Jesus is not the Messiah as foretold by the Old Testament.

First, I will present my initial case and then use the information provided to affirm the resolution and refute my opponent's points. As I said originally, there are many qualifications for Messiah that Jesus simply did not live up to. These include: - The Messiah must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem [1], but Jesus lived when the Temple was still intact. - The Messiah must establish the traditional Jewish law as the law of the land. [2] - The Messiah must redeem Israel, save them from their enemies, and bring them into a state of prosperity. Not long after the death of Jesus, the Temple was burnt to the ground, Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jewish people were sent into an exile full of persecution - ironically enough, mostly by Jesus' followers - for almost 2000 years. - The Messiah must make Israel a world power and governmental center of the world for Jews and gentiles alike. [3] - The Messiah must return all of the exiled Jews to Israel. Jesus lived while Jews were still living there and before they were exiled by the Romans. [4] - The Messiah must bring world peace [5] and universal awareness of God. [6] - The Messiah must reign as king of the Jews. Jesus' career as a wandering preacher only lasted a few years until he was crucified by the Romans as a common criminal. - The Messiah must uphold all the commandments of the Torah, and the Torah itself says that anyone who tries to change them is a false prophet and must be killed. [7] Jesus continually goes against Torah commandments and says that they are no longer valid. [8] He actively goes against the Torah many times. On the one hand, Jesus himself agrees that the commandments in the Old Testament commandments are perfectly doable. Matt 5:18 - " I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." In Matt 5:19 ï¿½€" "Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Thus he agrees with Deut. 30 that says all God's commandments in the Old Testament are doable and within human capability. Yet he breaks these very same commandments and teaches others to do so, so he must be least in the kingdom of Heaven. He sends two friends to steal a donkey, breaking two commandments at once by stealing and by causing others to sin. He destroys someone's 2000 pigs and never pays for them. He destroys a fig tree just because it didn't have any fruit to give him (it wasn't even in the correct season). He dishonors his mother by making her wait outside while he makes a speech disowning their relationship and claiming his audience for his family instead. He treats a woman seeking help with inexcusable hatred, comparing her and her sick child to dogs, thus disobeying more Old Testament commandments to have compassion and respect towards fellow human beings. Jesus breaks the commandments he said not to break and sets examples he said not to set. Therefore, he could not have been the Messiah. The Temple has not been rebuilt, the traditional Jewish law has not been restored as the law of the land like it once was, Israel has not yet been redeemed, Israel is not the central government of the world, the exiled Jews have not been returned to their homeland, and there is certainly not complete world peace or universal awareness of God. Jesus failed to complete all of these tasks. Aside from tasks which the Messiah must complete, there are certain qualifications about his genealogy that Jesus does not fit. One prerequisite for Messiah-ship is Davidic descent - the Messiah must come from the lineage of King David. Based on information provided by the New Testament itself, Jesus cannot be of Davidic descent as he is described in Romans 1:1- 3. If Jesus was indeed virgin born, Joseph had nothing to do with the conception, is not Jesus' father - God is - and thus the only human genealogy must be through Mary. Luke 1:36 says Mary was related to Elizabeth who was of the Aaronic line (Luke 1:5) and not a descendant of David through Solomon as the Messiah must be. And even if she was, the genealogy cannot be passed down through the mother. Furthermore, Matthew 1 and Luke 3 offer conflicting genealogies of how Jesus was part of the Davidic line through Joseph... but essentially this doesn't even matter, because Jesus was the "Son of God" and could not have been descended from David directly through his father's side. (See I Chronicles 17.11, Psalms 89.29-38, Jeremiah 33.17, II Samuel 7.12-16 for the "Davidic line" information.) This is another reason as to why Jesus cannot be Messiah the son of David. Now, instead of resolving the "three possible hermeneutical lenses" that you have provided, I'll respond to your assertion that there are contradictions which require those resolutions to begin with. You offered Zechariah 9:9 to show that the Messiah can't both come upon clouds as predicted in Daniel and come lowly upon a donkey, and Isaiah 53: 5-7 to show that the Messiah can't both be a conquering king and rejected and killed in weakness. The fact is that Zechariah 9:9 cannot apply to Jesus, and Isaiah 53: 5-7 isn't even talking about the Messiah. Zechariah 9:9 reads as follows - "Thy King cometh ... riding upon a donkey, and upon a colt the foal of a donkey." But if one simply takes the context of chapter 9 into account and reads the next few verses, they will see that this is referring to a military king who will rule, as the next verse says, from "sea to sea." Jesus never had a kingdom or an army, so he did not fulfill this prophecy. (Also, though not imperative, there are disagreements within the New Testament itself over whether Jesus did come "upon a donkey." Mark 11:7 and Luke 19:35 both say that he came riding upon a colt, and don't mention a donkey.) Isaiah 53:5-7 - Again, context is needed to understand what the verses actually mean. Isaiah refers to the "servant" by name many times throughout the book. The servant in question is clearly the nation of Israel. Isaiah 41:8 - "But thou, Israel, [art] my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. 9 - [Thou] whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou [art] my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away." Again, 49:3 - "And said unto me, Thou [art] my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified." And 44:21 says- "Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou [art] my servant: I have formed thee; thou [art] my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me." Indeed, the chapter divisions didn't even exist until a few hundred years ago so the surrounding verses/chapters are very important. Throughout the bible, the nation of Israel is often referred to in the singular sense. Plus, verse 10 in the chapter can't possibly be describing Jesus. "...he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days." - Jesus lived a short, childless life. Some Christian scholars agree with this view. The RSV (Revised Standard Version Oxford Study Edition Bible) and the New English Bible both adopt the view that the chapter refers to national Israel. In short, I will try and show that "under the three possible hermeneutical lenses, there is no possible way that Jesus was(is) the Messiah" only if/when you have provided me with sufficient evidence that they are necessary. As of now, I see no reason to assume that the Messiah shouldn't fit or complete the prophecies that I have listed on his first try. In fact, Isaiah 42:4 says "He shall not fail or be crushed until he has set the right in the earth." My resolution stands. I await my opponent's response. (I apologize, but I will post my sources next round due to lack of room...)