The Tanakh describes Messiah as Divine

Introduction I will address con's previous round and then give closing arguments. Rebuttal Deuteronomy 4 My opponent likes to stress Deuteronomy (Devarim) 4:17-18 but gloss over verse 16. Deuteronomy 4:16a 16 lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure... The neighbors of Israel all worshiped idols (graven images made in the form of earthly things, especially animals),j and Israel is repeatedly warned not to worship any of (or other) idols. I'm sure con agrees to this. Given the introduction in verse 16, it appears logical that this is just one of many warnings against idols crafted by humans. Theophany Con argues that G-d will not have any physical form. I will show that G-d is shown to have a form in some cases, even according to modern Judaism [round 4, source 16]. The heavenly fire, the coals of which burn like torches, moves between them. The movement of the creatures is harmonious: wherever the spirit of God leads them they go. Beneath the living creatures are wheels("ofannim") full of eyes. On their heads rests a firmament upon which is the throne of God. When the divine chariot moves, their wings rustle with a noise like thunder. On the throne the prophet sees the Divine Being, having the likeness of a man. His body from the loins upward is shining ("M17;ashmal"); downward it is fire (in Ezek. viii. 2 the reverse is stated). According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the prophet Ezekiel saw the likeness of a human man sitting on G-d's throne. I believe it is clear that the form of a human sitting on the throne is G-d. Although this does not explicitly state that Messiah is divine, it can be used as supporting evidence that G-d can and will take a human form. Con has given a couple references where G-d is not seen in a physical form and generalizes it to all cases, thus ignoring the evidence for I have presented for the contrary. Exodus (Sh'mot) 33:20 Con's second argument along the same lines is that man is not allowed to see G-d even in non-physical form. Con misuses Exodus 33:20 to support this claim, because Moses (Moshe) was forbidden from seeing G-d's face. However, the next 3 verses tell the story of Moses seeing the back of G-d. Exodus 33:20-23 20 But He said, "You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live." 21 And the Lord said, "Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock. 22 So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. 23 Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen." This argument was used by con to show that G-d is never seen. It was used as an example of a time that G-d wasn't seen, and con claims that consequently, G-d is never seen. Even if con did give an example where G-d is not seen (it can be done), it cannot be generalized to all instances where G-d appears to man as con seems to be doing. It is a weak argument, because generalizations are not solid evidence. I have shown counter examples to this argument using con's own reference and the Jewish Encyclopedia (see previous section on Ezekiel). Isaiah and Hosea Con rightly points out that Isaiah 48:18 doesn't support the idea that Messiah is divine. This verse was brought up in the context of addressing con's argument from Hosea that Messiah is found in the same verse as G-d. As I have already addressed this, I will be brief. Hosea mentions G-d and King David in the same verse which con claims shows they are two separate entities. Isaiah mentions G-d and the Spirit of G-d in the same verse, which does not show they are two separate entities. If Hosea mentioned G-d but not Messiah, part of the message would be lost. If Hosea mentioned Messiah but not G-d, part of the message would be lost. By stating that Israel is both returning to Messiah and returning to G-d, it reinforces the idea that the two are at the very least related, if not the same thing. Hosea could actually be implying that Messiah is G-d. This verse may be used as evidence for Messiah being divine, thus it is a weak argument and insufficient to show Messiah is not divine. Con claims the two verses being discussed are not related. However, they are related if Messiah is divine. Con's assertion is only possibly correct if Messiah is not divine. The claim that they are not related is an expression of con's bias, not of clear cut facts. If I am correct, then they are related in the way I have previously shown. Biased Sources Con accuses me of using biased sources. However, con uses sources from modern Judaism which are also biased against the Christian claim of a divine Messiah. Where I have addressed the points made by con and con's sources, con has attempted to dismiss my sources instead of tackling the facts presented. I will revisit this in my closing arguments by giving specific examples. Isaiah 53 Con provided verses in Isaiah 41 and 43 where Israel is called the servant of G-d. In fact, we can find more examples, but all of them are explicitly Israel called the servant of G-d. Isaiah 53 stands out by not calling the servant Israel. As I already pointed out, Isaiah 53 contrasts (shows the differences between) the servant and Israel. For example, Isaiah 53 claims the servant is righteous, but Israel is sinful. Con claims Targum Yonatan predates the Jewish distanced itself from Christianity, but it wasn't compiled until the eighth century [22]. The Jerusalem Talmud and Babylonian Talmud were also compiled late [23]. Even Zohar probably wasn't written until about the 11th century [24]. Closing Arguments This debate was over whether or not the Tanakh describes Messiah as divine. In my opening arguments in round 2 I showed that the Tanakh describes Messiah as divine using Isaiah 9, Micah 5, Jeremiah 23, and Isaiah 7. I used Jewish sources, both before and after Christianity was established, showing that these verses refer to the Messiah. Con has neither addressed these verses nor the Jewish sources which I pointed to. Con uses late interpretations of verses that come after Judaism attempted to distance itself from Christianity. I showed that Jewish scholars also point this out. I was able to show that Judaism went as far as changing their own scriptures to put this distance between the two religions. It is important to use early sources. Con used all late sources, even at late as 11th century. Instead, con focused mostly on the idea that G-d cannot be seen by humans or take a form seen by humans. I have given counter examples to these claims and used modern Jewish sources to do it. I thank EmilRose for recommending this controversial topic and taking the time and effort to play the role of con. I have enjoyed learning through it. Good luck now and in the future. I hope to continue seeing your around! Sources 22) http://people.ucalgary.ca... 23) http://www.religionfacts.com... 24) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...