Jesus cannot be Messiah

Please NOTE: I am unable to properly format Greek / Hebrew quotes - and will clarify in comments, if necessary! R1.Con.1 - Burden of Proof :As I understand, the "Instigator" will provide textual proofs that exclude Jesus as the Messiah.As the apologist, I am expected to either refute the basis of the claim, (challenge translations and interpretations of the texts) - or, to reasonably provide a defense.@R1.Pro.1 - Jeconiah's Appearance in Jesus' Geneology Disqualifies Jesus as the MessiahJeconiah's curse is being taken out-of-context, and misapplied here :Jesus' "Geneology" Does Actually Include Jeconiah - Matthew 1:12 - "After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel." And Jeconiah Was Actually Cursed : Jeremiah 22:24 “As I live,” declares the Lord, “even though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pull you off; 30 “Thus says the Lord, ‘Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.’” R1.Con.2 - It is reasonable to hold that Jeconiah's curse was reversed through Zerubbabel's actions, and consequently the curse would not have applied to Jesus as well :Note, however, that Jeconiah's curse does not say his descendents would never sit on the throne again - just that they would never "prosper" on the throne, (and arguably they never did).Regardless, as is with nearly everyone in Jesus' geneology - they all seemed to have found forgiveness, and even Jeconiah's curse appears to have been reversed - using the same symbology : Haggai 2:21-23 - 21 “Speak to Zerubbabel governor of Judah, saying, ‘I am going to shake the heavens and the earth. 22 I will overthrow the thrones of kingdoms and destroy the power of the kingdoms of the nations; 23 ‘On that day,’ declares the Lord of hosts, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, My servant,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you,’” declares the Lord of hosts. Ironically - in both contexts, (in Jeremiah, Haggai, and even Zechariah), all passages either sit in, or are immediately followed by clearly Messianic passages, regarding the redemption of Israel.Granted from a secular point of view, that could be considered "circumstantial" - but hermeneutically, in prophetic books and messianic contexts - a reasonably minded believer would certainly begin by including the possibility that God was speaking through Zerubbabel to his descendent, as God had spoke through Abraham - to his descendent, and through Jacob, to his descendent, and through David, to his descendent, etc.@R1.Pro.2 - "Prophetical context argument: Any prophecy applied to Jesus's first advent has better contextual logic ( in the Tanakh) of being applied to an event or person that preceded him."If the Burden of Proof is met that the prophecies towards Zerubbabel had "better contextual logic of beling applied to [Zerubbabel]"- then I believe : Pro would have made his case - in this one point. Often times in Scripture, a prophecy is worded towards the father, which actually applies to the son - which I would argue certainly applies in Zerubbabel's case - as the prophecies towards him, (In Haggai, Zechariah, etc) - do not appear to have actually applied to Zerubbabel. In fact, I would go as far as saying that if all of the prophecies regarding Zerubabel (including Jeconiah), were "better fulfilled" in their "contexts" - especially regarding the second/third temples, and the redemption of Israel - then the Instigator's position would certainly prevail. (Granted, impossible to do in this debate format.)@R1.Pro.3 - "... Solomon is called God's son in 1 Chron 28."Certainly others were called the Son of God - even all people : Psalms 82:6-7 - I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. 7 “Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes.” So, having been called a "Son of God" certainly isn't that compelling - not at least in the Scriptural sense.Setting aside any "Rabbinical" interpretations of Psalms 82 - the earliest Christians (Jews) understood this verse to be literal - evident by the fact that even Jesus used it in his defense - from being stoned to death. John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? R1.Con.3 - Son's of God Appear in Scripture - But, God's "Rightful Heir", God's "Sole Heir" - Never Appeared :The Instigator's objection largely stems around a very, very, mistranslated verse. John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten [μονογενQ34;] ..." μονο-γενQ34; can literally mean, "single offspring, only descendent" ... But - it is actually a metaphor of sorts in Biblical in Classical Greek - to mean, "Only Heir" ... the only, rightful heir, to the throne ... Plato, Laws: Plat. Laws 3.691e - [691e] your kingly line, (μονογενοQ66;ς) no longer single but twofold. ... In Flavius Josephus, Isaac isn't the Only Child - but is the: "μονογενQ34;": Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, J. AJ 1.222 - O96;σακον δP50; P01; πατP52;ρ O49;βραμος P17;περηγ^0;πα μονογενQ34; P04;ντα καP54; O52;πP54; γ^2;ρως οP16;δQ83; κατP48; δωρεP48;ν αP16;τQ83; τοQ66; Now Abraham greatly loved Isaac, as being his only begotten and given to him at the borders of old age,