Christianity is an Attack on Jesus Christ

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...