Jesus is Not the Messiah

Thank you Mr. Infidel for the debate. I also want to thank you for being respectful through out the debate. I want to also thank the readers for your time. JESUS AS A PROPHET "My partner gives me the definition of the word "genea" which I accept. However, according to the Strong's Concordence Dictionary, the word for this is "This, these, etc." [1] which clearly show that Jesus was defining which generation Jesus was talking about." How does the word "this" change anything? I already explained that the Christian position is that when Jesus said, "this generation", he was speaking of "this age", the age that started in his first coming and will end on his return. We are still living on the same "this age" that Jesus spoke of. SON OF DAVIDIt seems that Pro dropped his initial contention that Jesus is not a descendant of David, but is now arguing about something else. "The reason I find this interesting is that in both Matthew, Jechonia is listed as a member of David's geneaogy." In Luke's genealogy which traces King David's other son Nathan's line does not include Jechoniah. [1] Jeconiah's line, which is Solomon's line, is the rightful line of heirs to the throne. But in Jeremiah (22:28-30), God cursed Jeconiah that non of his descendants will ever sit on Israel's throne because Jeconiah failed to meet God's condition in Psalm 132:12. This would mean that there could never be a rightful King from the descendants of David. This would contradict God's promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:12-13, Psalms 89:35-36, that He will establish the kingdom of David's seed forever. Only Jesus's unique genealogy; the fact that he was the son of God, born of a virgin but is the legal son of Joseph can resolve this contradiction in the Bible. Like I said, there are many theories about Jesus' genealogies. I stumbled upon Eusebius' theory found in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Book 1 Chapter 7, which is very convincing to me. I have read this other theory that resolves the curse by mentioning Zerubbabel's (apears on both Luke and Matthew genealogies after Jechonia) role, but I can't seem to find the article at the moment. But the bottom line is that Jesus is a seed of David both legally and by blood. And again, no one in Jesus' or the apostles' time argued against the Christian claim that Jesus was a seed of David. PSALM 53"I would also love to debate about Isaiah 53. Sadly, my partner has mis-interpreted this. It is clear that it is NOT G-d's people speaking about the Messiah, but rather the Gentile king's of the earth astonashed at Israel's regeneration." Again, Pro claims that my position is wrong and that his is "clearly" right BEFORE any argument or debate. As a matter of fact, it is my opinion that anyone who reads Isaiah 53 can CLEARLY see that it is talking about Jesus. This is so clear that some people argued that Christians wrote that "prophecy" AFTER the fact. But the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shut those critics up. Mr. Infidel, it is not at all "clear" that your interpretation of Isaiah 53 is correct. First of all your interpretation will be VERY metaphoric and symbolic, which is funny because in all the passages that you cited in this debate, you preclude any possibility that they could be metaphorical. But it is no the fact that your interpretation is metaphoric that is the problem, I acknowledge the fact that the Bible has metaphoric passages, rather I would argue the Jewish interpretation is just internally problematic, and just does not make any sense. Let me know if you want to debate about this. FULFILLING THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES "My partner sadly dropped most of my arguments here. " I firmly believe that I answered every one of Pro's contention. Anyone can see that Pro dropped most of my arguments, and the ones he didn't drop, he basically just responded with unestablished statement claims. "My partner wishes to take a metamorphic interpretation WITHOUT JUSTIFYING IT." I explained my interpretations. I explained the nature of prophecies and how they are often times NOT literal, but instead metaphoric and symbolic in nature, and are not fully understood until they are fulfilled. Like I mentioned, since the debate had many different topics, I did not really have the luxury of expounding too much on each topic. Pro however, did not even try to justify his arguments. He just repeatedly claimed that "it's clear" that his assertions are correct. "Why should I trust your metamorphic interpretation of the prophecies when the Jewish nation understood otherwise. It would be like me quoting Matthew 22 for a failed prophecy saying that it is literal without justifying my literal interpretation." This is what the debate was all about. Pro was trying to prove that Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies. I argued that Jesus indeed fulfilled them according to the NT authors' interpretation of the messianic prophecies. The NT authors's interpretations of the prophecies are not only very plausible, I would argue that they are the correct interpretations. Pro for the most part, basically counters with unsubstantiated assertions. Ie, "This is not metamorphic", "The prophecy clearly refers to a literal gathering to the nation of Israel", etc. Pro did not really have any arguments to back up these claims. Pro tried to persuade us by claiming that his interpretations of the prophecies are that I think Pro tried to appeal to the interpretation of orthodox Judaism, when he put "Jewish" in italics. But here's what's wrong with that: 1. The NT authors were all Jews. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity is a Jewish religion and the NT interpretation is as Jewish as what 2. Before, during and shortly after the time of Jesus Christ, there were different schools of thought within Judaism, ie. Pharisees, Saducees, Zealots with different interpretations of scripture, particularly messianic prophecies. There was and still no universal "Jewish" understanding of the prophecies. 3. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE Pharisaic beliefs became the basis for Rabbinic Judaism, which ultimately produced the normative traditional Judaism which is the basis for all contemporary forms of Judaism except for Karaism. [2] So the "orthodox" Jewish religion that we know today is just modern day Phariseeism, which was just one of the competing traditions within Judaism. Btw, Israel rejecting Jesus, fulfills Isaiah 8:14 that Israel will reject the messiah. "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem." In conclusion, Pro failed to prove, and did not really attempt to establish, that his interpretation of the messianic prophecies are correct. He just made claims without any convincing arguments. Pro did not refute the NT interpretations of the messianic prophecies. I only scratched the surface on these topics, and I am up for more focused debates on any one of the subjects.Pro did not really challenge my rebuttals, except for a couple of them, so I did not really go in to much detail on them. Pro did not prove that Jesus is not the messiah. I have responded to all of his claims and have defended the messiahship of Jesus. Mr. Infidel, like many of Jewish people, you have a lot of misconception of what Christianity teaches. I pray and hope that you will continue to study this important matter and that the sovereign God of Israel will reveal Himself to you. The Messiah has come. Christ Jesus, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the true seed of Abraham, who became both our high priest and atoning sacrifice for sins, He is the true temple in whom the fullness of God dwells. He was the one man that fulfilled and perfectly obeyed the law, he is our rest and our righteousness. In him we have salvation and because of his work on the cross we gain the best thing God can give us, eternal life in His presence.