Jesus cannot be Messiah

In Re R4.Pro.1 - Only Arguing from Talmud and Zohar to Show Multiple "Jew-Ish" Opinions - Disproving "Certainty" :[Elika], Some of your stuff was ad hominem. Clear sign of throwing in the towel!No - I think we are both bashing Rabbinical Judaism pretty evenly - to show that arguing from Tradition, (the Mishneh and Talmud) - cannot possibly lead to a conclusive resolution. (I think we agree on this point.)But - to show that it is also a "Jew-ish" idea that the Messiah would come from Nathan - I pointed to the Zohar, (which modern Judaism also acknowledges the connection to both Nathan AND Solomon - in agreement with the New Testament writers). "The famed 20th-century Jewish scholar and kabbalist Rabbi Reuven Margolies explains that the Zohar is careful to describe the Moshiach as being a descendant of Nathan’s wife, rather than of Nathan himself. Nathan had passed away childless, and Solomon his brother married his widow, according to the laws of yibum, levirate marriage." Judaism is very adamant about relying on supposed traditions / intellectualisms rather than plain-reading of the texts, (like pedastry, etc).In other words, IF it is arguable that Jewish disciples of Jesus of that era most likely didn't care if the Messiah descendend from Solomon or Nathan, (supported by the two genealogies); AND IF it is a well-substantiated fact that Judasim has multiple-opinions on this, AND IF there is no plain-reading of the text where a reasonable bystander could infer that the Messiah would certainly be a descendant of Solomon - THEN it is clear that the text does not conclusively disqualify Jesus as the Messiah based on a genealogy through either Nathan or Solomon. R4.Con.1 - Authorial Intent is Reasonably Debated - Even in Judaism; It is incredibly vauge; Unknowable :The thing is - Jews at that time - likely had a much better understanding of the differing opinions - of that time, (especially since the Sadducees and Karaites were exterminated). This renders the entire question about "Authorial Intent" - "Moot" - unknowable. The best we can do - is rely on a "Plain-reading" of the text - which even the writers of the Zohar and other Rabbinical sources disagree with you about. ... so \o/ ?? (Moot.)In Re. R4.Pro.2 - Various Inferences and Proofs Regarding SolomonThe Debate : "Jesus Cannot Be the Messiah" - appeals to a deductive / certain conclusion; "THIS MUST BE TRUE".The Burden of Proof - at the bare minimun - is to rule out valid/reasonable Rival Hypotheses.1. The text states that all of Solomon's descendants were killed.2. The text still states the Messiah would be descendant from David - after the death of Solomon's descendants.3. In the text, The promises/covenants that God made with Solomon were conditional - (which he broke).Neither I, (nor a reasonable reader), could possibly accept your conclusion based on a "Plain-Reading" of the text - BUT PERHAPS on of the other methods could, (Like Derash, hidden meaning, etc).R4.Con.2 - Even so - the Rival Hypothesis MUST be excluded in order to ENTAIL a Deductive/Certain Conclusion.That burden of proof - to rule out that Rival Hypothesis - is still not addressed with any certainty. In Re.R4.Pro.3 - Arguments Regarding Isaiah :"Isaiah chapter 53 has nothing to do with jesus." (And Isaiah 40, Psalms, etc) ...Great. And?You just said it has NOTHING to do with Jesus. (Since you do not argue Messianic intent in those passages, I suppose you may also be arguing that it doesn't even have anything to do with the Messiah).R4.Con.3 - In either case - according to you - Isaiah 53 has NOTHING to do with Jesus - and can't possibly exclude him.(That was a LOT more efficient/concise than going chapter by chapter! I WIN! HAH!)In Re.R4.Pro.4 - "Stop being a Christian!"*Cough. You do realize that when Jews accepted "Jesus" as the Messiah - that it had NOTHING to do with prophecy, right?Jesus was clearly a political dissident, objecting to both Pharasaic and Sadducean Judaism.Jesus' first followers were clueless about Isaiah 53.Their faith / loyalty to Jesus was baed on Reasoned Argumentation, (anti-sexism/racism, anti-oppression, the true nature of God, etc) - and, what they perceived as the evident power of God, proving that he was "Anointed" - just like King Saul and David were "Anointed" with super-natural power.The point being - Prophecy is all fine and dandy, but ultimately - and objectively - it is crazy vague and can be interpreted in many, many ways. As a result - it is highly unlikely that any "reasonably minded person" could ever come to any "FOR CERTAIN/DEDUCTIVE" conclusion based on any plain-reading of prophecy !!!Oh - and : In Christian Scripture - People never appealed to Prophecy AS PROOF; but as a nice "bow" to tie up the facts with.They always, always, appealed to what people, many witnesses saw - and heard.Quite frankly - New Testament writers just took the Messiahship of Jesus as a clearly established fact among Jews - regardless of any prophecy:Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.1 Corinthians 2:4 ... and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.R4.Con.4 - Finding Reasonable Bystanders to See Who Could Be Persuaded, Either Way - from Scriptural Prophecy :I hear that http://www.debate.org...;- has a moderate representation of atheists .... *cough. Maybe they could provide opinions on whether any prophecy of Scripture is remotely specific enough to either include, or exclude Jesus. I believe this entire premise is invalid, and that ONE verse in Chronicles - that appears conditional - is nowhere near as conclusive as you make it out to be.