Jesus is not in the old testament, he is not the messiah. he is fiction.

( PRO: that’s not true at all. ) Con: That is not an argument. Pro did not deliver a strong disagreement for me to disprove. ( PRO: this is neither true. We are in Israel today, we never went to the land of the north. ) Con: Can you display proof the white people which reside in Israel today are the true Jews/Israelites? If you never went to the land of the North, then you just basically revelaed that the white Jewish in Israel at this present time are not the true Jews/Israelites. ( PRO: you are twisting the bible to say what you want it to say. ) Con: Not twisting the Bible at all. Just going precept upon precept as Isaiah 28:10 states. Also, simply showing some verses to prove my case. ( PRO: this book is not even found in the torah and tanakh so you are twisting the words to say what you want them to say. ) Con: The Apocrypha was originally in the 1611. The Protestant Christians removed it since they felt that it wasn’t God’s word. “All King James Bibles published before 1666 included the Apocrypha,[35] though separately to denote them as not equal to Scripture proper, as noted by Jerome in the Vulgate, to which he gave the name, "The Apocrypha. "[36] In 1826,[37] the National Bible Society of Scotland petitioned the British and Foreign Bible Society not to print the Apocrypha,[38]resulting in a decision that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. Since that time most modern editions of the Bible and reprintings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section. In the 18th century, the Apocrypha section was omitted from the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims version. In the 1979 revision of the Vulgate, the section was dropped. Modern reprintings of the Clementine Vulgate commonly omit the Apocrypha section. Many reprintings of older versions of the Bible now omit the apocrypha and many newer translations and revisions have never included them at all. There are some exceptions to this trend, however. Some editions of the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible include not only the Apocrypha listed above, but also the third and fourth books of Maccabees, and Psalm 151. The American Bible Society lifted restrictions on the publication of Bibles with the Apocrypha in 1964. The British and Foreign Bible Society followed in 1966. [39] The Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate (the printed edition, not most of the on-line editions), which is published by the UBS, contains the Clementine Apocrypha as well as the Epistle to the Laodiceans and Psalm 151. Brenton's edition of the Septuagint includes all of the Apocrypha found in the King James Bible with the exception of 2 Esdras, which was not in the Septuagint and is no longer extant in Greek. [40] He places them in a separate section at the end of his Old Testament, following English tradition. In Greek circles, however, these books are not traditionally called Apocrypha, but Anagignoskomena (O36;ναγιγνωσκa2;μενα), and are integrated into the Old Testament. TheOrthodox Study Bible, published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, includes the Anagignoskomena in its Old Testament, with the exception of 4 Maccabees. This was translated by the Saint Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, from the Rahlfs Edition of the Septuagint using Brenton's English translation and the RSV Expanded Apocrypha as boilerplate. As such, they are included in the Old Testament with no distinction between these books and the rest of the Old Testament. This follows the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church where the Septuagint is the received version of Old Testament scripture, considered itself inspired in agreement with some of the Fathers, such as St Augustine, rather than the Hebrew Masoretic text followed by all other modern translations. [41]” Source: . https://en.wikipedia.org... ( PRO: because that is not what that verse means, this is talking about the people who serve satan, ALL THE WAY UNDERNEATH THE GROUND, stupid! ) Con: Pro, you explained that Isaiah 14:2 does not mean what it reads but it is referring to the people who serve Satan, and you said, “ALL THE WAY UNDERNEATH THE GROUND, stupid! ” you did not offer a strong argument for either of the points you made. Nothing for me to disprove again. ( PRO: this day has already come, obviously if we are in the country of Israel right now. Ddddduuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! ) Con: Pro, you must provide a strong argument. Forming a statement with no proof to support your point, is not an argument. Nothing for me to disprove, again. ( PRO: actually I did give evidence stupid. Jesus Did Not Embody the Personal Qualifications of Messiah that is evidence. ) Con: Pro, that statement is not evidence which supports your points. You need to provie bible verses or some other sources as evidence. ( PRO: this is not talking about the false prophet JC. ) Con: Viewers, I’d like to make it clear that Pro is not providing proof for the statements she is constructing. I have nothing to argue against. ( PRO: Christians say different so I’ll go with what they say and that means your false prophet JC is not the messiah :p ) Con: This is not an argument, but a choice. Also Pro, we are not discussing Christianity’s doctrine. We are discussing the topic you chose for this debate, “Jesus is not in the old testament, he is not the messiah. he is fiction. ” ( PRO: whats your point? ) Con: My point is that Christ did have a father, which was Joseph. No where in the Bible does it say Joseph is the step father or the adoptive father of Christ. Joseph is mentioned in the genealogy of Christ (Matthew 1:1-16) for a reason, he, Joseph, was Jesus the Christ’s biological father, by blood. ( PRO: that is not what this means you keep twisting verses to say what you want them to say! Are you mentally ill or are you playing stupid? ) Con: Not mentally ill or stupid, simply providing my evidence which supports my arguments. ( PRO: and Christians say different so that makes your JC a false prophet. ) Con: We are not discussing Christians doctrine. We are discussing whether or not Jesus the Christ is a false prophet. Christians can say what they please, that doesn’t change what the scriptures in the Bible say. ( PRO: that is a lie we can do these things. ) Con: It is very clear that the scriptures in the bible, prohibit buying, selling, and cooking on the Sabbath. The LORD’s Sabbath is to be kept Holy. *Note:Pro did not provide a strong argument for me to rebut. ( PRO: its talking about King David stupid. ) Con: Can you provide scriptural proof or some sort of prove for your statement? ( PRO: this is talking about King David to stupid. ) Con: Can you provide scriptural proof or some sort of prove for your statement? Pro constructed strawman arguments and made some, rather childish staetmetns, remarks.