my claims were "empty" are false, and merely serve as an attempt to avoid addressing them. To Counter Con's argument posed, I would claim her her statements are false, as multiple historical scholars have alluded to Jesus.-Tacticus describes Jesus's Crucifixion in his "Annals" written in 116 A.D.-Thallus is recorded referencing Jesus's Crucifixion-Mara Bar Sepion (a Syrian Philospoher) referenced to Jesus in a letter to his son, referring to Jesus as "The Wise King".Con asked for proof that Jesus rose from the dead, yet I have already given it in my previous argument. I will again repeat myself: according to David Limbaugh, an accomplished Lawyer and Author, All 12 of the Apostles dying for what the purported to see is enough to prove the Birth, Miracles, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ as sustainable facts in a court of law. "I invite Pro to support this claim, by displaying specific verses. I have already listed Messianic Tanakh verses myself, which Pro has left ignored."I did infact support my claim. Eleven Old Testament verses in Total, all fulfilled by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. *Oh wait, Im not supposed to reference the New Testament* otherwise I would be glad to give you a list of all the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ, yet for the sake of space, I am afraid I must contain them to only eleven which I mentioned last argument.Secondly, I have left none of your arguments ignored.Refer to my rebuttal in my previous argument, in which I addressed every single one of the verses you have brought up. "I would like to see Pro rebutt mine (see round one), using the original Tanakh source, perhaps it would help if he also read it in the original Hebrew language; to avoid misunderstanding of any kind. "I again will mention that I cannot properly rebut your Old Testament Prophecies, without refencing there respective New Testament fulfillments, which you apparently forbid me to do, as it is an "impartial source". This is hypocracy, as you yourself do not admit that your own religious text is impartial. Proving Prophecies were fulilled by a book not containing there fulfillments is redundant.The next two arguments posed by Con are not addressing the New Testament Fulfillments brought up earlier, but are merely rejecting them without any reasoning."Indeed Ezekiel does not refer to that, it is a prophecy of the third temple being built...the Messiah himself is not the temple in question."It is easy to see that Con argues that Jesus Himself was not the temple mentioned, but merely saying so is not sufficient. No evidence was given regarding this aspect, yet the only argument needed to warrant a rebuttal from con is that Jesus Christ considered himself the Third Temple.Next, Con moves on to world peace. Con argues that the Tanakh text is to be taken litterally, yet remains thoughtless on the idea that the text should be interpreted by a deeper meaning. Additionally, It is indeed true that Jesus Christ will bring World Peace at his Second Coming when bringing forth the New Jerusalem. Con also has not considered the Idea, that if this prophecy is to be taken litterally, it may be fulfilled at a later date. Ezekiel does not specify at what coming the MEssiah will fulfill this prophecy, and therefore it is fair to consider such an answer. "According to Christianity, Jesus was born to a virgin...and to God, but yet somehow is God as well...but anway, given that he was bornwithout father, Pros statement is inadequate and false; Jesus was not descended from King David, which the Messiah is supposed to on his fathers side."Much of what was stated above does not constitute a rebuttal, but a lack of understanding of how Jesus's Birth came to be. Through Jesus's Fathers name, he was a descendent of King David from a Mother who Never had sex, and was given a child by the Holy Spirit."Jesus claiming that he was a king does not make him so, simarily to him claiming that he is the Messiah. The fact remains that Jesus never experienced Kingship." You have not proven that Jesus was not a King. Jesus did infact experience Kingship in the New Testament, as according to Mark 16:19, Jesus Sits at the Right Hand of God the Father. Con has given no evidence to say He was not a king, but has instead merely said "just because Jesus claimed to be a King ,doesnt make him so". This argument is pointless, as it doesnt make his statements false either.Next, Con seems to argue that Christians are Polytheistic, yet God is referenced as One throughout much of the New Testament, and from Jesus Himself. Adding quotations to back this rebuttal up is useless, as they are so abundant. I would encourage Con to Pick up a Bible, and find a few within the first chapter. Con's argument again mis-represents Christian beliefs, and exemplifies a blatant example of the straw-man fallacy. I would like to also respond to this rebuttal posed earlier: "Quoting Rabbis achives nothing, as the Tanakh is the ultimate origin of the Messianic concept. The Tanakh does not claim any group of persons (in this case Arabs) will be wiped out, so Pro has made a useless argument." This argument is actually anything but useless;This exemplifies arguments within some of your teacher's doctrine. Such represents Jewish confusion at the coming of the Messiah, and I would further argue that you cannot say that your interpretation of the Tanakh is any better than theirs.Secondly, your second sentence is Redundant, as it merely rebutts what one of your own Rabbi has claimed. If you would like to debate with your own teachers, please mail your second sentence to Mr. Avaddi Yosef.Pro Rebuts my argument posed around "Elohim" and goes on to correct me in the pronounciation of Yaweh. Such arguments about the pronoucniation of the word "Yahweh" merely serves to distract from the argument at hand. Additionally, I find it hypocritical that Con proved her point through a Jewish Source (Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, written by a proffessor in Jewish Theology), wheras I cannot prove my points through Christian sources (Jesus on Trial, which was infact written by an individual who started out as a non-Christian)In Con's final portion of her argument, she insists that I did not provide enough evidence to classify other religions as "false". This is anything but true, as I provided evidence of Why I Believed the above statement was true. I have listed the proof necessary for me to believe such an idea, and I would argue that Con is not the Judge of how much proof is necessary for me to believe what I believe.In Conclusion, I would like to generally sum up Con's arguments:A series of claims that my arguments are baseless, and a series of rebuttals based off a mis-understanding of true Christian beliefs. I would like to point out that it is all to easy to attack one's sources and arguments by writing them off as "baselss", or using straw-men. It was T. Edward Damor that mentioned "Ignorance does not constitute an argument".Also by T. Edward Damor, is his masterpiece "Attacking Faulty Reasoning". In this book, Damor states "According to the Principle of Sufficiency a lack of evidence for a claim does not constitute an argument against it, and a lack of evidence against a claim does not provide suffiecient evidence for it". Therefore, even if I had given no reasoning whatsoever to Con, her argument would still be in error, as she is still required to rebut them, rather than write them off as "baseless". *p. 178. The refusal to properly engage an opponent in a rebuttal is a common, but debatically incorrect tactic.I would like to end my final argument by thanking Con for her participation, and again persisting that I have addressed all Con's arguments to the best of my ability (character limit permitting).