There are no true messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus.

Thank you to Kohai for his contribution.Prophecy 1My opponent has made a few significant mistakes.The first is making a significant point out of the word "Ephrathah." Simply put, Ephrathah was another, more ancient name for Bethlehem. We see this clearly when we look at Genesis 35:19 and Genesis 48:7 which both use the ancient name of the town (Ephrathah) and then offer explanatory notes that this place is the same as the Modern (At the time of writing) Bethlehem.So Rachel died, and she was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem) (ESV)Furthermore, my opponent misunderstands the meaning of the word "Bethlehem." He is correct that the word breaks down to component parts of "Beth" and "Lechem." However, "Lechem" is not a person or family name. Lechem is the Hebrew word for Bread [A], so the town of Bethlehem is the "House of Bread" and likely refered to the dominant trade in the area.Next, there is no record of a clan called Bethlehem or Ephrathah. Even if there were, the Clan of Bethlehem would have been a subdivision of the tribe of Judah. And since the town of Bethlehem is where David was from, it is logical to think that his geneology also traces back to this lost clan of Bethlehem. Since Jesus is descended from David, he is also from the clan of Bethlehem.In fact, Kohai's own source supports this. It writes:"Actually, the text does not necessarily mean the Messiah will be born in that town, but that his family originates from there. From the ancient family of the house of David will come forth the Messiah, whose eventual existence was known to God from the beginning of time." (Emphasis Added. See Pro Footnote 2.1)Even if this prophecy was refering to the family lineage of the Messiah, rather than the geographical town of Bethlehem, Jesus still fulfills this prophecy, seeing that he was born of the lineage of David. However, this is a moot point, since there is no record of there ever being a Clan of Bethlehem.In regards to the misquote of "Clan" to "Rulers." Ancient Hebrew did not utilize vowels during the time of Micah or Jesus. As such, there were sometimes words that were ambiguous due to their spelling. For example, both the words King and Queen utilize the Consonant structure /MLK/ while King is "Melech" and Queen is "Malkah." The words for Clan and Ruler are similar, and it is likely that the difference is simply that. The Study notes on Micah 5:2 in the Archeology Study Bible state:"The 'clans of Judah' is read as the 'rulers of Judah' in Matthew 2:6 by using different (and probably correct) vowels with the Hebrew consonants." [B] This is an auxilary issue that does not change the meaning of the content.Finally, my opponent still has not accounted for one simple fact. The Jews of Jesus' time believed that this passage was a prophecy regarding the location of the Birth of the Messiah. Does my opponent propose that he understands Hebrew and Messianic Prophecies better than 1st century Jewish sages?There are other points in his response to this prophecy that are simply redhearings to the argument. Whether or not Jesus claimed to be God and Messiah would not be God (although this is arguable) is irrelevant. The simple fact is this: The prophecy states that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Whether this refers to the geographical location of his birth, or his family lineage, both of these requirements were fulfilled by Jesus.Prophecy 2Again, my opponent believes he is in a better position to understand Messianic Prophecy than a 1st century Jew. Why should we believe that the passage in Isaiah means anything other than what it says? Even my opponent's so called "proper translation" plainly reads "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped." If John the Baptist (a person the first century Jews acknowledged as a prophet) understood this to mean that the Messiah would have a ministry of supernatural healing, and Jesus (Also a first century Jew well versed in the Scripture) believed the same thing, why should we question it? My opponent simply asserts that we should read this as a spiritual blindness and deafness being removed, but gives no real support for why.Until he does so, we must assume this passage means exactly what it says. The eyes of the Blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped." Both of these things are acomplished in Christ.Prophecy 3My opponent asserts that this passage is refering to Israel and not to Messiah. He also argues that a proper translation of the prefix "-mi" which is added to the beginning of the words "wounded" and "crushed" is "because of." The second argument is moot, since because of can be translated multiple ways. This prefix is equivalent to the Greek "Dia," which we see is the prefered preposition used in the Septuigint translation of this passage. Dia can mean anything on a range from "on account of" which is the Christian understanding of this passage, or "because of" which is Kohai's understanding. However, regardless of this issue, we must ask "How have Jews historically understood this passage?"The answer is simple. While not unanimous, a good representation of Rabbi's throughout the ages believed this passage to be about Messiah, and NOT Israel. [C]We see in the Talmud Sanhedrin (Ca 98b) that the author cites this section and says "Messiah ...what is his name? The Rabbis say,'The leprous one'; those of the house of the Rabbi (Jehuda Hanassi, the author of the Mishna, 135-200) say: 'Cholaja' (The sickly), for it says, 'Surely he has borne our sicknesses' etc. (Isa.53,4)."We also see Manmonides writing in the 12th century AD "Likewise said Isaiah that He (Messiah) would appear without acknowledging a father or mother: 'He grew up before him as a tender plant and as a root out of a dry ground' etc. (Isa.53:2)."Finally, we see Rabbi Moses Alschech writing in the 16th Century BC "Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view."It is clear that even before the time of Christ, Rabbis were reading Isaiah 53 as referencing Messiah. Simply put, my opponent's statement of what Jews believe Isaiah 53 is about MAY represent the understanding of the current Judaism, however historic Judaism disagrees. However, even recent Judaism often asserts that this is a Messianic prophecy. One cite records "Even today, followers of Menachem Schneerson (1902-1994), the Grand Rabbi of the Lubavitcher Hasidic movement, apply Isaiah 53 to him as an individual, believing him to the Messiah who suffered."[D]What follows after in my opponent's argument is an attempt to show that Jesus is not Messiah by identifying times when Jesus broke Torah. While my opponent's argument is certianly defeatable, there is no need to war against it. This is a red hearing of massive scale. This debate is not about if Jesus was Messiah or not. Only if there are messianic prophecies that we can say Jesus fufilled. My opponent's burden of proof is to show that the prophecies I have put forward cannot be claimed to have been fulfilled by Jesus, and he has not thus far fulfilled his burden of proof in this area. My burden of proof however is simply to provide, as defined by the terms of the debate, three prophecies which Jesus fufilled. However, in order to secure the terms of the resolution, I must only prove one since if Jesus fulfilled even one prophecy, we cannot say "There are no true messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus."This far, I have shown three that can be possitively attributed to Christ.[A] Ethelyn Simon, Irene Resnikoff, and Linda Motzkin, The First Hebrew Primer, (Third Edition, Oakland: EKS Publishing Co., 2005), 73 [B] Archeological Study Bible, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 1486[C] The following quotes and more can be found at http://www.hearnow.org...;[D] http://www.truthnet.org...