Jesus was a false Messiah!

Thanks again for your time and attention. Thanks to my opponent for giving me the opportunity to have this debate. I want to began this section by saying Jesus was in fact God as Stated in the Bible. While here on earth He was worship and He was also addressed as being God. But the fact that the Bible said He created is absolute proof of His divinity. In John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. And no scripture gives us a clearer picture of who Jesus is than Phil 2:6, "Although Jesus existed in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in the appearance as a man, He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow." Yet, even when Jesus walked the earth in a human body, He was fully divine, "For in Christ all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form" (Col 2:9). God bore witness to the fact Jesus was divine by raising Him from the dead, "Jesus was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:4). And many more scriptures we read also speak to the fact Jesus was God. But I think we have gotten off track somewhat. Our discussion is about Jesus being the Messiah. Or as my opponent says the false Messiah. He ask about the time in which Jesus was crucified. 1) Mark says they crucified him at the 3rd hour. This marks only the beginning of the crucifixion. If someone goes to the hospital for a operation at 9am. That does not mean they are being cut on at the exact time they walk in the door. This is just the time the procedure begins to start. With that in mind. 2) John says: it was about the sixth hour. And he (Pilate) saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King! This is nothing out of the way, as far as time Jesus is being crucified. He was being beaten, they are preparing His for show and time is unfolding. 3) Matthew says: 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. Jesus was on the cross at this time. Luke records the same Jesus was on the cross. 4) Then Matthew says 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? So beginning at 9am and ending at 3pm is the time it took for the crucifixion of Jesus. I don't know why you would have to start a conversation about who watch they were using to figure that out. Quote "The second coming of Jesus was a failed prediction." The reason my good friend cannot understand what Jesus is saying here, Is because he fails to realize the disciples ask Jesus about the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. They did not ask Him when He was coming back the second time. This is not saying anything about the return of Christ to earth. I added a link here that will take the readers to a website were they can read a small booklet that explains in detail these verses. It is revealing, I suggest pro takes a quick look also. http://www.padfield.com... The genealogies of Joseph given by Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Solution: Luke records the lineage of Mary, and Matthew that of Joseph. The problem with this solution is that both genealogies explicitly end with Joseph. Matthew's geneology ends: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Luke's begins: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," So who was Joseph's father - Jacob or Heli? Jacob was his biological father whereas Heli was his father-in-law reckoned as also being his legal father. This would particularly be the case if Mary had no brothers - under the Mosaic law. (Num 27:8) Then upon marriage, the first born son would be reckoned according to the wife's father and receive his inheritance passed down through his mother. (Deut 25:5,6) Such could have been the case with Jesus. Further, Jewish genealogies were almost always traced via the paternal line. Today Jewish trace their ancestry via the maternal line. Today if your mother is a Jew, you are reckoned Jewish, but if your father is a Jew, then not. And as I mentioned above, in the case where a man only has daughters, his line would not be cut off, but would be reckoned according to the first born son of the daughters. Jesus was also a special case (after all, how many Jews had no biological father?). So establishing his biological ancestry was important. Matthew's genealogy of Jesus is recorded in Matthew 1:1-16, and Luke's is recorded in Luke 3:23-38. It has long been known that these two records do not agree with each other. Specifically, they diverge after Solomon, converge at Shealtiel (the father of Zerubbabel), diverge after Zerubbabel and do not converge again until Joseph, the father of Jesus. Shealtiel probably married the daughter and heiress of Neri, hence is reckoned his son (Luke 3:27). Note that this also means that the genealogy of Zerubbabel is contradictory. Matthew makes him a descendant of Solomon, David's son. Luke makes him a descendant of Nathan, also a son of David. Since Solomon and Nathan were full blood brothers (I Chronicles 3:5) they cannot both be paternal ancestors of Zerubbabel. It only takes one instance of a levirate marriage to explain such a divergence in the lines, and such could have occurred with Shealtiel's father, as mentioned above. Then just as Mary and Joseph both had a common paternal ancestor - Zerubbabel, so also Jeconiah and Neri had a common paternal ancestor - David. In fact, both genealogies are pointless, since both Matthew and Luke then go on to claim that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph. Jesus was legally the son of Joseph, as such he was called even by unbelievers during his ministry. Since Mary was probably of the tribe of Levi (see Luke 1:5 in conjunction with Luke 1:36), it is therefore impossible for Jesus to have been the 'Son of David' as was required for the Messiah (Matthew 22:42). Who says that Mary belonged to the tribe of Levi? It was true that Elizabeth, her cousin, was of the tribe of Levi, but that doesn't make Mary from the tribe of Levi. For don't forget, we have more than one set of grandparents. And each set, in this case, can come from different tribes. It simply means that Mary's paternal grandparents were not the same as Elizabeth's paternal grandparents. Rather, Mary's paternal grandparents were the same as Elizabeth's maternal grandparents. There is another problem with Matthew's list. Matthew includes Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11), even though the Old Testament records that God cursed Jeconiah, and prophesied that he would never have a descendant upon the throne of Judah. (Jeremiah 22:28-30) The term "childless" that Jeremiah uses is explained by the statement taht "no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." With reference to a lineal successor, he was "childless." http://www.bcbsr.com... It is as simple as that. The Bible does not have any contradictions. It is a divine book, we as humans need to understand we must exhaust every possible explanation before we pass judgement on the inspired book. I am waiting for the answer to the were about of the body of Jesus. It is an important part of His Messiahship. If He is not here on earth. That would be a good indication, He is where I believe He is. Heaven on His throne. Thanks