Jesus is not the Messiah

He makes some very bold statements and huge claims. He also presents some intriguing theological ideas. As we shall see, he again makes some crucial errors. C1 : JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS TO BE THE MESSIAH My opponent states : "Your argument is refuted by the text itself. Women ONLY kept the right to the inheritance if they married not only within the same tribe-- but within the same clan" This is true and I'm baffled as to how my opponent see the text as refuting my arguments. Let's see of Mary meets the requirements set forth in my opponents paragraph above (which are based on Numbers 36:7-8). The argument I put forward is actually affirmed by the text itself! The text supports the case that I am presenting. The two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 show that Mary and Joseph were both of the tribe of Judah and via Davidic decendency, through their common relation to David, Mary and Joseph are not only of the same tribe, but of the same tribal clan! Here is the seal of the argument : Mary had no brothers and so was entitled to inherit her family's land as long as she married someone who too was a descendant of David (same clan). Joseph fit the bill and being of the royal line, he had a claim to the throne, but carries the blood curse. No biological son of his could ever legally qualify as Israel's king, but Joseph could secure Mary's right of inheritance. When Mary accepted Joseph's marriage offer, she preserved her family's land and also made good her son's (Jesus) claim to the throne of Israel as Joseph legally took Jesus as his own son, thus giving Jesus the right to the throne. Jesus was in royal succession through Joseph but escaped the curse since he wasn't Joseph's biological son. But he was a biological descendant of David's through his mother and therefore was of "the house of David". Hence Jesus easily lays claim to the throne as he is of the tribe of Judah, through Mary marrying within her same clan as well as Jesus being granted royal succession through the Joseph legally taking Jesus as his own son. My opponent proceeds to say : "You now attempt to defend two conflicting lineages which I believe I explained well. Joseph's lineage would be immaterial if he were not the biological father, and if he was not the biological father, his lineage was disqualified because he went through the line of Jeconiah. " Immaterial? Disqualified? REALLY? ?? My opponent fails to realise that by him disqualifying the lineage of Joseph, he is inadvertently disqualifying the throne of David! Joseph was in actuality the holder of the throne. He was supposed to be the King of Israel if the Davidic throne had not been disqualified by the Romans when they elected non-Davidic persons to be Israel's kings e. g. Herod the Great. The messiah has to be of not just any Davidic lineage through Solomon, but of the ROYAL Davidic lineage through Solomon in order to lay claim to the throne. This royal lineage, ironically, is the very lineage of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus! Jesus , through legal reasons, inherits all that Joseph offers to him. .. This includes Joseph's lineage! Jesus as such legally descends from the line of the royal kings and was next in line to claim the throne! Jesus legally held rights to the throne and also did not bare the blood curse! Now you as the viewer tell me, taking all this into consideration-- who better than Jesus to be the Messiah? He fits perfectly doesn't he? I'll let you decide that one For more info : . http://www.letusreason.org... My opponent continues : "False! Legends in the Talmud say that the one who MIGHT have been Jesus of the Christian bible was actually the child of a Roman soldier. " Notice the 'evidence' that acts as the authority of his argument. .. A LEGEND! This immediately discredits his source on this topic as it is purely mythical and he even admits this by calling it a 'legend'. Secondly the Talmud was written near to the close of the 1st century AD, well after the first three gospels had been written. Thirdly my opponent is basing his argument on a racist 'jewish supremacist' book that writes badly about non-jews. Such a biased source could really not be used as a piece of evidence as it is completely unauthoritative and is merely a "legend". My opponent goes on to say : "False! Please present a Biblical (or Talmudic) account. A child born as a priest ( a kohein) is ALWAYS a kohein even if adopted by someone from the tribe of Judah. Adoption does not change tribal status-- it is only biological from a Jewish father to his jewish child. " This argument amounts to a simple unauthoritative expression, "Nuh-uh! ". I already explained how Jesus became part of the tribe of Judah by earlier in this post and in last round. Further more LEGALITY was and is what was and is important. If Jesus' sonship was legally recognised then he legally inherits Joseph's decendency. Joseph as noted was Jesus' LEGAL father. You do the maths. .. C2 : JESUS WAS A FALSE PROPHET My opponent displays poor conduct by using deception to prove his case. He deceptively claims that the Luke 19:41-44 is the Lukan account of Matthew 24:1-2 and Mark 13:1-2. This is a LIE! Luke 19:41-44 is recording a totally different situation and the prophecy in the passage is apocalyptic hence it will only be fulfilled in the end times. HERE is the Lukan account of Matthew 24:1-2 : "Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, "As for what you see here, the tome will come when not one stone will be left on another, every one of them will be thrown down. " (Luke 21: 5-6) Notice that the text establishes very early, the subject of the discussion which was the Temple itself. Jesus in response to his disciples remarks about the temple itself, prophecies against the temple saying that "not one stone will be left on another, every one of them will be thrown down". Like I said earlier, this was fulfilled in 70AD when the romans destroyed the temple right to its very foundations and today not one remnant of the temple is left on the site that it once stood. .. Just as Jesus had prophesied! # Removal of the Torah ? Like I said, Jesus did away with the Kosher laws of men. The Torah does have some Kosher laws which I am well aware of. However Jesus was addressing the Kosher laws of the Oral Torah which are purely from men, secondly Jesus never says the Torah will be abolished but rather affirmed its eternalness right down to the smallest dot : " I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is fulfilled. " (Matthew 5:18) He says this in reference to the messianic mission that he was and is still on. 1) World peace My opponent says : "The passages I quoted certainly discuss the Messianic era. Every time the scriptures use the phrases, "in that day","the terrible day of the Lord" or anything about the last days, we are to understand it to discuss the Messianic era. " And I suppose we are just supposed to take my opponents word on this? This is an appeal to questionable interpretation. The problem with prophecy is that various interpretations can be drawn from one prophetic passage in scripture. Nobody can ever be 100% certain what a prophecy actually means until the day it is fulfilled. Hence "in that day" and "the terrible day of the Lord" could easily be interpreted as referring to Judgement Day or any other particular day that God has set a date with. All we can really be sure of is that which has been fulfilled and that the unfulfilled scriptures that use the phrases mentioned by my opponent are apocalyptic in nature, nothing more. Everything else about prophecy is open to all interpretation and no one cane be sure who is right until the prophecy is fulfilled. We can only know for sure once it comes to pass. My opponent proceeds to say : "Thus just proves my point that Jesus did not fulfil everything in his first coming. This is also an argument from silence. Likewise, Jesus was supposed to come back in the life time of his followers. " This is completely false and boarders on being a straw man. Jesus is supposed to come back at the end of this generation or age (end of the world). Secondly the second coming of the Messiah is firmly rooted in scripture. I'll elaborate on this next round as I am short on time. 2) Universal knowledge of God and Torah observance I would first like to point out that I am extremely upset by what my opponent has done. He merely makes claims about passages and simply references them. He has forgotten that he has the BOP and as such, he has to actually not just claim and provide quotes, but actually show how his claims relate to the quotes and thus show how they prove his case! He does not do this and thus indirectly shifts the BOP on to me and forces me to do all the work to prove my case when in fact, the BOP is on him and I simply have to disprove his case! Simply citing a source is not good enough since he has the BOP. He needs to critically dissect his references and I as the contender need to disprove his findings. However, for the sake of debate, will proceed to provide the actual words to the referenced passages and dissect each claim my opponent has made. Jeremiah 31:31-34 " "The time is coming", declares the LORD," when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them out of Egypt because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," Declares the LORD. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD', because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. " The verse in question actually discusses a promise of a New Covenant which will be unlike the Old (the Law) that was made the Jew's forefathers (Jer 31:31-32). The Law was part of the Covenant made to their forefathers and was replaced by the New Covenant that began at the Crucifixion of Jesus and it was also at this point that God forgave man's wickedness. God, in the passage, proceeds to say that he will put the law in our minds and inscribe it on our hearts to keep the eternalness of the law this is true and is firmly rooted in New Testament teachings in Hebrews 8:7-12, in which Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted to support the Christian teachings of the New Covenant. See here : . http://www.bible.cc... Zechariah 8:23, 14:9 and 14:16 : "This is what the LORD Almighty says : 'in those days ten men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, "let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you. " " This verse speaks about the end times being the period in which universal knowledge of God will be apparent. This is a prophecy yet to be fully fulfilled but is being fulfilled right before your eyes as today 2 Billion professing christians now cling onto one Jew, Jesus and through him know the God of Israel. Most of the world has heard about the God of Israel because of this one Jewish man! You can't ignore this! This is the prophecy being fulfilled right before your eyes. "The LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD, and His name the only name" This speaks about the eternal king who is God after the day of judgement. Christian teaching teaches this too. So I don't see your case here. Messiah is the one with an eternal dominion ye here it says God has and eternal dominion. This would makes o much more sense if the christian teaching that Jesus is God was applied. For judaism, this passage poses a problem for your understanding of who the messiah is and actually hurts your case. "Then the survivors. From all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and celebrate the Feats of Tabernacles" This is still a problem for judaism as the eternal king here is God. Yet scripture teaches Messiah will have the eternal kingdom on the throne of David. This passage does little to disprove Jesus as Messiah and it is actually a post-apocalyptic prophecy. 3) Gather the Jews back to Israel The problem with is that in 1 Chronicles 10:13-15, God let's us know how he plans to accomplish his promise. He tells us that he will use Saul. On the other hand. Ezekiel 36:24 only mentions God himself accomplishing His mission and never mentions the use of a man to accomplish God's will for Him. Anyway the prophecy is not messianic as it has begun to be fulfilled by the hand of God himself when in 1948, the State of Israel was established and the Jews began to flock back to Israel. Today. The State of Israel is the only predominantly jewish country in the world. Every year jews migrate to Israel just as God promised. It is a prophecy that is being fulfilled right before our very eyes! Conclusion : Jesus fulfilled the requirements to be the Jewish Messiah. He is the perfects fit for the position and fulfilled the necessary requirements to be Messiah. As such, I still lay claim to my position that Jesus was indeed the Jewish Messiah. REFERENCES : [1] . http://www.learnthebible.org... [2] . http://www.answersingenesis.org... [3] The New International Version Bible [4] . http://www.learnthebible.org... [5] . http://www.letusreason.org... [6] . http://www.instituteofbiblicaldefense.com... [7] . http://www.bible.cc...