Jesus is not the Messiah

It is, indeed, an honor to debate against Mr. Infidel once again. As of now, it seems that we are "even" in our current standing as debaters; so let us discover which direction the tides will turn. May we come to truth.~Rebuttal Round Two~C1: Jesus did not qualify to be the MessiahTo an extent, I agree with my opponent on the alleged "five" requirements for one to be the Messiah. I will address each subpoint with needed focus. Note that of which I don't appeal to, I agree with:He must be of the tribe of Judah "Tribal lineage comes only from the father." a.) We must observe the law for what it’s worth. Among the many prophecies surrounding that of the expected Messiah, the Old Testament speaks of how the Messiah will be “born of a virgin.” (Isaiah 7:14) This very piece of evidence discredits my opponent’s argument, for Israel was expecting the Messiah to come from a virgin. b.) Regarding the lineage, however, from a legal standpoint; Jesus was in fact the *son* of Joseph. - In the culture of ancient Israel, inheritance from father to son was so significant and essential that, for all legal intents and purposes, Jesus was Joseph's son, even if he was not Joseph's biological son. Thus, Jesus can be recognized as "Solomon's son" through Jesus' step-father, Joseph. [1] c.) The only accounts of which my opponent basis this contention off of are two verses in the Old Testament: Genesis 49:10 and Micah 5:2.“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” -Micah 5:2- It is possible that “Bethlehem Ephrathath” (in the context of this verse) is not a city, but a person.Don't believe me? “These were the descendants of Caleb. The sons of Hur the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal the father of Kiriath Jearim,” (1 Chro. 2:50) - Ephrathah was an alternate spelling of Ephrath; the wife of Caleb. [2]He must be a descendant of Solomon"When examining Mary's genealogy given in Luke, it comes from Nathan instead of Solomon”First of all, I would like my opponent to elaborate on exactly how II Samuel 7:12-17 and I Chronicles 22:9-10 ascertain the supposed fact that Jesus would be a descendant of Solomon. From what I read, there is no reasonable foundation to base such a claim.Secondly, Joseph, Jesus' step-father, was a biological descendant of Solomon. But since Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, he was not a biological descendant of Solomon; in fact, neither was Mary. [1] [3] However, from a legal standpoint, (as I stated earlier) Jesus would be considered a "descendant of Solomon" in regards to the strict standards of a lineage within the Jewish culture, as agreed with by my opponent. The Curse - Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, therefore, he didn’t fall victim to this “curse.” I have already established that Jesus was the legal son of Joseph and for all intents and purposes, Joseph’s son. Although, we have to wonder why Matthew would ever have included Jeconiah (son of Jehoiakim) among the ancestors of Jesus if this so obviously disqualified Jesus from being the Messiah. In fact, the Scripture shows that the curse was only short-term, if not altogether reversed by God. See source for details. [4] [5] C2: Jesus was a false prophetFailed prophecies My opponent takes this verse out of context. Jesus was referring to the End Times, as in, the end of the world. [6] All one has to do is look at the very title of the passage in the Bible: "The Destruction of the Temple and the Signs of the End Times"Within this entire passage, Jesus devotes himself to explaining the End Times; so this subpoint is invalid.Changing the TorahWhere in the Torah does it state that the Messiah (God) does not have the authority/right to change anything? If Jesus was God, he would be more qualified than anybody to change the laws and customs of the past.The Law of BurialWhy would Jesus respond in a seemingly harsh manner? The purpose of His response may have been twofold. The first purpose was to encourage the disciples to faithfully follow Him. The second purpose and perhaps more importantly, was to teach correct theology. The concept of gathering the bones of one’s ancestors is deeply embedded in the Hebrew Scriptures and reflected in Israelite burial practices (Gen. 49:29; Judges 2:10; 16:31; I Kings 11:21, 43, etc.). However, by New Testament times, the concept had taken on a new meaning. According to the Rabbinic sources, the decomposition of the flesh atoned for the sins of the dead person (a kind of purgatory) and the final stage of this process was gathering the bones and placing them in an ossuary (Meyers 1971: 80-85). Jesus confronts this contrary theology. Only faith in Christ’s redemptive work on the cross can atone for sin, not rotting flesh or any other work or merit of our own (Heb. 9:22, 26; Acts 4:12; Eph. 2:8, 9). Jesus may have rebuked him rather harshly because he followed the corrupted practice of secondary burial. [7]Dietary Laws Out of context. If one observes the verses leading up to Matthew 15:10-11, one will discover that Jesus was addressing the crowd in light of hypocrisy on the Pharisee’s part, and that people will come to worship Jesus with their mouths, but not with their hearts. (prophetic?) This prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. Upon the return of Christ, will we be at peace with each other and at no time sooner.C3: Jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophecies Ordinary Man?I find it interesting how my opponent concludes this, when The Jews of Jesus’ time were expecting a “superhero,” not a carpenter. This is one reason they persecuted him, because they simply would not believe he was who he said he was.These *opinions* no longer hold any credence, since I have dismantled my opponent's logic earlier in this rebuttal. However, for the sake of the debate, I will address his points.The Messiah is to bring eternal peace between nations This prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. Upon the return of Christ, will we be at peace with each other and at no time sooner.The Messiah will bring about enlightenment/knowledge of God, etc.- Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law.- If Jesus was God, (which makes the most sense in this debate and would explain a lot of things) he would have the right to change, subtract, or add to the law. But he did not; he fulfilled the law of the Old Covenant, and fulfilled every messianic prophecy established.The Messiah will gather the Jews to IsraelOn May 14, 1948 Israel was established as an independent nation. In other words: Prophecy fulfilled. [8]~Conclusion~Jesus is, in fact, the Messiah. It would be foolish to believe otherwise, simply due to the insurmountable amount of evidence. I have given valid reason to believe that he has fulfilled every messianic prophecy set forth. Furthermore, I have proven, contrary to my opponent’s arguments, that Jesus Christ was not merely a man, but God incarnate.Onto Pro.Sources: [1] http://www.tedmontgomery.com... [2] http://christianthinktank.com... [3] http://www.abideinchrist.com... [4] http://jewsforjesus.org... [5] Yale Judaica edition translated by William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975), pp. 376-77. Bracketed portions are Braude and Kapstein's explanations. [6] http://executableoutlines.com... [7] http://www.biblearchaeology.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org...