Jesus is not the Messiah

~Rebuttal Round Three~C1: Jesus did not qualify to be the Messiaha. ) Tribal Lineage comes only through the fatherMy opponent states the following quote:“…this woman cannot be a virgin as she is already pregnant and cannot be a virgin. ”Let me begin by saying that there is reason to believe that the interpretation of virgin is correct here. Matthew 1:22-23 makes it clear that regardless of the interpretation of the Hebrew word, whether virgin or young woman, that this prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 was tied to the birth of Jesus who was also God, as reflected in His name Emanuel (God with us) and His nature. The New Testament authors were simply following and reconfirming the pre-established Jewish interpretation of this passage. [1]However, I agree with my opponent on this one. It is true, the Hebrew words do indicate that the woman in question would be a maiden, and [or] a virgin. Does this bring to raise a conflict? Not at all; let us look at a few logical explanations. The idea that Mary was young when she had Jesus is not an issue for this debate, whether she was or not, this determines nothing. What we need to investigate, is my opponent’s logic. - Christian doctrine teaches that Mary gave birth to Jesus. How then, does my opponent’s variation of this story change anything? He states how the woman could not be a virgin because she was “already pregnant,” yet, so was Mary; a logical fallacy. "'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel,' which means, 'God with us. '" –Matthew 1:23- The key word is not “virgin,” but “will give birth to. ” In other words, my opponent has proved nothing. The problem with my opponent’s argument is that he would never be able to prove that it wasn’t Mary who gave birth to Jesus. We have ample evidence to conclude that it was Mary who birthed Jesus. So far, he has failed to denounce my claim. Furthermore, my opponent asked me the following question: “What in this passage indicates to you that this is a messianic prophecy? ” 1. ) Israel expected a Messiah. This was due in part to the Prophets of Old; Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. God had promised this Messiah- Considering that Isaiah was a prophet, it would only make sense that he was prophesying about the Messiah in Isaiah 7:14. It looks like Jesus fits the bill.2. ) Secondly, at the end of the verse, Isaiah says that the child will be called “Immanuel. ”- What does "Immanuel" mean? `immānū'el: God with us [4]Therefore, Isaiah prophesied about the coming of Immanuel; the day that God would be with Man. This day was marked with Jesus’ birth, from Mary. b. ) AdoptionMy opponent extends his claim that Jesus was not of the Tribe of Judah because he was not a biological son of Joseph. However true it is that Jesus is not a biological son of Joseph, he is most certainly of the Tribe of Judah:He will come from the tribe of Judah who is the 4th son of Jacob through Leah; so he does not come through Rachel (Genesis 29:35). He will come from the tribe of Judah which eliminates 11 other tribes, but not any tribe in Judah. Isaiah 11:1 tells us from the many lines of Judah it would be from the line of Jesse. Yet he had 8 sons, so 7 need to be eliminated. Jesse was the father of David (2 Samuel 7:12-17, Psalms 89:20-29, 35-36). The Messiah is to come through the house of David; the book of Matthew written to Jews makes the point that Jesus would come from the line of David who is from the line of Abraham (Matthew 1:1). [2]Therefore, Jesus was of the Tribe of Judah and of the House of David. Mary was a descendant of David’s son, Nathan; while Joseph was a descendant of David’s son, Solomon. Conclusion: Both Joseph and Mary were of the tribe of Judah. Extend all refutations. c. ) Solomon's lineI still see no connection; my opponent’s argument has a shaky foundation. Besides, in both verses God addresses the fact that Solomon would be extremely wise, powerful, and sheltered from his enemies. This is a prime example of a short-term prophecy. Now I will proceed to ask my opponent the same question he asked me earlier: “What in this passage indicates to you that this is a messianic prophecy? ”d. ) The CurseJoseph and Mary were both of the line of David; there is no issue of debate here. However, while it is true that kingship must be by bloodline, not adoption, this assumes that Jesus was adopted by Joseph. There is no reason to believe he was, Scriptural or otherwise. In fact, Jesus was counted as legally Joseph’s son and, therefore, available to inherit everything from Joseph. This is because Joseph did not put Mary aside—“divorcing” her within the betrothal period—thereby acknowledging that the baby was legally to be his son. The issue of DNA is irrelevant. DNA might be useful in today’s society for proof of blood lineage, but it has no place in the legal system of first-century Jewish thinking. [3]C2: Jesus was a false propheta. ) The Temple My opponent has not provided any evidence to back up his claim. I stated that Jesus was speaking of the end times when referring to the Temple in this one instance. Even if Jesus’ death did mark the beginning of the End Times, Christian doctrine also teaches that“the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. ” -2 Peter 3:10 Has this happened yet? No; so logically, Jesus was referring to an instance much later in the End Times. b. ) The Law of BurialMy opponent has conceded this point. Refutation extended. c. ) Changing the TorahMy opponent provides a valid point. If God promises something, in accordance to his very nature, he would always keep his Word. So there is only one other explanation: Jesus didn’t change the law of the Torah. Jesus did, in fact, abolish the kosher laws of men. Yet, he did not abolish the kosher laws written within the Torah, but the kosher laws of the Oral Torah; which were conceived by man. Jesus confirms his fulfillment and the preserving of the scriptures in Matthew 5:18. “For truly I tell you, 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 accomplished. ”C3: Failure to complete the Messianic requirementsa. ) Peace on EarthI concede nothing. It is my opponent who has conceded this argument. This argument can be considered inconclusive, due to the fact that this certain instance has not yet happened. Adding, who’s to say that this promise must have been fulfilled in the past? b. ) Torah ObservanceAs I have stated earlier, Jesus did not change the laws within the written Torah, but the laws of Man. He came to “set things right,” and fulfill the scripture. He didn’t abolish, but reaffirmed God’s law. c. ) Jews to IsraelAs both my opponent and I agree, God’s promises are unchanging and eternal. There really is only one way that Jesus, himself, could bring about this promise; if he was God. Considering the fact that the first predominately Jewish country in the world was recently established, and that Jews from around the world travel to Israel every year, I believe it is safe to say that this is a prophecy that is happening right before our very eyes; and only confirms Jesus’ position as God. ~Conclusion~Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Jesus Christ was and is the destined Messiah to the ancient Israelites. Every prophecy ever established by God, has only been confirmed through his Son; nowhere in history has this ever been re-accomplished. I rest my case. Sources: [1] . http://www.jewishroots.net... [2] . http://www.letusreason.org... [3] . http://www.answersingenesis.org... [4] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...