This House believes that Jesus of the Bible is Messiah

Thank you for your argument. Firstly, I would like to clarify why I did not attempt to prove the presuppositions I made. I am not making "special pleading", as my opponent alleges. As aforementioned, the scope of the argument is whether Jesus of the Bible is Messiah. The term Messiah refers to the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation as prophesied of in the Hebrew Bible. As such, I approached this debate with a theological perspective instead of a fully apologetic one and did not even attempt to prove the presupposed points. I fully intended for this debate to be regarding whether Jesus in the Bible is Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament, and as such made no effort to prove neither the validity of the Bible nor the existence of God, as these are foregone conclusions that my opponent would have had to make before even accepting the debate. Previous debates on this very site also have presupposed these claims (. http://www.debate.org..., . http://www.debate.org... , . https://www.debate.org...), among others. Thus, there is clear precedent for me to presuppose the above, and I believe that con"s attempt at arguing against the existence of God as well as validity of the Bible does not fit under the scope of this debate, which goes to explain why I did not attempt to prove the above points. Nevertheless, I will have to attempt to disprove what con claims, despite the fact that I am wholly unprepared to do so through no fault of my own, and apologize in advance for introducing new arguments in the final round. To begin with, I shall rebut my opponent"s argument against God"s existence. My opponent argues against the nature of God due to the presence of evil in the world today from a philosophical standpoint. Once again, I would like to reiterate my lack of grounding in philosophy, and the fact that the debate does not encompass this topic, and as such shall not dwell too long on this topic. I shall begin with by firstly pointing out the obvious implication of this argument, that evil suggests an ethical law. My opponent defines evil in two ways, as "human evil and natural evil". However, what then is evil? If my opponent were to postulate that God does not exist simply because evil exists, then he must have some notion of an ethical standard of which evil is defined, which implies the existence of God. Furthermore, evil is merely the absence of good and disease the absence of health. Since evil has no positive reality of its own, it cannot be caused to exist, and so God cannot be held responsible for causing it to exist. Therefore my opponent"s argument regarding the lack of existence of God due to the problem of evil clearly holds no water. Finally, as mere mortals, we cannot comprehend God or His ultimate plan. When a parent takes an infant to the doctor for a regular vaccination to prevent childhood disease, it's because the parent cares for and loves that child. The infant however will be unable to appreciate this. Just as an infant cannot possibly understand the motives of its parent due to its cognitive limitations, so too are humans unable to comprehend God's will in their current physical and earthly state. Thus, I believe I have demonstrated that it is not true that God does not exist despite the alleged problem of evil. Next, I shall rebut my opponents challenge towards the inerrancy of the Bible. Firstly, I would like to state for the record my belief in the Holy Trinity. However, I feel that the scope of this debate as already mentioned does not allow for a full discussion of this topic. Thus, I have included 3 links that make the case for the Trinity: (. http://www.bible.ca..., . http://www.bible.ca..., . http://www.bible.ca... ). Next, I shall make the case for the accuracy and validity of the Bible. Once again, I request that it be noted that I believe that this topic is not encompassed in the scope of this debate. As such, I am wholly unprepared to defend it, and freely admit that I am not an expert in this area. Due to this fact, I shall be unable to make a full case for this based on my prior knowledge and will have to simply provide links which summarize my position on this topic. (. http://bible.org..., . https://www.christiancourier.com..., . http://irr.org..., . http://www.christiananswers.net...). I am willing to debate on this topic in a separate thread. Finally, I would like to address your claim of my using circular logic. You assert that "If your definition of messiah is based on Jesus and by that admission you base the others as a comparison then no other 'messiah' can fit into the definition apart from Jesus. You use him as a definition to prove him being the messiah, then compare him to the definition. This is circular arguing, unless you have an objective definition for messiah which pre-exists, which undoubtedly you cannot then this statement is a fallacy. " I strongly believe that this is not the case. As previously mentioned, the term Messiah refers to the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation as prophesied of in the Old Testament. I am basing my criteria for Messiah not on Jesus Himself, but rather the Old Testament prophecy that Jesus fulfills, found in my previous argument. In conclusion, my opponent makes special pleading that this debate be approached from an atheistic viewpoint rather than a theological one, despite this being the exception rather than the norm, as can be seen from previous debates on this very site. Thus, I believe that he has not addressed the issue raised in the topic of the debate. Also, I have made the case for Jesus as Messiah through 5 points, Firstly, the claims that He made as well of his view of Himself; secondly, the life and works of Jesus Christ; thirdly, the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ; fourthly, the prophecies fulfilled by Him in His life; lastly, the transformative power of Jesus Christ in the lives of those who believe in Him as Saviour, Messiah, and Lord.