Debunking the Old Testament is not Debunking Jesus as Messiah

This is in fact quite a surprising term of events in this debate. It seems my opponent has led me into an unforeseen and inescapable "trap" of sorts. I suppose this way the point of their comment "Lets see if I have a plan" in the comments section. If the point was to argue semantics and linguistic translations of Biblical scripture, I would have had no problem with that; but it wasn't. The title of the debate, "Debunking the Old Testament is not Debunking Jesus as Messiah" is essentially, if not literally would accept that the Old Testament could be "debunked," BUT even if it were, that would not impede the claim or assertion that Jesus is the Messiah. Thus, the very clever attempt by my opponent to say that "debunking" the Old Testament is not really "debunking" at all, and therefore, could not ever be used to "debunk" Jesus as the Messiah cannot be accepted in this debate as supporting the claim my opponent is making. The next point I would like to make is yes, I agree completely that words can be understood and utilized differently; but I think my opponent has conflated, or at least "downplayed" the significance of context in a words use. Sure, if we are just given the term "peace," we could interpret it many ways. However, if we insert it into the following sentence, "The United States is in peace talks with Russia after five years of conflict," I assume that the use of the term "peace" may be implied quite easily. It seems my opponent is aware of this mistake, "Another typical debunking mistake is to take things out of context. It is easy to create contradictions when there are none by violating the context of the passage in question," but fails to apply the same scrutiny to their understanding of the Bible. Moreover, what makes their understanding of the context and application more valid then others? As they do not provide an example of this "mistake," I can't respond to what they are referring to. As for the portion on the interpreting of the Bible, it seems my opponent has failed to recognize the different denominations that the Bible lends itself to. Moreover, in arguing in this manner, it seems they are supporting a specific denomination that doesn't take the Bible literal; however, there are those that do. Biblical literalism and fundamentalism is no more irrational then whatever denomination my opponent is arguing for; there is no way to prove either one of them conclusively as what God intended. In sum, although my opponent may view the Bible non literally, it is an indefensible claim to try and assert that their position is the correct position. I find the paragraph starting with "In closing" to be quite illuminating to the illogical reasoning that has taken place in this debate. Let us replace the terms "debunker" and "debunking" with "student" and "lesson" and we are given this little gem, "In closing, unless the "student" knows ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, there is no lesson in the first place." Quite a different view in my opinion. Moreover, lets change the term "debunk" in the next sentence to "truth." An even more illuminating flaw in rational appears, "Taking a verse written in English(which is a translation), then deciding if it is is literal, poetic, rules of thumb, etc., then translating a translation and possibly misinterpreting or taking the verse out of context does not make for a truth statement." And please, spare us the circularity of saying that Biblical scripture must be true because the Bible says so. Unless you are willing to grant any and every interpretation of the Bible as just as valid as the next, including fundamentalism or literalism, then this statement simply has no basis. Plus the justification for some of the most heinous and disgusting acts to be committed in human history have found themselves rooted in Biblical scripture. As for the final sentence, lets unpack this a little bit to see what is really being implied. Again we see the statement "debunking the Old Testament is not debunking Jesus as the Messiah" used, where my opponent has dedicated a good deal of time to show how impossible debunking the Old Testament is, but here seems to allow for the former to be done, but that it wouldn't change the status of the latter. Moreover, in no way does the next claim "If Jesus is the Messiah, God is real" true in any fashion. First, because you are presupposing Jesus being the Messiah on fallacious grounds, saying it is true because the Bible says so is circular and illogical. Furthermore, theoretically, Jesus could not be the Messiah and God still be "real" surely Islam and Judaism would have some issue with this claim. God is real and Jesus being the Messiah are two independent statements; the first need not have the latter present to prove its validity, but the latter necessitates the former for its truth. In conclusion then, although my argument may be guilty of some ad hominem portions, that shouldn't take away from the refutation being made. Also, although I did not provide many arguments for why I think that if the Old Testament were proven false, Jesus could not be the Messiah, in this round, I would ask that it is understood that my opponents round five contents made it necessary for me to sort through what was being claimed. The simple fact of the matter here is that Jesus as the Messiah is predicated, and probably more accurate, necessitated by the Old Testament being historically accurate. If it were found not to be, the ability of Jesus to be the Biblical Messiah is impossible.