The Jewish religion should identify Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah

My opponent has failed to support his arguments at all. Every single one of his arguments have either been an appeal to authority logical fallacy or a genetic logical fallacy. He actually comes into this debate stating it is his intention to use an appeal to authority. From round 2: ". I want to focus the debate on two topics: what did ancient Jewish Rabbi's look for in the Messiah, and did Yeshua (Jesus) meet those criteria. " That's not how you win a debate. You need to build a case and this I'm just pointing his fingers at dead Jewish guys and saying "hey those guys looked for this in a messiah". That's interesting that there was a sect of Jews that believed in this double messiah theory, but irrelevant without some supporting evidence as to why that theory should be accepted. It being convenient to your case isn't a good reason to accept it. DOUBLE MESSIAH Let's take a momxplore the evidence my opponent has provided. from R2: "There are competing prophecies in the Tanakh regarding the nature of Messiah. This led to controversy among rabbis over how to identify Messiah. This led ancient rabbis to believe in two Messiah figures: Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. Messiah ben Joseph is believed to be insignificant. He suffers and dies. Messiah ben David comes and restores peace and prosperity to Israel. It was agreed that Messiah ben Joseph would come before Messiah ben David" This is an appeal to authority. Some ancient rabbis had this theory, but my opponent fails to support this theory himself. We need me facts to back up this theory not just pointing us to long dead rabbis who believed it. from R2: "Modern rabbinic interpretation of this passage claims that Israel is the suffering servant that pays for the sins of the entire world. There are many problems with this interpretation. First of all, this interpretation came in the middle ages in response to Christian claims that Isaiah 53 referred to Messiah. According to modern Jewish scholarship, the earliest reference to this interpretation comes about 284 C. E, well after the establishment of Christianity" This is a genetic fallacy. This interpretation of Isaiah 53 isn't rejected, because the facts have been shown wrong, or because the rabbis have been shown to make errors in their judgement. It's rejected because of where the interpretation came from. You'll notice a theme in my opponent's arguments. He accepts all bible interpretations of Daniel 9 if they came from Christians or of Isaiah 53 if it came from the sect of Jews he mention that existed prior to Jesus coming on the scene. After Jesus comes on the scene all Jewish interpretations of these passages are rejected. How messed up is that. My opponent is rejecting modern Judaism's interpretation of things not because they have been shown wrong, but merely because they haven't accepted Jesus as the messiah. another example of a genetic fallacy from R2 " I have been unable to find a Jewish source that admits the Talmud agreed that Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah. There appears to be a targeted cover-up by the Jewish religion. This is an indication that they know that the scriptures appear to point to Yeshua as the Messiah, but they do not want to admit to it. " from R3 "That aside, I already addressed several key points Con made. Much of the argument is centered on the unfulfillment of certain Messianic prophecies. I previously addressed that by showing from Jewish sources that the Jewish people expected two Messiahs. " Again he is misleading you by implying that the Jewish people were expecting 2 messiahs when in fact it was only a small sect, but more importantly he is saying we should accept the 2 messiah theory because some Jewish people did prior to Jesus coming on the scene. This is another appeal to authority. He's failed to show why the double messiah theory should be accepted. Saying that people used to believe it at one point isn't enough. From R4: "In this case, there is a strong argument that older sources are more pure. After Christianity was established, the Jewish religion had to counter the claims of Christianity. In other words, later interpretations of the Bible would be bias against Christianity" You can see my opponent isn't correcting course in later rounds. He is still leaning heavy on these genetic fallacies. This one he claims older sources are more pure an unbiased should be trusted because of their age, while newer sources should be distrusted because they are from Jews who haven't accepted Jesus as messiah. I've also pointed out that this double messiah theory wasn't something believed by Jesus or his followers, because if it was they wouldn't have tried to implement the messiah installment plan where he fulfills some prophecies now then the rest later. UNFULFILLED PROPHECY Jesus needs to be descended from King David on his father's side. The fact that he isn't means he isn't the messiah. Jesus was born by immaculate conception and can't possibly be descended from David father's side. My opponent fails to really address this adequately. You can reread every single one of those boring begats in the bible and you won't find a single one until you come to the New Testament. You won't find them, because this is how the Jews counted and kept track of their lineage back then. Earlier in this round my opponent brings this new argument about a Jewish person needing to be Jewish by being born to a Jewish mother, but this tradition besides being a new argument didn't exist in the time Jesus. Seeing as how Jesus must meet every single prophecy this fact alone is enough for me to win the debate, but there is more. He didn't accomplish the most important prophecies as my opponent admits and tries to overcome with this 2 messiah theory. Isaiah 53 My opponent asks you to accept his interpretation for Isaiah 53 and yet if you go back I'm the one that completely breaks it down for you. He never does this. He points out how some other people interpret that passage but fails to show why you should interpret it that way, like I do in round 3. He just expects you to take his word that's the way the chapter should be interpreted. I'm sorry pro but that's not good enough, you need to show why those verses should be interpreted that way as I did in round 3. DANIEL 9 I guess my opponent thinks this is his strongest argument because not only does he demand I not add any new arguments about Daniel 9 in this round, but he the proceeds to make new arguments about Daniel 9 himself. My opponent gave a claim of this chapter's propr interpretation and I gave a counter claim. mine was supported by as much evidence as his was. He honestly just uses appeals to authority and the genetic fallacy to advance this argument as he's done with every one of his arguments. CONCLUSION My opponent hasn't overcome the massive BOP he created for himself. This is a clear win for me.