Jesus cannot be Messiah

@R3.Pro.1 - "... Also, tisk tisk on resorting to rabbinical judaism. I said in round two that rabbinical Judaism has no merit in interpreting the Tanakh."Except - the idea of the Messiah being a descdant of Solomon is an entirely Rabbinic construction construction, (relying on Maimonides, the Zohar, etc) : I stand by the conclusion that an inference that the Messiah must be a descendant of Solomon - can only arise from possibility applying the Rabbinic rules of interpretation - to their own commentary.Although, It would interesting to see that idea in Tannaitic writing!But - for every Jew - there is a differing opinion!!! :"The famed 20th-century Jewish scholar and kabbalist Rabbi Reuven Margolies explains that the Zohar is careful to describe the Moshiach as being a descendant of Nathan’s wife, rather than of Nathan himself. Nathan had passed away childless, and Solomon his brother married his widow, according to the laws of yibum, levirate marriage." http://www.chabad.org...It is not possible to simply wave this issue at Jesus' genealogy - to make it go away; the "Jewish" opinion is a LOT more complicated than it appears!And - yes, to properly interpret all of that "commentary" - we are expected to apply the Talmudic rules of interpretation - as we expect that those writers to have written with those principles in mind.Regardless - even those rules of interpretation are derived from "Pardes" (https://en.wikipedia.org...(Jewish_exegesis) - which likely DID originate before Jesus' time - which still require reasonable exegesis that a passage be understood in its context.So - it is disingenuous to claim that the Talmudic rules of interpretation don't really apply.Because - the Rules of Exegesis DO apply, (Pardes), which arguably were present during the Tannaitic period, (https://en.wikipedia.org...(Jewish_exegesis) ).You just can't rip passages out of their contexts - ignore their plain meaning, let-alone try to infer a generality from a specific circumstance. https://en.wikipedia.org...But - the inferential leap that the Messiah would be descendant from Solomon is impossible to make from a plain-reading of the text, (which is a violation of Pardes) - and only panders to the unsubstantiated Rabbinic claim, only under their own rules of interpretation.R3.Con.1 - Again - I am insisting on a reasonable argument of Messianic lineage through Solomon - based on Scripture, in its complete context, that a fair-minded reader could come to that conclusion. Relying on Maimonides, (as you are doing - even if not knowingly) - would not have been possible for a Jew of the Second Temple period.@R3.Pro.2 - "... I did not concede that Jesus came from jeconiah. Luke and matthew disagree about Jesus's pedigree. I'm simply stating that Jesus is screwed either way."I believe I have addressed all of these issues reasonably :The Differing Genealogies is Really Irrelevant - Both genealogies (Luke 3:27, Matthew 1:12) appear honest enough, both affirming that Jesus was a descendant of Zerubbabel, (the grandson of Jeconiah - whose lineage was cursed). Sure - one mentions Solomon, the other mentions Nathan - and this is incredibly important, because : ALL of the Christian writers appealed to David, and Abraham (not even Nathan). Objectively, they would have addressed the issue - if it had actually been significant to Jews of that era.This is a valid argument from silence : a supposed issue, such as this, would not have been left unadressed - if it had actually been an issue for Jews of that Era. (I am not even sure the Apostolic Fathers ever ran across this!)Again, A historical reference, commentary, about the Messiah coming from Solomon, from before that Era - would be VERY compelling in this case.But - to be honest - this is exactly the kind of Genealogy I would expect to see, in a lineage that was trying to preserve itself - by marrying as much as possible within the same famliy/tribe every few generations or so.1. The text indicates that God reversed Jeconiah's curse, in view of his grandson, Zerubbabel, (Haggai 2:21-23);2. The text indicates that all of Solomon's descendants were killed; but - Messianic prophecies were still written afterwards - about David, (2 Chron 22:10, Zech 12:12) - never mentioning Solomon, but including Nathan.3. Even if the inferential leap is made that Solomon was promised the Messiah as a descendant - the plain-reading of the text, itself, explicitly states that God's covenant with Solomon was conditional, (1 Chron 28:9).R3.Con.2 - What is your basis - if not the text - to show this is not actually conditional? Jews are commanded NOT to lean on their own understanding, or trust in men or princes. Are you asking violate this Mitzvah?By appealing to the plain-reading of the text - a reasonably-minded reader could not make an inferential leap that that Messiah would be a descendant of Solomon's.But - by that same standard, (a plain-reading of the text) - you still have the burden of proof to show that the Messiah was to be a descendant from Solomon, which you can't through the plain-reading of the text - but only by appealing to Talmudic doctrine, (which was anti-Christian).@R3.Pro.3 - "... Luke's gospel (Luke 3:31) links Jesus's pedigree to David's son Nathan (Solomon's brother)."Again, not an issue. Even in a later Messianic passage - the family of Solomon is not mentioned. But David's, Nathan's, and Levi's are - as expected :Zechariah 12:12 - The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves;Ironically - in Scripture - the only remnant of Solomon's - are the descendants of his servants!Even the "Zohar" supposedly links Nathan and Solomon - so, there is that, (cited above).@R3.Pro.4 - "... Your bit about 'apparently all Solomon's descendants died". Apparent is not absolute. Maybe she only killed all the ones she knew of.""Maybe she only killed the ones she knew of ..." 2 Chron. 22:10 - Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she rose and destroyed all the royal offspring of the house of Judah.If you rely on a supposed ambiguity in this passage - then the entire argument regarding Solomon's lineage is defeated.In order to rule out Jesus' right to reign - you HAVE to assert that Solomon's descendants didn't actually die; and, you have to show how you can possibily interpret that passage exactly opposite of what it states.One Rabbinic principle is - an interpretation cannot leave a passage meaningless, or even redundant. Yet - that is /exactly/ where this interpretation leads - if this passage has no "real meaning".@R3.Pro.5 - Regarding Isaiah 53 :Y our debate is that Jesus can't be the Messiah because of Scripture ... but your citation of Is. 53 isn't framed in an argument that excludes Jesus somehow ... So, I don't really understand it.Since you don't say WHO Isaiah 53 is talking about, or how it absolutely excludes Jesus - then it isn't really relevant. Again, I would appeal to the plain-reading of the text. Regardless - that same passage is mirrored in Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Malachai, etc ... okay, all over Scripture. We could have an entire discussion on Is. 53 alone. R3.Con.3 - But - unless you use it to exclude Jesus, then it isn't relevant - here.... However, I do think we have beaten the Solomon lineage thing to death ... If you have a basis, other than one single, really, really, vague Talmudic understanding ... I am not sure that can go anywhere.