Jesus is not the Messiah as foretold by the Old Testament.

============ Introduction: ============ My opponent conveniently omits his sources, not allowing me to assess the verity of his claims. Given that messianic prophecy is so nebulous in nature, we actually have very good reasons for believing his arguments are but smoke and mirrors. But let's remember what I said in my opening round. My opponent must show that there is no possible way that Jesus could be the messiah given the three aforementioned hermeneutical lenses. The problem is that mostly everything my opponent listed is easily resolved given any number of the three lenses so listed. Let's take a closer look at the ones that seem to present more of a burden. ============ Messianic Prophecy: ============ "- The Messiah must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem [1], but Jesus lived when the Temple was still intact" This prophecy WAS fulfilled. The New Covenant as prophesied by Jeremiah (31:31-34) would consist of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Subsequently, our very bodies became temples. Jesus predicted that he would rebuild the temple in 3 days (John 2:19) and he did by virtue of his resurrection (2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:19–22; 1 Peter 2:4–5). Furthermore, even if my opponent was right, Jews still faithfully anticipate the rebuilding of a temple and this could easily be resolved by any number of the 3 hermeneutical lenses in my round 1 - either 2 different messiahs, same messiah- forthcoming date, or conditional prophecy not fulfilled due to Israel's wickedness. Virtually all of the supposed messianic prophecy listed by my opponent can be resolved any of the 3 ways already listed - it is a wonder as to why he listed them at all. ============ Jesus disobeyed the Torah and Stole: ============ "He sends two friends to steal a donkey, breaking two commandments at once by stealing and by causing others to sin." No, he sent his disciples with a message too, as if he had already prior contact with the owners. The disciples said to the owners, "the Lord has need of it," and the owners seemed to have no qualms. To say Jesus commanded stealing is an argument from ignorance, given that we have no context regarding the larger interaction with the owners. "He destroys someone's 2000 pigs and never pays for them." No he does not. The demons killed the pigs. If I am allowed into a bar and then subsequently kill all the people in it, it would not be rational to blame the person who let me in - it was my fault and my fault alone. "He destroys a fig tree just because it didn't have any fruit to give him (it wasn't even in the correct season)." Who cares? The tree was found by the wayside and thus had no owner. It was common for travelers to pick from such trees (1). The cursing of the tree was an important lesson for his disciples regarding the bearing of fruit. Even still, messianic authority over such things as these is not controversial among both Christian and Jewish scholars. "He dishonors his mother by making her wait outside while he makes a speech disowning their relationship and claiming his audience for his family instead. He treats a woman seeking help with inexcusable hatred, comparing her and her sick child to dogs" First, Jesus' treatment of Mary does not dishonor her. Mary tried to dissuade Jesus from his purpose, calling him against the will of his FATHER. In Jewish culture, it would have been Jesus' rightful place to correct his Mother on this (2) Calling the women a little dog is only bad if you westernize the phrase. In the Hellenizing town he found the woman, Jesus' phrase would have been no different than us calling a lawyer a "bulldog." It was using an animal to illustrate a point, not degrade the woman. ============ Genealogy ============ My opponent makes the claim that Jesus could not be the Messiah because he does not descend from David. This is vacuous. Jesus was legally related to Joseph and thus came from the line of David through Joseph (Matthew 1) AND descendant of David through Mary (Luke 3). Moreover, Jesus was a descendent of David through His REAL Father, God. Any one of these three is sufficient in establishing Jesus Davidic lineage. The idea that he could not have descended from David through Mary is without warrant. ============ Others ============ "But if one simply takes the context of chapter 9 into account and reads the next few verses, they will see that this is referring to a military king who will rule" Ha, not quite. There is nothing kingly about riding upon a donkey - the passage says as much when it refers to the Messiah as gentle and riding upon a very small donkey. The passage LATER refers to conquering, with is the exact dichotomy I already referred to. This, if anything, is referring to the two-fold nature of the Messiah - and could easily be resolved given any of the 3 lenses. Colt and donkey are not mutually exclusive terms... Isaiah 53 quite clearly does not refer to Israel given that it uses the singular pronouns "he" 18 times and "he" 13 times. Moreover, it directly contrasts Israel WITH the suffering servant in verse 8: "By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?" From the Babylonian Talmud: "The Messiah, what is his name? The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, ‘surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b). Or the Midrash Ruth Rabbah who says: "Another explanation (of Ruth 2:14): He is speaking of king Messiah; ‘Come hither,' draw near to the throne; ‘and eat of the bread,' that is, the bread of the kingdom; ‘and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,' this refers to his chastisements, as it is said, `But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.'" Ancient Jewish sources affirm the idea that Jews referred to Isaiah 53 as Messianic. ============ Conclusion ============ My opponent MUST show how there is no possible way that Jesus was the Messiah given the 3 hermeneutical lenses. If he cannot, then he cannot affirm the resolution as he as stated it. Saying Jesus was not the Messiah is an absolute statement that requires no possible alternative. So long as it remains possible that Jesus was the Messiah, my opponent fails. Source: 1. http://www.christiancourier.com... 2. http://commonbreadtogether.com... http://bible.org... http://www.apologeticspress.com...