Jesus is Messiah

I thank Con for this opportunity to rebut the "modern" Jewish understanding of the Messiah. He claims, based on Ezekiel 37:26-28 that the Messiah is to rebuild the Third Temple; but reading this text it doesn't mention "the Messiah" or "Anointed One." In fact, it tells us "God" will place his temple among them (the Israelites), and the Jews today don't believe the Messiah is God himself, so I think they have a problem here since its God who puts the temple there. This could simply be God the Father without reference to the Messiah at all, so I don't think Con has shown this is a Messianic prophecy; rather, that some Jews view it as one. What's more, even if the "God" who puts the temple among them is the Messiah, does it say he must do it at his first coming? No. In fact, this prophecy tells us when this will be fulfilled. It says that at that time "David" will be there chieftain and king, so not until the resurrection of David will the Third Temple be rebuilt, and since even the Jews agree such resurrection has not yet happened then it means the time for fulfillment of this is yet future. So even if the Messiah is the one to do this, the time has not yet come for it to be fulfilled, so its non-fulfillment doesn't show that the Messiah (Jesus) won't still fulfill it when David returns. Con has to show that Ezekiel intended this as a Messianic prophecy which must be fulfilled at the Messiah's first coming, which he has not done. In fact, the text doesn't even say the Messiah has to be in the flesh to fulfill it as opposed to being glorified in heaven - like I said, God is the one who gives them the Third Temple. Con also argues from Isaiah 43:5-6 that the Messiah must bring all the Jews back to the land of Israel, but again, the one speaking in this text is "God" himself, and modern Jews don't believe the Messiah is God, so this Jewish understanding he boasts is not the one of the original writers. Also, it doesn't say when God will bring them back to their soil, nor does it say he has to be a man on the earth in order to do it. So Con has imagined a time restriction for the fulfillment of Isaiah 43:5-6 without any Scriptural basis, just like the modern Jews have, and so is acting like if the time has passed for its fulfillment. Was there a deadline Con? Further, what is to stop Jesus the Messiah from fulfilling it after 3000 years his resurrection? Con hasn't shown this is a Messianic prophecy and not just referring to what God the Father will do in the last days, nor has he put a time limit on how long the Messiah has to do it. No Messiah is mentioned in the text, so it suffers the same problems as his previous prophecy. The era of world peace in Isaiah 2:4 has the same problems. No "Anointed One," or "Messiah" is mentioned. Even if it did, it says this will occur in "the last days" which we know from the Bible is an undefined by very long period of time in which many things have to happen. It doesn't say the Messiah has to be a man on earth to accomplish this, nor does it put a time limit on it; so the time for its fulfillment simply has not come. Jesus the Messiah fulfilled those prophecies he had to fuflfill first, and he will yet fulfill all other which Scripture says he must fulfill. Now I do admit that Zacheriah 14:9 is talking about the Messiah because here Yahweh is pictures as being in the flesh, standing on the Mount of Olives in verse 4. Vers 5 says Jehovah will come with all his holy ones, a clear reference to his second coming. (1 Thess 4:`14) But again, the text doesn't say "when" this is to happen. Con is assuming without good reason that the Messiah must fulfill all that is prophecied of him in one swoop, and I simply ask why is that the case? He has fulfilled enough that we can be confident he will fulfill all other things prophecied of him. Says who that the Messiah has only so much time to fulfill this prophecy? Just because he hasn't done so yet doesn't mean he won't. Finally, Con says Jesus was born of a virgin and hence could not be a descendant of David, but Mary was the daughter of Heli, though the genealogy given by Luke lists Mary's husband Joseph as the "son of Heli." Says M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): "In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter's husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7)." It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the "son of Heli." (Luke 3:23) Mary was of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David. Hence it could be said of her son Jesus that he "sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh." (Ro 1:3) Through his adoptive father Joseph, a descendant of David, Jesus had a legal right to David's throne, and through his mother, as the "offspring," "seed," and "root" of David, he held the natural hereditary right to "the throne of David his father."—Mt 1:1-16; Lu 1:32; Ac 13:22,ï¿½23; 2Ti 2:8; Re 5:5; 22:16. The Bible says nothing that would rule out Mary being a descendant of David from his father's side, so unless Con can show that she wasn't he cannot win this debate. The fact is, no one in Jesus time was able to refute his geneaology, nor did the later opponents of Christianity in the time of the apostles in the years following his death. The mere fact that a man claiming to be the Messiah would never face a charge against being a true descendant of David testifies to his sure geneaology according to Messianic requirements. Con needs to tell us why Jesus enemies never brought up the argument he is using now which they surely would have had it been so. Thank you.