Instigator / Con
2
1485
rating
92
debates
45.65%
won
Topic
#436

Is Jesus the Promised Jewish Messiah

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
2
0

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

David
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1515
rating
7
debates
50.0%
won
Description

I would like to thank Swagnarok for agreeing to debate this with me.
--Topic--
Is Jesus the Promised Jewish Messiah?
--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Con must waive in R1 and Pro must waive in R5.
11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Con waives; Pro's Case
R2. Con's Case; Pro generic Rebuttal
R3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal
R4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary
R5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro waives

bump

Swag might have won. Virt is simply good at debating.

-->
@Swagnarok
@Ramshutu

To be fair to Swag here, he had a completely unwinnable position. I would be happy to explain a Pagan take on OT vs NT where NT's "God" is not the same as the OT's God and one where Jesus is not only Lucifer but furthermore Satan is not Lucifer, instead Satan is the God of the OT.

There was also a short treatise about atonement. I won’t lie, I felt the exchange on both sides were difficult to follow on this ground, so I don’t feel It fair to offer a verdict on that point.

Cons final round appears mostly a reaffirm of the previous information he provided.

Conclusion:

This was a very detailed debate, with a lot of focus on technicalities that was rather difficult to follow at times. I feel that the lack my own detailed knowledge on the core guts of religion and Judaism means I can’t do justice to the effort put into these arguments in my RFD.

However for me, this argument boils down to a few key things:

1.) That Jesus did not fulfill key prophecies. In my view con established enough prophecies that were not fulfilled - where as pro did not do enough to convince me that these could be discounted.

2.) The anointment portion wasn’t the dealbreaker - but was hugely detrimental to pros point, this was very well argued by con.

3.) Most importantly, con outlined the requirements of what a messiah would need to be accepted. These were specific, and detailed - and even pro appeared to concede that they were not fulfilled. Pro argues that these requirements would be full-filled over two comings of the messiah. This is the argument that really swayed this for me. In my view I side with cons argument that there is no mention of two messiahs - and that this implicitly negates the resolution.

This was a really thorough debate, and very time consuming to vote on. I apologize if either feel I haven’t don’t your argument justice - which I’m sure is true to some degree.

Historical: Con had claimed that the Jews need to have been returned, the temple rebuilt, and a multitude other. Pro seems to argue that at least one part of this (previous exile and return) happened. But he appears to drop must of the others.

In his first round, pro appears to argue the opposite of this, that the Jews have given the appearance of being punished, and scattered - I don’t feel I can reconcile both of pros arguments well here.

Round4: Con.

Requirement: Con points out a substantial number of messianic requirements that Jesus doesn’t meet. I find the presentation of the virgin birth and genealogy is actually quite compelling, and agree that pro did not adequately address this.

Role: con points out the issue with the second coming is not addressed by pro. I agree and consider this point dropped so far.

Annointment: con points out jesus was not anointed - con also points out an issue I missed - that pro concedes that if Jesus had been anointed he would have been recognized in an implicit acknowledgement of the importance of actual anointment. With con pointing this out - this point is damning to pros points

Sin an atonement: see next.

Need: I consider this point dropped by Pro too.

Final round:

Pro rounds off his rebuttals with a few extra points:

Jesus was successful. While pro accurately describes the success of Christianity. I don’t believe this warrants his position, success - even in the face of adversity - doesn’t mean the concept it is based on is necessarily valid.

Annointment: even if I accept pros argument that the government was corrupt, in my view this does not in my view provide warrant. That Jesus does not fulfill the prophecy and be recognized by Jews because of corruption seems nonsensical if Jesus was truly the Messiah.

Historical evidence. Con points out some conditions that would indicate the messiah has come. It may just be the fact that I’m totally goy, but this feels more of a rehash of previous points.

Round 3: pro.

Pro offers a detailed treatise in cons translation. I have to take his word that this example is muddied, as I’m even worse at Ancient Greek than I am in Hebrew. Saying that, his argument that we must consider this to have meant a virgin birth because otherwise it wouldn’t have been considered a miracle.

I think here pro has a good argument to support the Virgin Birth on this front.

Mitzvot: pros argument against the Mitzvot continues to be, in my view, outside the remit of the resolution. Importantly pro concedes the possibility that the law is perfect, but simply not fully complete. His argument appears - from my reading - that it is incomplete because it doesn’t cover some moral sin that are also considered moral sin elsewhere.

Again, in my view - even if I accept this as true, at best it confirms that Jews need a Messiah to fulfill the law (which seems not to be an issue to con).

Exclusivity: I feel pros arguement here answers itself. He appears to ask why only Jews reap all the rewards - and non Jews don’t get a reward but are also not subject to wrath. Pro appears to concede it is not exclusive, and appears to argue that not being able to leave is unfair. This does not appear to be a specially compelling argument, nor clear how it satisfies the resolution.

Second coming: pro feels very speculative here. Importantly con pointed out what the Torah said about messianic requirements that the messiah didn’t achieve - which were not covered by cons reply. As a result I’m on cons side here, as it seems that the OT said what the messiah would do - it seems by this measure the second coming would need to be the one considered messiah.

Sacrifice/sin: pro points out why a human sacrifice is acceptable. As con didn’t give me a reason to claim sacrifice is not acceptable at all, I have to side with pro here until it is clarified.

Attonement: I wasn’t fully clear what pro was arguing here - it seemed it was an argument that Judaism is a self defeating religion because atonement was impossible. This argument seems pretty nebulous to me - and doesn’t feel like pro gave me enough warrant to accept this - and even if accepted it doesn’t appear to affirm the resolution.

Round 3: Con

Prophecies. Con counters prophecies - pointing out one failed prophecy fails as the messiah. Con follows on with details of on how many of the major prophecy elements are actually misunderstood. As I’m not an expert in Hebrew, I have to accept cons position until told otherwise on this.

Mitzvot: con counters pros objections to the Mitzvot indirectly - I don’t feel that he addresses the specific insufficiencies raised by pro - by pointing out where they are not. However, what con does do very well is clearly point out three major violations that Jesus made that clearly invalidates Jesus place as the Jewish Messiah. I felt this was rather compelling.

Exclusivity is immoral: con argues that Judaism is not exclusive, and one can become part of the Jewish people through conversion and adherence of the law. I felt this was a good argument, but also that whether exclusive or not, it doesn’t affirm or disaffirm the resolution.

Round2: Con.

Anointing: con argues Jesus was not an anointed - a requirement of being Messiah. Given the phrasing - con isn’t specific as to whether the phrase “messiah” meaning anointed one was metaphorical, or specific. This would have been stronger had there been a textual requirement for anointment (IE a reference where it said The messiah must be anointed rather than the possibility of it being symbolic)

Lineage: con argues Jesus’ lineage is not correct according to one Gospel source. The weakness here is that con doesn’t argue that Luke is the more accurate gospel. So if Matthew is correct and Luke is wrong, this point would fail.

Did not fulfill prophecy: con lists three examples of major prophecies Jesus fulfills and points out that there is no reference to two messiahs - this is a very strong argument in my view.

Purpose: Con argues that the purpose of the messiah is different from that of Christianity - as more of a king - and due to these properties Jesus can’t have been the messiah.

Sins. Con pointed out that the premise of Jesus as a Christian messiah in terms of dying for sins isn’t supported by the Jewish religion. This on its face seems to be a valid point. These core points, about sacrifice however, do not have a clear warrant, in my opinion, for why they are true.

R2: pro.

Anointing: I feel pro echoed my thoughts on the anointing here, pointing out the symbolic nature of an anointing. I felt this mostly covered cons point.

Lineage: pro did little to resolve the issue here - Pro made statements about prophecy in the opening statements - so it stands to reason a failure of prophecy in this case of lineage would be substantial. I feel this didn’t address the issue con raised

Notes: I would politely request Swag to format better next time, the debate was quite difficult to read and judge as a result of the formatting! I also have to post this in reverse due to writing this on my phone.

Arguments - due to the subject matter being pretty alien, I am going to flow this RFD, rather than vote point by point.

My understanding of the contention (until someone tells me otherwise), is that Judaism defines a messiah, and pro must argue Jesus is that messiah, whereas con must argue either Jesus is not the messiah, or that Judaism doesn’t define one (unless I’m told otherwise)

Round1

Pro: messianic prophecies. Pro provides some justification of prophecies Jesus fulfills - he doesn’t go to great deal here, and does not specify this as a primary point, so I will put a pin in it.

1.) is an excellent argument for why Judaism is not complete, is imperfect, or requires a messiah. In and of itself, I don’t feel this argument justifies the resolution specifically - as it doesn’t explain why Jesus matches the requirements even if I accept it as true.

2.) I feel this suffers a similar issue with the resolution. This argument is an excellent argument for why Jesus completes Judaism (following on from 1), and a primary moral issue with Judaism - but does not, in my view, specifically affirm the resolution.

3.) Much better! This is a good argument - pro argues that Jews were promised prosperity for faithfulness - and yet this is not what happened after Jesus’ death - this strongly implies that Jews were not following the faith properly.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Thanks!

-->
@Swagnarok
@David

I will get on this within the week.

bump

bump

-->
@Swagnarok

Here we go again... I read a lot of debates on this site where somebody claims their opponent "conceded" the debate based on some technicality... And this debate is one of them, sadly. Con claims that you "conceded" that Jesus never fulfilled a single prophecy, but reading your opening statement, it looks like the very first thing you did was link to a Wikipedia article with a list of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, as well as cited one specifically. So... did I miss something later on where you retracted that, or is your opponent just making stuff up?

This looks like a good one.

Crap. I'm not sure whether I'll have enough of a character limit for my argument. I'll try my best, of course, but it's very possible that neither of us will be very satisfied with the end result.