The Instigator
GeoLaureate8
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
mercedzdanz
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points

Christianity is an Attack on Jesus Christ

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,064 times Debate No: 11173
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (98)
Votes (14)

 

GeoLaureate8

Pro

That's right, Christianity is the worst thing possible that could have happened to Jesus, not least because it is an immense slanderous and libelous campaign against the historical Jesus. Allow me to present my case:

*Disclaimer: No semantic or tangential arguments. Must be a Christian to accept.

=======
Definitions
=======

Christianity: the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches. [1]

Historical Jesus: the Jesus of history whose information comes from non-Biblical sources for the historical and cultural context in which he lived. [2]

Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report. [3]

Libel: defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. [4]

==============
Christianity vs. Jesus
==============

Jesus Christ was a man who lived around 2,000 years ago. A man with a profound philosophy for his time, and a very peaceful, kind humanitarian. Then comes along Christianity with it's Biblical dogma and false doctrines about Christ.

>>>Destroying His Name<<<

First, they erase Jesus' true name from everyone's memory and gave him a more vague name such as Jesus Christ, meaning "the anointed one."

*Sidenote: Anointing is a ceremonial sanctification using crocodile fat. "The Egyptian word for crocodile fat was Messeh from which the term Messiah is derived. Moshe, or Moses, was a ritual title, not a persons name and was a reference to the crocodile fat used in temple and pyramid ceremonies." [5]

There were actually 13 men by the name of "Jesus" during his time period according to Roman-era historian, Josephus. [6] His real name is in fact, Yeshua ben Yosef. [7] The name "Jesus" has not the slightest intrinsic meaning in English at all. [7] Nor does the word "Christ" (the anointed) because many people over the ages, even Pharaohs have been anointed. It's nothing special. Yeshua is the only proper name and the name given to him by his parents. [7]

>>>Equating Jesus With Yahweh<<<

Christianity makes the slanderous claim that the atrocious, genocidal killer named Yahweh is in fact, Jesus Christ. That's like saying Gandhi is the same person as Hitler. How would Gandhi feel if people perceived him in that way? This is exactly what Christianity does to Jesus. It attributes killings to him that he never committed. Let me elaborate further:

==Yahweh==

- Committed a global genocide. [8]
- Slaughtered 1,000,000 Ethopians. [9]
- Commanded men, women, children, babies, and animals to be brutally slaughtered. [10]
- Commanded that people be brutally stoned to death. [11]

==Jesus==

- Never killed anyone.
- Taught a message of peace.
- Preached against violence.
- Taught to treat others as you would like to be treated. (As did Confucius years prior.)

According to Christian theology: Jesus = human manifestation of God (Yahweh)

Is it fair to Jesus and is it proper to accuse this peaceful man of global genocide? Is it not libelous of the Bible to print these malicious and fallacious statements about Jesus and spread this message globally?

>>>Omitting His True Teachings<<<

Jesus' true teachings were deliberately omitted from the Bible by Constantine (a life long pagan) and the Council of Nicea under the agenda to have one God, one Empire, and one religion. [12] Some of the earliest writings of Jesus' teachings are found in the Gnostic Gospels, deliberately omitted from the Bible, including the Gospel of Thomas. The early Christian Church actually banned Gnostic teachings and condemned it as heresy. [12] There's evidence right there that Christianity actually condemns the early, true teachings of Jesus as heresy.

>>>More Evidence<<<

Excerpt from historical Jesus information source:

"Irenaeus (church father of Christianity) picked only a fraction of the available literature on Jesus. He excluded (from the Bible) some of the most popular texts, such as the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of the Hebrews (by far the two most popular texts among early Christians). Either the memory was lost of what was old and what was new (Irenaeus claims that Mark and Luke were eyewitness which of course they were not) or the Church was already at work to completely reinvent the story of Jesus to suit whatever ideology. For example, if one wanted people to believe in Paul's letters, then he would probably choose those four gospels over all the other ones. The fact is that the dogma immediately ignited a very contentious issue." [13]

"Texts outlawed by Rome paint a very different picture of Jesus' teaching, especially the ones written by the "gnostic" Christians. Sometimes Jesus appears as a sort of communist revolutionary, sometimes as a sort of Buddhist thinker. In the most ancient texts he rarely appears as the Jesus who makes miracles and ascended to heaven, and sometimes does not appear at all." [13]

**"The gnostic Christians were persecuted after Rome converted to Christianity and most of their TEXTS were BURNED. The church also outlawed all other histories of Jesus but the four official ones." [13]

=======
Conclusion
=======

Christianity is a slanderous, libelous, and atrocious attack on Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus Christ). It paints this wise, peaceful philosopher as a genocidal, hypocritical man. It attributes teachings and words to him he did not say and omits his true profound teachings from the official, globally circulated canonical gospels. It has spread these fallacious, malicious attacks on a global scale for 2,000 years and is utterly unacceptable. I rest my case.

Sources:

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5] http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
[6] http://www.jordanmaxwell.com...
[7] http://www.thenazareneway.com...
[8] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
[9] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
[10] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
[11] http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com...
[12] http://www.awakeningafterlifethebook.com...
[13] http://www.scaruffi.com...
mercedzdanz

Con

>>>Introduction and Position<<<

1. Introduction

I would like to thank my opponent for allowing me to argue in this debate. I had to break some new grounds and it has shown to be an enlightening and an enriching experience for me. Also, I will accept my opponent's definition of Christianity, slander, and libel, and reject his definition of the Historical Jesus.

2. Position

My opponent has failed to show that Christianity is a slanderous and libelous attack on "Yeshua ben Yosef" because my opponent's conception of the historical "Yeshua ben Yosef" lacks credibility and scholarship. However, even if we assume all the facts of my opponent's argument as truth coming from credible sources, there is still no reason to believe that Christianity is a slanderous and libelous attack on "Yeshua ben Yosef."

>>> Rejection of my Opponent's Claim of the Destruction of the Name "Yeshua ben Yosef"<<<

To claim that Christianity has destroyed the name "Yeshua" because they changed it from "Yeshua" to "Jesus" is unmeritorious. It is simply an American adaptation of a foreign name. If that's considered a destruction of his name, then my Korean name "E-Jeen-Suk" adapted to the American pronunciation "Jin" would be considered a destruction of my name. To imply that an American adaptation of a name destroys it is simply absurd. Also, it is uncommon for people to not recognize the name "Jesus" when they hear the name "Yeshua." Further, Christianity bases its belief off the original Greek and Hebrew manuscript, where the name "Yeshua" is still written. [2]. It is clear through the New Testament that Jesus came from Joseph, or "Yosef," so the name and identity "Yeshua ben Yosef" is still preserved and not destroyed.

To imply that the title Christ or "Messiah" destroys the name of "Yeshua" is absurd. In fact, the title "Messiah" would elevate someone's reputation, not destroy it. Also, to add a title to someone's name does not destroy that person's identity.

I am still hard pressed to understand why changing his name from "Yeshua ben Yosef" to "Jesus Christ" is considered a destruction of his name. Maybe at this point we have to go to the definition of destruction, but as my opponent pointed out, let's not argue semantics and move on to more substantive areas.

>>>Rejection of my Opponent's Historical Account for Jesus<<<

1. Introduction: My opponent's conception of the Historical Jesus mixes facts with fiction.

My opponent's claim against Yeshua parallels the claims made by Dan Brown in his famous book called "Da Vinci Code." However, the "Da Vinci Code," as an accurate historical account for Jesus, has been universally rejected by both theists and non-theists. Bart Ehrman, a non-Christian skeptic but a New Testament scholar, understands that these claims are spurious. [2]

2. My opponent's claim related to Constantine is unmeritorious

The issue is whether the New Testament writing was edited and embellished by Constantine to make himself look God-like. There are many documents and manuscripts that come from the 1st century, (including Gospels, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Phillipians) that all claimed that Jesus was God. [3] All of these documents came before the time Constantine was around. [4]. It is unreasonable to suggest that Jesus Christ was not considered a deity before Constantine came around. My opponent may argue that between the time of those original manuscripts, and the time it got to Constantine, the original text was falsified. However, it is universally held, even among skeptics, that the current Greek manuscript of the New Testament is a very accurate representation of the original Greek manuscripts. [5]. Out of a 138,000 words, uncertainty remains with 1400 of them. [6] In other words, the text is 99% established. The 1% that is uncertain, it is trivial, and no amount of substantive doctrine hang on its uncertainty. [7]. Thus, there is no basis for later corruption of the New Testament either by Constantine or other insidious methods.

3. My opponent's claim related to the the Council of Nicea is misleading

The issue here is whether or not Jesus was not regarded as divine until it got to the Council of Nicea. Again, this is a false and inaccurate representation of the arguments that occurred during the Council of Nicea. During the Nicean Council, they were arguing about the concept of the Trinitarian God, not whether or not Jesus was actually a God. [8]. Thus, it is quite misleading to say that the early church voted to declare the divinity of Christ and rejected his original teachings (which was the claim of his divinity) because they already agreed upon the fact that he was God.

Thus, pursuant to my two points above in 2. and 3., it is unreasonable to believe that there were political motivations to elevate Jesus as a diety because: (1) it is reasonable to believe that Jesus's own claims made him out to be God, (2) those original claims were not embellished or falsified by the time it got to the Nicean Council or Constantine, and because (3) there is no reason to believe that either Constantine or Nicean Council had hidden, political agendas to raise him as a diety because they already believed him to be a diety.

(3) My opponent's claim related to the Gospel of Thomas

The issue here is whether or not the Gospel of Thomas is an accurate historical account for Jesus Christ. The books that were eventually put under the cover of the Bible were all written within the first century that go right back to the time of the eyewitnesses. [9]. All of these other gospels, including the Gospel of Thomas, are later derivative forgeries that were written under an apostle's name 2, 3, 400 years later. [10]. At the very most, these gospels were valuable in informing of the Gnostic religion. The Gnostics attempted to piggyback on the early Christian movement by creating gospels to promote their Gnostic mouthpieces. Thus, the Gnostic gospel, including the Gospel of Thomas, is not a credible source for the account of Jesus, but is a good look into what the Gnostics believed and practiced.

>>>Conclusion<<<

At this point, I believe it is reasonable to believe that Christianity is not slanderous against Jesus because Yeshua ben Yosef himself, taught the message that he was Yahweh (or God), and because my opponent has failed to establish his case using reliable, scholarly sources, that Yeshua believed so otherwise. A strong good defense of defamation is whether or not the person believed his statements or claims. [11] Thus, my opponent has failed to prove the elements (1) malicious, (2) false, and (3) defamatory, and thus Jesus or Yeshua is not slandered or libeled.

There are other issues I want to get into, like, my second claim in my introduction, and I know that quickly goes into the philosophy of God and how he can allow evil and murder in this world.

Thank you for this opportunity, and I eagerly await a response.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.amazon.com...
[3] http://imagesaes.multicastmedia.com...
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid
[10] Ibid
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
GeoLaureate8

Pro

=====> H I S T O R I C A L - J E S U S - V S - R E L I G I O U S - J E S U S <=====

My opponent has made a very curious implication by stating that the historical Jesus "lacks credibility and scholarship." So does this mean that the Jesus of Christianity who rose from the dead, walked on water, and performed miracles is more credible and accepted by academia than the historical Jesus? You'll have to show me what academics accept the Bible as more credible and scholarly than writings of the historical Jesus.

=====> T A R N I S H I N G - O F - Y E S H U A ' S - N A M E <=====

Con claims that this is merely a matter of the name "Jesus" being an American adaptation of a foreign name, however, this is not true as my source demonstrates here:

"Yeshua is the original Aramaic proper name for Jesus the Nazarene, who lived from about 6 B.C.E. to 27 C.E. (A.D.) The word "Jesus" is actually a mis-transliteration of a Greek mis-transliteration. In Hebrew Yeshua means Salvation while the name Jesus has no intrinsic meaning in English whatsoever." [1]

"Today's tradition of pronouncing His completely hellenized name as "Jesus" has indeed obscured His true name, "Yeshua," and has shifted its perceived meaning much like most of His original teachings." [2]

My opponent claims that Christianity bases its belief off of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscript which refers to him as Yeshua, and thus Jesus is referred to properly in Christianity. This is false. Christianity is a Western religion where the overwhelming majority of the West is English speaking and very few actually speak Greek or Hebrew. So, Christianity still promulgates the name "Jesus Christ."

{*To imply that the title Christ or "Messiah" destroys the name of "Yeshua" is absurd. In fact, the title "Messiah" would elevate someone's reputation, not destroy it.*}

"Christ" doesn't mean "Messiah." It means "the annointed one" in which case, it does not elevate his name. Not to mention, even if it did elevate his name, false claims about his greatness are still slander. False claims are still false, whether the claim is good or bad.

=====> H I S T O R I C A L - J E S U S <=====

Con has completely attacked a strawman with this argument. He starts off this argument by claiming a parallel between my arguments and Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code." He then spends three whole paragraphs attacking claims made by the "Da Vinci Code," not me. This was a feeble attempt indeed. The only claim I made regarding the Council of Nicea was that it ommitted books from the Bible, which he did not contend or object. Point still remains unrefuted.

In order to support a positive case for the historical Jesus (which is much more plausible than the "rise from the dead" Jesus), I refer to the religion/philosophy expert, Manly P. Hall who is an authoritative source for information on the origins of religion. He is commended for his great works by religion scholar Huston Smith who was a Professor at MIT. This is most certainly, scholarly information that I am putting forth.

However, to address the issue of the divinity and exclusivity of Jesus, I will refer to a passage from my source:

"Jesus has been confused with the "Christos," or god-man, whose wonders he preached. Since the Christos was the god-man imprisoned in EVERY creature, it was the first duty of the initiate to liberate, or "resurrect," this Eternal One within himself." [3]

>>>Gospel of Thomas<<<

In Manly P. Hall's great work, "The Secret Teachings of All Ages," he says that the "[Gnostic] sect was formed during the century after Christ and is probably the first of the many branches which have sprung from the main trunk of Christianity." [4] This fact refutes my opponent's claim that the Gnostics attempted to "piggyback" the early Christian movement. If the Gnostics were the earliest Christians and the Gospel of Thomas is their earliest gospel, then it is most certainly more credible than any of the Biblical texts. Not to mention, there was a reason why an empire with a political agenda BURNED nearly all the texts of the Gnostics and condemned them as heresy.

=====> C O N C L U S I O N <=====

My opponent has made an additional claim in his conclusion that Yeshua taught that he was "Yahweh (or God)" however, this is a misunderstanding. Jesus wasn't claiming that he is equivalent to Yahweh, the genocidal killer. He was claiming that he was God in a more general sense as he clarified in John 10:33,34 that he called himself a god and that we too are gods. (Yes, some Biblical teachings mirror Gnostic ones)

My opponent has also failed to refute one of my primary arguments, that being, Christianity attributes global genocide and slaughter of nations to the peaceful man, Yeshua.

In conclusion, these are all clear reasons as to why Christianity is a slanderous, malicious campaign of lies against Yeshua ben Yosef.

Sources:

[1] http://www.thenazareneway.com...
[2] Ibid
[3] "The Secret Teachings of All Ages" Manly P. Hall
[4] Ibid
mercedzdanz

Con

>Reclarified Position<

My opponent's response to my first debate pointed to a lack of mutual understanding on both sides. Pursuant to his latest response and upon further reflection, I will reclarify (not change), my position.

My opponent's general claim is that Christianity is an attack against "Yeshua". His standard for attack is slander/defamation. Strong defenses against defamation of character are truth, or whether or not the statements were made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true. Thus, all I need to show is that (1) Jesus actually taught the message that he was God or Yahweh, or (2) Christianity had a good faith and reasonable belief that Jesus taught the message that he was Yahweh.

My defamation defense will be outlined as such: (1) Jesus was not defamed because he actually taught the message that he was Yahweh, (2) even if Jesus did not actually teach the message he was Yahweh, it was reasonable for Christianity to believe he did, (3) even if it was not reasonable for Christianity to believe Jesus taught the message he was Yahweh, my opponent has failed to use credible sources to show that Jesus did not teach the message he was Yahweh, (4) and even assuming my opponent's sources are credible, attaching the name Yahweh to Yeshua would not be slanderous. I have layered four arguments, and each one is sufficient enough to show that Christianity did not defame Jesus.

* I am not going into the name of Jesus because my opponent has not defined destruction. Besides, I think it is a red-herring.

>Argument 1<

Yeshua was not defamed because he actually taught the message that he was Yahweh. Dr. William Lane Craig, M.A., Ph.D., D.Theol., is a highly regarded apologist. Craig stated that Jesus "thought of himself as the exclusive and absolute Son of God and the only revelation of God to mankind." Further, according to Craig, the Jews wanted to kill Jesus, and it is "inexplicable how monotheistic Jews could have attributed divinity to a man they had known, if he never claimed any such thing himself." Dr. John Macarthur, M.Div, D. Theol., states that, "the Jews instantly grasped the implications of his remarks that he was God," and "the same factors that apply to Yahweh must also apply to Jesus." This would also go against my opponent's John 10:33-34, and his interpretation of it resembles a complete disregard for context and proper exegesis.

Also, according to Craig, even the Jesus Seminar, a seminar that promoted the Gnostic mouthpiece and presumptively denies supernatural miracles, believed that Jesus made claims about his own divinity to be Yahweh. Further, Bart Ehrman, a non-Christian skeptic but a New Testament scholar, corroborates with Craig's and Slick's claim, (except for the supernatural part).

It is clear that Jesus at least claimed he was God, and further, linked that claim to Yahweh. Thus, Yeshua actually taught the message he was Yahweh, and thus Christianity is not slanderous or defamatory against his character.

>Argument 2 <

Even if Jesus did not actually teach the message he was Yahweh, it is reasonable for Christianity to believe he did. My point above, even if denied as actual truth, still allows for reasonable belief that Jesus taught the message of his own divinity. If anything, Jesus at least had a ministry of being a "miracle worker." Craig stated that "it is no longer seriously contested that miracles played a role in Jesus's ministry." The only reason left for denying that Jesus performed literal miracles is the presupposition of anti-supernaturalism, which is simply unjustified."

Further, the 4 gospels are the most reliable accounts for Jesus. Matt Slick, M.Div., a theologian and an apologist, stated that "... if Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years... it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings... but, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts." My opponent is only left with just not agreeing with its importance.

Thus, pursuant to the evidence offered in argument 1 and argument 2, it is reasonable to believe that Yeshua actually taught the message he was God, or at the very least performed miracle acts that painted him out to be a God. And thus Christianity is not slanderous or defamatory against his character.

>Argument 3<

Even if it was not reasonable for Christianity to believe Jesus taught the message he was Yahweh, my opponent has failed to use credible sources to show that Jesus did not teach the message he was God.

In Round 1, I cited from Dr. Craig that Gnostics attempted to piggyback the early Christian movement and to promote their Gnostic mouthpiece with apostles name that weren't really written by those apostles. What my opponent did was just simply "dismiss" that assertion and just replaced it with the assertion from Hall. My opponent did not refute Dr. Craig's statement, he presumptively denied it with a teaching with another authority. At this point, we have a battle of authorities (because they are mutually exclusive), and really, I believe Dr. Craig, Dr. Macarthur, and Slick have the upper hand. Anyway, I will go on with my claim.

My opponent's argument rests on the Gnostic teaching which Hall relies as a true account for Jesus. However, the Gnostic teaching has been roundly criticized by scholars of both theists and non-theists in the New Testament. Craig stated, "[Gnosticism is a] divergent (mis)interpretations of the beliefs and experiences of the earliest Christians." If that seems conclusory, it is, but due to limited time and space we can't get into the details of the reasons why. However, I think it is good enough to know that the quote came from a scholar of his field that will most likely trump Hall.

Further, my opponent relies on the Gospel of Thomas, which rests on Gnosticism. Craig stated "Greek fragments of the Gospel of Thomas as old as AD 200 have been found, and most scholars would date the original to have been written in the latter half of the second century after Christ. One evidence of this fact is that the Gospel of Thomas uses vocabulary that comes from second century translations and harmonies of the four gospels. Thus, the vast majority of scholars today regard the Gospel of Thomas as a derivative source from the second century after Christ which reflects the view of Christian gnosticism."

Further, the defenses given to the Gospel of Thomas amounts to a circular argument. It goes to the effect of: 1. Gospel of Thomas is a primary source because no apocalyptic saying are found in the gospel of Thomas 2. This is evidence of an early date because Jesus wasn't into Apocalyptic 3. How do we know he wasn't? Because the Gospel of Thomas proves he wasn't. 4. Why believe in what the Gospel of Thomas says? Because the Gospel of Thomas is a primary source.

Other interesting points to note, which I don't think is necessarily lethal, is that the primacy of Hall's work occurred around the 1920s, and the work has really not really been edited for serious considerations from criticisms on the other side. Also, an affirmation by an M.I.T. professor, without any specifics, does not necessarily make the Gnostic account more credible. We can go back and forth with authorities here but it will only point to our presuppositions. However, I do believe that my sources are more credible, scholarly, and objective.

Thus, even if you discredit my sources, my opponent has failed to prove his claim using sources that are reliable in showing the historical account of Jesus, and thus failed to prove defamation.

>Argument 4<

This argument goes into the philosophy and the word count does not allow me to get into ts.

>Conclusion<

Thus, my opponent has failed to show that Christianity has defamed Yesua
Debate Round No. 2
GeoLaureate8

Pro

=====> D I D - J E S U S - C L A I M - T O - B E - Y A H W E H ? <=====

For my opponent to win (as he agreed to earlier), he must demonstrate that either Jesus is or claimed to be Yahweh. However, Jesus claiming to be "God" or the "son of God" are not equivalent to "Yahweh" for reasons stated in my last argument. God is a vague and general term and could mean lots of things philosophically.

{*Craig stated that Jesus "thought of himself as the exclusive and absolute Son of God and the only revelation of God to mankind." Further, according to Craig, the Jews wanted to kill Jesus, and it is "inexplicable how monotheistic Jews could have attributed divinity to a man they had known, if he never claimed any such thing himself."*}

And this is according to the Bible? This is begging the question. I am contending the Bible's very validity, yet you are using it to prove itself. If this is coming from extra-Biblical sources, then you are confirming the validity of sources for historical Jesus. This argument does not adequately demonstrate that Jesus claimed to be Yahweh. Also, claiming to be divine =/= claiming to be Yahweh.

{*It is clear that Jesus at least claimed he was God, and further, linked that claim to Yahweh.*}

You have failed to make that connection.

{*Thus, Yeshua actually taught the message he was Yahweh, and thus Christianity is not slanderous or defamatory against his character.*}

Clever and deceptive attempt, but nowhere did you show that the real Jesus teach that he is in fact, Yahweh.

{*Craig stated that "it is no longer seriously contested that miracles played a role in Jesus's ministry." The only reason left for denying that Jesus performed literal miracles is the presupposition of anti-supernaturalism, which is simply unjustified."*}

First of all, my opponent states that there is no reason to deny that Jesus performed miracles. Well, I can think of many, one being that there's no proof nor scientific validation that that's even possible. Secondly, miracles don't prove that Jesus is Yahweh.

=====> T H E - N E W - T E S T A M E N T <=====

My opponent has provided arguments for the New Testament being an accurate account of Jesus, however, I have evidence to the contrary. According to Thomas Paine (33rd Degree Freemason like Manly P. Hall) in his famous work, "The Age of Reason" in the chapter dedicated to the New Testament, he states:

"Had it been the object or the intention of Jesus Christ to establish a new religion, he would undoubtedly have written the system himself, or procured it to be written in his life time. But there is no publication extant authenticated with his name. All the books called the New Testament were written after his death. He was a Jew by birth and by profession; and he was the son of God in like manner that every other person is; for the Creator is the Father of All." [1]

"The first four books, called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not give a history of the life of Jesus Christ, but only detached anecdotes of him." [2]

"How much, or what parts of the books called the New Testament, were written by the persons whose names they bear, is what we can know nothing of, neither are we certain in what language they were originally written. The matters they now contain may be classed under two heads: anecdote, and epistolary correspondence." [3]

"All the other parts of the New Testament ...are a collection of letters under the name of epistles; and the forgery of letters has been such a common practice in the world, that the probability is at least equal, whether they are genuine or forged. One thing, however, is much less equivocal, which is, that out of the matters contained in those books, together with the assistance of some old stories, **the church has set up a system of religion very contradictory to the character of the person whose name it bears.** It has set up a religion of pomp and of revenue in pretended imitation of a person whose life was humility and poverty." [4]

As you can see, Thomas Paine demonstrates why the New Testament is NOT an accurate account of Jesus. He further implies that Christianity is in fact, contradictory to the character of Jesus.

=====> C R E D I B I L I T Y - O F - S O U R C E S <=====

Con has asserted that his sources are more credible, and thus trump my information of the Gnostics and information on ealy Christianity. I simply have stand in awe that my opponent would put Lane Craig or Macarthur over Manly P. Hall.

Manly P. Hall is the founder of the Philosophical Research Society, a 33rd Degree Freemason, the highest honor conferred by the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite, and was even used as a source by famous psychologist Carl Jung. He has 70 years of research and published 150 books and essays. In his PRS Library he has "many rare and scarce items now impossible to obtain elsewhere."

My other source, Thomas Paine, is obviously highly credible. I doubt my opponent would elevate Lane Craig or Macarther over Paine. I really don't need to go any further to establish his credibility.

=====> Y E S H U A - D I D - N O T - C O M M I T - G E N O C I D E <=====

My opponent has yet to demonstrate that Yeshua has in fact, committed countless murders attributed to Yahweh, and thus, consequently, Yeshua.

Let me clarify this.

Christianity Claims:

P1. Yahweh killed millions.
P2. Jesus = Yahweh.
:. Jesus killed millions.

This is the slanderous claim made by Christianity. However, there is no evidence that this is true. Jesus calling himself God or divine does not equate to calling himself Yahweh, a god who slaughtered millions.

=====> C O N C L U S I O N <=====

In conclusion, my opponent has primarily relied on attacking my sources, however, I have demonstrated the superiority of my sources by far. He has failed to demonstrate that Jesus is responsible for committing genocide. If the man Jesus remains innocent and not proven guilty of countless murders and atrocities as Christianity claims, then it is making false, malicious statements about the man named Yeshua. Thus, Christianity has slandered him.

Thank you for reading.

Sources:

[1] http://www.sacred-texts.com...
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
mercedzdanz

Con

I thank my opponent for an enlightening, and stimulating discussion. I will affirm my arguments in order of strengths.

>>>My Third Argument Still Stands<<<

My third argument was that my opponent has failed to use credible sources to show that Jesus did not teach the message he was Yahweh.

On Round 3, my opponent rests his arguments on the claims made by Thomas Paine. However, while Thomas Paine is credible and authoritative in demonstrating the philosophy of secular humanism, he is not credible and authoritative in the fields of Biblical history. His book, "The Age of Reason," was published in the late 1700s and early 1800s, and that is an important consideration when so much has been done to advance Biblical scholarship since Paine wrote his material. [1] Understandably, Paine can be hardly be blamed for not being up to the knowledge level of the 21st century, but modern skeptics however, can be blamed for thinking and/or writing as though Paine is a reliable source whose arguments have not been soundly refuted time and time again by contemporary biblical scholars like Dr. Craig, Dr. Macarthur, and Slick. The fact that skeptics automatically trust Paine as reliable (and up to date) source of Biblical history is telling.

By that same parity of reasoning, the primacy of Manly P. Hall's work for "The Secret Teachings of All Ages" occurred during the 1920s, and that work has not been edited and revised for serious criticisms on the other side (if anything, Hall's work concerning Biblical history is "more credible" than Paine's). [2] So far, all my opponent has done to back up the credibility of Hall's work was: (1) a general affirmations from an M.I.T. professor with no specifics, (2) the fact that his work was sourced by Carl Jung whose work involves psychology, not Biblical history, (3) an impressive number of books and essays, a bulk of which may or may not be related to Biblical history, and (4) his honor as the 33rd Degree Freemason and "many rare and scare items," that does nothing to reveal the credibility of Hall's work concerning Biblical history.

So far, my opponent has failed to back up his claims using credible, authoritative sources and thus, my position, even if you want to discredit its sources, wins by "default."

>>>My First and Second Argument Still Stands<<<

My first argument was that Jesus actually claimed his own self-divinity of being Yahweh, and my second argument was that it is reasonable for Christianity to believe Jesus taught the message he was Yahweh. Any one of them is sufficient to rebut a defamation claim against Christianity. Thus, even if I grant my opponent charity and repudiate my first argument, my second argument still stands. I will proceed to why it is reasonable to believe that Jesus claimed his divinity to be Yahweh without breaking new sources.

It is reasonable to believe Jesus claimed he was Yahweh. By synthesizing all of Dr. Craig's, Dr. Macarthur's, and Slick's teaching, we see that the 4 gospels is the best source of information we have on Jesus. Through Slick, I have established the primacy and reliability of the four Gospels. Through Craig, I have rebutted the reliability and primacy of the Gnostic gospels. If my opponent wants to deny the self-concept of Jesus's claim as Yahweh by denying the credibility of the gospel, then he has to deny the credibility of the Gnostic teaching, and really, he has no standing to make any claim about Jesus. Anyway, I will entertain my opponent's refutation on the Jesus's self-conception, which he said amounted to a circular argument which I disagree. I think the following points illustrate that it is reasonable to believe Jesus's self-conception without using the Bible to prove itself.

(1) According to Craig, "[m]ajority of scholars do believe that among the historically authentic words of Jesus are claism that reveal his divine self-understanding." This is even validated by the Jesus Seminar, a Gnostic movement, because they actually printed his divine self-understanding in red. [3].

(2) Even the Gospel of Thomas, which my opponent relies on the true account of Jesus, reveals Jesus's self-understanding. The Gospel of Thomas talks about the parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard. Craig stated "In this parable, the owner of the vineyard sent servants to the tenants of the vineyard to collect its fruit. The vineyard symbolizes Israel, the owner is God, the tenants are the Jewish religious leaders, and the servants are prophets send by God. The tenants beat and reject the owner's servants. Finally, the owner says, ‘I will send my only, beloved son. They will listen to my son.' But instead, the tenants kill the son because he is the heir to the vineyard. Now what does this parable tell us about Jesus's self-understanding? He thought of himself as God's special son, distinct from all the prophets, God's final messenger, and even the heir to Israel. This is no mere Jewish peasant!" [4].

There are many more points from the scholarly article written by Dr. Craig, but I think those two are his strongest arguments. Simply put, the 4 gospels are the best account we have on the historical Jesus, and Council of Nicea had every right to deny the false and derivative "Gnostic Gospels." Really, the only position my opponent has is to presumptively deny the Gospel account because it contains miracles, but even if he presumptuously denies the Gospels, he has no right to rely on the Gnostic teachings. Further, my opponent's claim that my sources does not sufficiently link Jesus to Yahweh is completely unjustified. I have shown through Dr. Craig and Dr. Macarthur, that the monotheistic Jews would have not had a huge antagonism against Jesus unless they understood that link between Jesus and his concept of self-divinity as Yahweh. Also, I believe my two points above, in conjunction with my other points, sufficiently and reasonably demonstrates Jesus's own concept as Yahweh (I even cited from the most skeptical sources!) Thus, it was at the very least, reasonable to believe that Jesus claimed to be Yahweh and thus Jesus is not defamed by Christianity.

>>>Fourth Argument<<<

I haven't gotten into this, and I will not because my opponent will not have any opportunity to rebut, but nevertheless, my general comment regarding my opponent's bad conception of Yahweh (without getting too much it right now) is rooted in (1) selective reading, (2) improper exegesis, (3) and the ultimate presupposition that Yahweh cannot have a morally sufficient reason for permitting the evil the world. So long as it is even possible that Yahweh has a morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that Yahweh and evil can coexist. But this is still a thought in progress which I haven't devoted much time to. Nevertheless, whether you agree with this point or not, my other three arguments still stand.

>>>Conclusion<<<

Pursuant to my 4 points above, I believe my opponent has failed to make a positive argument that Christianity attacked Yeshua ben Yosef by defaming his character. Further, I believe I used positive arguments to show that Yeshua ben Yosef himself, had a self-concept of his own divinity or as Yahweh.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
[4] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 3
98 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 41 through 50 records.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 4 years ago
GeoLaureate8
So God chooses to create a world that bends toward evil rather than good?
Posted by GodSands 4 years ago
GodSands
@ Kinesis: I don't think you understand, firstly your a agnostic. I wouldn't think you nose is too deep in the Bible? Tell me if I am wrong.
Posted by GodSands 4 years ago
GodSands
God saw it as good, until sin spilt the beans. Now this world is a twisted, evil place. Men who wish to belong to it will and those who do not can only accept Christ. God could make another trillion universes trillions of times better than this universe. For God has total control over the physical. God was satisfied with the death of Jesus Christ, because Jesus lived a sinless life Christ has the ability to forgive an unlimited amount of sinners. God is Jesus Christ so God forgives those who accept His Son. In Isaiah 53 it foretells what will happen to Christ and that God is satisfied by the death of His Son.

God sent Christ (God sent Himself as Christ) to redeem those who trust and believe in Christ, for their sin will not be seen in God's eye for God knows now that what Jesus did on the cross has happened. We dwell in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirt dwells in ours. And the Holy Spirit is blameless making us blameless.
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
Sitting here watching GodSands butcher Christian theology is quite amusing.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 4 years ago
GeoLaureate8
GodSands, you said Jesus hates the world. Why would he try to save it and isn't it supposed to be sacred? I thought Genesis (creation of the world) was one of Gods greatest accomplishments, yet Jesus hates it?
Posted by GodSands 4 years ago
GodSands
Jesus loves other men more than others. Does Jesus Christ hate men, yes. Sinful men anyway. Jesus Christ will be the judge on that final day, Jesus loves justice and righteousness, so Jesus must hate unrightousness and injustice. Jesus will not punish the sin of men, but man himself in hell.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 4 years ago
GeoLaureate8
So Jesus hates his dad's creation? (technically it's his own creation because he is his dad, lol)
Posted by GodSands 4 years ago
GodSands
I wasn't at the temple at that time, as I wasn't alive. But you know what the term 'forced out' means? Made them exist the temple with their cattle, doves and their other animals. In John 2:17 it reads, "When this happened, the followers remembered what was written in the Scriptures: 'My strong love for the Temple completely controls me.'"

So yes possibly Jesus actually whipped them out? I wasn't there. However if so, Jesus was perfectly right o have done, using God's house for a market of theives. You think Christianity is less stricter than Jewdism, no Christianity is far more stricter. For Jesus came to fulifull the law not to abolish it.

Jesus did not come to fit well and snuggle well into this world, but to take those who trust in Him out of it because Jesus hates this world so much. Best get that image of Christ out of your mind. However we are to love each other. But love means being truthful, the truth which men hate.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 4 years ago
GeoLaureate8
And what's more disturbing is that he loves and promotes this "insane warlord" behavior.
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
'We have to fall upon His terms of peace or we will suffer in the lake of fire for an eternity'

You make Jesus sound like an insane warlord.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Hizashi 4 years ago
Hizashi
GeoLaureate8mercedzdanzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by nickthengineer 4 years ago
nickthengineer
GeoLaureate8mercedzdanzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 4 years ago
Rockylightning
GeoLaureate8mercedzdanzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 4 years ago
GeoLaureate8
GeoLaureate8mercedzdanzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 4 years ago
Anacharsis
GeoLaureate8mercedzdanzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by AnimusMessor 4 years ago
AnimusMessor
GeoLaureate8mercedzdanzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by stina2bina 4 years ago
stina2bina
GeoLaureate8mercedzdanzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by HmmMaybe 4 years ago
HmmMaybe
GeoLaureate8mercedzdanzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DavidSSabb94 4 years ago
DavidSSabb94
GeoLaureate8mercedzdanzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by Grape 4 years ago
Grape
GeoLaureate8mercedzdanzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30