Christianity is an Attack on Jesus Christ

>>>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...