Jesus was NOT the Messiah

Thank you again for posting your response and for proposing this debate. It has been enjoyable thus far and I am looking forward to another lively round.On with it!RRRC1) My opponent claims that the context does not support that this is the LORD acting rather than Messiah. He claims he will return to this assertion later, but never does. As my rebuttal stands unaddressed, this point continues to hold no force.In terms of my statement that my opponent needs to prove that Messiah must fulfill all requirements on "the first time around", my opponent has the burden of proof to prove his claim, not I to disprove it. Until my opponent offers some sort of positive proof that his claim is substantiated, it is, by definition, unsubstantiated and holds no force.My opponent encourages the reader to "Read the Torah for yourself." It is not acceptable to ask the reader to build your argument for you. You have made the statement, it is your job to support it. Simply pointing at a resource is not an argument.RRRC2)RRRC2.A) Matthew 25:1-2 - Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”My opponent seems to imply that Jesus encouraged people to "go after other gods." This is a false accusation and lies unproven by my opponent.My opponent also claims that Jesus subtracted from the Kosher law. However, I would challenge him to prove this. In every instance of Jesus commenting on the Law, he actually increases the requirements of the Law to include heart attitude in addition to actual behavior.RRRC2.B) My opponent claims that since Christ died that he is not everlasting. However, the Gospels record that he was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven. My opponent has thus far treated the Gospels as accurate historical accounts, and therefore also acknowledges the resurrection.I am unsure what purpose emphasising that it is the zeal of the LORD accomplishing this has. It changes nothing about my point.RRRC2.C) The reason that the sacrifice is not necessary is irrelevant. Please show me in the Bible where it says that sacrifices can only be offered at the Temple? Before there was a temple, people offered sacrifices. (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, All the Judges [who didn't even sacrifice in the tabernacle], any prophet or priest during the rule of Saul or David) What was different about that? My opponent cannot simply make assertions without proof. Regardless of the reason, Sacrifice was mandated and now has been rescinded, and being that there has been no divine word from God (remember, my opponent claims that prophecy is impossible), these rabbis who have done this have done so autonomously.The violation of Shabbat that my opponent points at is Jesus spitting in the mud, then putting mud on someone's eyes. Seeing this as a violation of Shabbat is a later rabbinical addition that is not present in Torah. My opponent is going to have to do better than that.RRRC3.A) My opponent claims that there are 15 intentional mistranslations in the LXX. However, his source provides no evidence to verify this. Furthermore, my opponent would need to show that alma was one of those intentional translations to hold any force. He has not done so, and until he does my point still stands.RRRC3.B)1)My opponent claims that the phrase "arm of God" always denotes Israel. However, even in his first verse (Deut 26:8) we see that it is referring to a personified arm of the LORD. It is describing the MEANS by which God brought Israel out of Egypt. The same is true in each of the verses my opponent cites. They are referencing the power of God and anthropomorphizing him to make it comprehensible. God saves by his outstretched arm: It is a way of talking about his strength and power.2) It is true that the Bible uses this metaphor for Israel at times, however that does not mean that it uses it consistently or uniformly. In Isaiah 11 and Jeremiah 23 my opponent stated that the Bible describes the coming Messiah and refers to Messiah as a branch coming forth from Jesse. So it s obvious that while the Bible does sometimes use this agricultural metaphor for the nation of Israel, it also uses it as a metaphor for the coming Messiah.3) People continually rejected and reviled Jesus. In his home town they tried to throw him off a cliff (Luke 4:28-30), they saw him as just a carpenter's son (Mark 6), his own family thought he was crazy (Mark 3:21). Many walked away from him at various points in his ministry or found his teachings to be too difficult to follow. All of this culminates in the fickle rejection of people who hailed him as king one day, and cried out for him to be crucified the next. Even his closest disciples abandoned him. It sure seems like he was not as popular as my opponent seeks to make him... and sure seems to fit this "LONG history of rejection" seeing that he was rejected from the very beginning of his ministry all throughout his ministry, up to the moment of his death.4) It is not the other nations who claim that God is punishing the Jews for their disobedience, the Prophets themselves say that the LORD is using the other nations to punish them. In Jeremiah 21 we see that God tells Judah that he will give them into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar as punishment for their refusal to repent. While I am sure it is true that some nations have used this excuse, we see clearly from the Hebrew Bible that God uses foreign nations to Judge Israel. This has been happening since the time of the Judges, throughout the reign of Saul and David, and all the way through the divided monarchy.5) Again, my opponent simply asserts that his translation is a better one than mine. However, the translation committees of every major translation (who have advanced degrees in Hebrew). The Hebrew grammar is ambiguous if "Because of" (as a result of) or "For" (On behalf of) is preferred. However, when we look at the last portion of the verse which says "through his wounds we were healed" which is not ambiguous we are given clarity as to what the author meant. My opponent still needs to explain why Israel's wounding brings about healing. Why is Israel being offered up as a sort of substitution for others? Furthermore, Isaiah is a Jew... so the word "our" refers to the Jews. So we are left with a picture of Israel being wounded for its own transgressions, being crushed for its own iniquities, and ultimately being healed through its own wounds. The picture that my opponent paints is inconsistent and nonsensical.Another brief Summary:1) My opponent still has not showed that these passages refer to Messiah rather than the LORD. My rebuttal has been left unaddressed. Furthermore, my opponent continues to offer no positive proof that his assertion of a "One change only" Messiah. Until he does these things, this point must be discarded.2) The thrust of my opponents argument is that since Jesus disobeyed the law that he cannot be a true prophet. However, Jonah disobeyed God and was still a true prophet, and my opponent has not shown any real instance of Jesus breaking Torah, what he has shown you is an instance of Jesus spitting on the ground and putting mud in someone's eyes. He also seeks to show that since Jesus died, that he cannot be Messiah. However, he has used the Gospels as valid historical data in his appeal to them for Jesus' "violation" so he must explain why the resurrection accounts are ahistoircal.3) My opponent finally claims that the LXX is inaccurate, but does nothing to prove this. Until he does, we can take it as reliable translation work by Jewish scholars in the 3rd Century BC. Additionally, my opponent sought to show that Isaiah 53 does not and cannot refer to Messiah. I have rebutted this by showing that his assertions are baseless and misguided.Thank you.