The Jewish religion should identify Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah

It is no wonder to me why Con didn't want to give a rebuttal to my arguments this round. I followed the one source Con gave and found it to be an expanded version of the argument he presented and in the same order. In some cases, he just used copy and paste directly, and perhaps modified a few words to avoid direct plagiarism. I believe Con should be docked points for not showing how much content he uses from the one reference he gave. That aside, I already addressed several key points Con made. Much of the argument is centered on the unfulfillment of certain Messianic prophecies. I previously addressed that by showing from Jewish sources that the Jewish people expected two Messiahs. There was debate in the Jewish community over whether it was the same Messiah that came twice, or two different Messiahs. The first Messiah to come, Messiah ben Joseph, would suffer. The Talmud writes that he wouldn't be very notable, because he wouldn't really accomplish anything. The second Messiah is the one we should look forward to. Yeshua Jesus meets the criteria for Messiah set by the Talmud by having two comings. Con cited Aish saying, "Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE." However, there is no qualification for this statement by either Con or Aish. If this statement were to be taken as fact, than we would need to remove books from the Bible. For example, Daniel was written in the land of Babylon during the Babylonian captivity. The Jewish people did not occupy the land at that time. Daniel is as book full of prophecy, including prophecy about Messiah. I pointed out in my opening arguments that there is no dispute among Jews as to Daniel 9 referring to Messiah because the Hebrew words are so specific it can't refer to anyone else. Con claims, "Jesus is also supposed to be descended from King David in his father's side (Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) However it's claimed that Jesus was born from a virgin." However, I looked up every single one of those references. I agree that they support the idea that Messiah should come from King David, but there is no requirement that it be on his father's side as Con incorrectly claims. Given that quote was almost copy and paste from his reference to Aish, he probably didn't bother looking up the verses for himself to realize that. However, Biblical scholarship shows that both Mary and Joseph were descendants of King David [1] [2]. Not only is Con's claim not supported by the verses he quotes, but the criteria he claims wasn't met is supported as being met according to the B'rti HaDasha (New Testament). I am perplexed by Con's statement, "The messiah is also supposed to be a normal human born of human parents and not with magical abilities. (Numbers 23:19...)." For the benefit of the voters, I shall quote the verse here. "G-d is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through?" NLT This verse does not indicate a lack of "magical abilities". It does not indicate "normal human born" either. If anything, it would indicate no human parents at all. But we see the intent of the verse is not a prophecy about Messiah, but rather a contrast between the characteristics of humans and G-d. Con claims that Yeshua Jesus broke Sabbath. However, these claims are off based. There isn't one example Con could propose to which there is no answer. The only one Con gave was that "paste" was made. If John 9:14 were to be looked up, the reader would find that the paste was mud which was then used to heal a man's eyes. Even when Yeshua Jesus spoke a man's healing without doing any other work, the Pharisees still accused him of working on the Sabbath. Yeshua Jesus pointed out that if one of their children or animals got stuck in a well on the Sabbath, they would be willing to pull it out (Luke 15:4), which is far more work than was done to heal on the Sabbath. The accusation of the Pharisees was based on strict interpretation of the Law. On one occasion, the Pharisees accused him of eating with unwashed hands (Mark 7:1-13). This is not a scriptural commandment anywhere, and it is additionally stated in the text that this is a tradition. If the Pharisee's make accusations against breaking the Law over things that are not even in the Law, then they are not a credible witness as to what constitutes breaking the Law, including the Sabbath. The virgin birth was agreed upon by the 70 rabbis who translated the Tanahk (Old Testament, Hebrew Scriptures) from Hebrew into Greek. The Greek version of the Tanahk is called the Septuagint. The contention isn't over whether or not the Septuagint specifically prophecies a virgin birth, it does. The contention is that it was mistranslated by the authors of the Septuagint [3]. The oldest copy of the Septuagint we have dates back to 150 BC [4] [5]. I have shown that even those against the virgin birth admit the existence of the prophecy before the declaration of its fulfillment in the New Testament. There is no debate among scholarship. Beyond that, even if that prophecy didn't exist, we can't prove that Mary was a virgin, and the New Testament isn't accepted by the Jewish people. It's a mute point that I've spent far too much time on. I have already addressed the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, but since Con used it in his opening without giving a rebuttal, I will add to my earlier argument. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain ancient texts that go back into B.C.E. The Dead Sea Scrolls support the idea that the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is actually a singular person, not the nation of Israel [6] [7]. In my opening arguments I quoted from the Talmud where Isaiah 53 is attributed to Messiah, and 17th century Jewish scholars who agree. Con states, "Funny enough it is said that God actually gives charlatans(AKA Jesus) the power to perform miracles in order to test the Jews (Deut. 13:4)" This is another perplexing statement which I hope Con will clarify. Deuteronomy 13:4 New Living Translation (NLT) 4 Serve only the Lord your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. I doubt Con can easily substantiate the claim. It is a slightly modified version of an exact sentence in his Aish source. 1) https://bible.org... 2) http://en.wikipedia.org... 3) http://www.harrington-sites.com... 4) Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 44 5) http://www.provethebible.net... 6) http://www.doxa.ws... 7) http://dss.collections.imj.org.il...