Jesus is the Messiah who was prophecied in the Old Testament.

Thank you for your response. I really appreciate it did not contain any of the common rhetoric and emotionalism we find among some debates. To be candid, I was hoping this was going to be more from a Jewish Vs. Christian context, but this is fine. If I would have known along what lines we were going to have debated I would have probably phrased the resolution differently, such as, "are the NT Gospels reliable", but that is okay because your objections are still relevant to my claim. Bethlehem You ask: "how do we know this is true" in regards to what Matthew says about being born in Bethlehem. The underlying premise is that Matthew itself is not an historically reliable source to determine what happened in history. I do not accept this premise, and believe we have to prove that it is unreliable. Otherwise, if we assume every historical document we read is unreliable historically, this would result in a form of radical skepticism, one in which one would be forced to conclude that we cannot know whether anything is historically accurate, unless we were present. I think ultimately your question is an epistemological one, but for now we will approach it from an historical-critical approach. You appeal to archeology as saying Bethlehem was not a functioning town during the first century. The Archaeological Study Bible indicates on p. 1487 that Bethlehem was a small village around the time of Christ's birth. So, yes, it was small in population, but I don't see that disproving that Jesus was born there. After all, the number of people in a village has no bearing on whether someone was born in a cave in Bethlehem or not (a cave which the second century Church Father, Justin martyr, identified in his own time, ibid, p. 1668) As far as Pope Benedict XVI on Bethlehem. I've read his book on the infancy gospels and have not come across the quote you referenced in Time magazine, and Time does not include a source. However, I did find in his book where he explicitly affirms Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Pope Benedict says "Significant exponents of modern exegesis take the view that when Matthew and Luke say Jesus was born in Bethlehem, they are making a theological statement, not an historical one...I do not see how a basis for this theory can be gleaned from the actual sources...If we abide by the sources, it is clear that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth" (The Infancy Narratives, p. 65-66). This leads me to believe either the Time magazine quote is inaccurate, or it is taking him out of context. If I am given a source for this quote in Time Magazine, I'll take a look at it but I couldn't find it after an Internet key word search. Veracity of Matthew I did not intend to rely on Matthew alone, to the exclusion of the other Gospels, but we can deal with the veracity of Matthew. I question your sources as far as the dating of Matthew, but even if the Greek version of Matthew is this late (I've read scholars who say 70 A.D. for the Greek version), it doesn't detract from the fact that the Aramaic/Hebrew version of Matthew was written around 50 A.D. and was the first Gospel written according to early Patristic sources (such as Papias in 130 A.D.). As far as the author, I have no problem saying that the editor who translated the work into Greek had some involvement in additions to the Gospel, additions which would have been based on people who were contemporaries of Christ and were still alive. I believe if there are such additions, the Holy Spirit inspired them as well, so that they do not detract from the inspiration of the Gospel of Matthew. As to the Gospel of Matthew being a forgery of Mark, neither of the sources you quoted say this. There are some who believe Matthew came from Mark and a third source known as Q, though there is absolutely no evidence that a Q source ever existed, whereas, there is ample evidence a Hebrew/Aramaic version of Matthew was written as the first Gospel. As to whether Matthew came from Mark, some believe this because there are parts of Matthew that read exactly like Mark, but it stands to reason Mark could have used the earlier Aramaic text as a source and thus Mark would have been later than Matthew. So, there isn't any hard evidence Matthew copied Mark. Since it hasn't been proven that Matthew came after Mark, I would say the many Patristic claims that Matthew was written first is more reliable (this is one of the reasons why some scholars believe Matthew was written first and the Q hypothesis is bunk, see the Archaeological Study Bible, p. 1685). This all demonstrates that your claim that "we have an unknown individual, writing about events that allegedly took place before the writer was even born, and it is known that much of the writing was borrowed from at least one other source. This makes everything written in the Gospel of Matthew hearsay" is unfounded. Unfulfilled Prophecies Though Jesus did not have an earthly father, and given that some Jews determine Jewish descent through the father, he was still of the seed of David because he was the adopted son of Joseph, a direct descendant of David. Thus, he could legally lay claim to the throne of David. You quoted from Ezekiel 38:23 and said that it was prophesied that there will be universal knowledge of God when the Messiah came. Actually, it says "So I will show my greatness and my holiness and make myself known in the eyes of many nations. Then they will know that I am the LORD." So, some translations say "many" not "universal" or "all nations". I did find a translation that says "all" but it was a dynamic equivalency, while the formal equivalencies say "many". This is definitely the case today, most nations have a knowledge of the God of the Bible. But even assuming it means "universal knowledge", who is to say this prophecy had to be fulfilled in His first coming? It could legitimately be fulfilled during his second coming, so this argument is not only unsound, it does not logically follow. As far your claim based on Deut 30:3 that the Messiah is ruling, he will gather all the Israelites back to Israel, we should not that it nowhere says this is indicative of the time of the Messiah. It says "then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you." Nothing in the context I read demonstrates it is talking about the Messiah, but even if it was, it does not logically follow it is referencing the first coming. Additionally, this passage can be understood as a typological reference to the Church, which is the New Israel and is made up of people form every nation. You also reference one of my most favorite Scriptures, Jeremiah 31:33 which says "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." This verse is in the context of the Messiah, but it doesn't require that it be fulfilled entirely in the first coming. It is possible to understand this as beginning with the first coming and being consummated with the second coming. Thus, an appeal to this verse also does not logically follow. In conclusion The testimony of the earliest Christians was that Matthew was written first, and scholars say around 50 A.D. in its Aramaic form. Thus, we have no reason to believe Matthew is unreliable, and to assume it is not a reliable witness, without hard evidence to back this up, results in a form of radical skepticism, where one cannot reasonably know anything historically. For these reasons, Matthew is suitable for proving that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament and my use of it to prove Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies listed in my opening statement, still stands.