Jesus claimed to be a Jewish Messiah and was later misrepresented to create Christianity

Con said: "Really? Name one extra-biblical source that you used to prove that Jesus never claimed to be God nor did he predict his crucifixion..."I listed Josephus Flavius as one of sources which disprove biblical narration as to why Jesus was crucified, the rest simply follows. It all was listed in my "The process and death of Jesus" argument from Phase Two, to which you still haven't responded. I know Maccoby is not a scholar specializing in textual analysis nor that he's knowledgable about crucifixion - I use his arguments pertaining to other issue, namely comparison of Jesus' and Jews' beliefs.From his argument it follows Jesus was essentially not in conflict with Pharisaic teachings - but Paul was. Again, my Phase Two argument - "Jesus the Pharisee?", and Mt 5:17-20 from Sermon of the Mount stand in sharp contrast with what Paul claimed about the Law - it was all outlined there.Con said: "No you didn't all I got from you was (...)"My argument obviously didn't only mention Maccoby; his works are auxiliary to my argument. Neither do I claim Maccoby's arguments are purely "historical evidence" - they involve a lot textual deliberation. One of such arguments was that the Pharisees are misrepresented in the Gospels, voiced by E.P. Sanders or Roger Amos.Con said: "Thank you for proving my point, you base your wild conclusions on the works of a man who only theorizes and puts forth conjecture that has no evidence (...)"The evidence rests on his knowledge and arguments about historical Jews. I could argue the same things even without Maccoby, only relying on Josephus' testimonies and other accounts of historical Pharisees. The conjecture works this way: if Pharisees are really misrepresented in the Gospels (and if they had no reason to ask Romans to help to kill Jesus), then someone had intentionally misrepresented Jesus' story.Con said: "But what you fail to say is that Believing scholars have long refuted all these worn out arguments against the New Testament (...)"I actually failed to find any good argument against thesis that Pharisees have been misrepresented. Even Christian scholars often agree on that. I also never witnessed a Christian who would explain why is it that Bible whitewashes Romans, overshadows their conflict with the Jews, why Jesus was crucified by the Romans in the first place (giving me the usual "because bloodthirsty Jews wanted to and the Romans had to comply because they would blackmail the poor prosecutor" won't work for me). I seldom even have a chance to get to the fun part, namely what crucifixion was all about: reserved only for the worst criminals - enemies of the state and rebels, executed to deteriorate such acts and publicly shame the convicts. I never get to ask why people think crucifixion convicts would be given such a luxury like grave, since the Romans had to put them to shame - their bodies would be cast for forces of nature to cause it to decay.Con said: "(...) the unbeliving scholars just don't want to listen to what they have to say, so your view is very one-sided."Don't consider them or yourself unbiased or "non-one-sided". I cannot agree that you're doing a better job by believing the Word as it is, and instead demanding of unbelievers to prove Gospels wrong, onus probandi is yours. I never had any proof that a "custom" to free prisoners on special occasions ever existed in Israel / Jerusalem, as claim authors of all four Gospels, for example. To the contrary, Josephus claims Pilate was ignorant of Jewish customs and practices - and even then, he, a scholar and historian didn't attest it!Why do I bring in this issue? Because it is cheap propaganda used to demonize the "bloodthirsty Jewish crowd" wanting a murderer parolled more than Jesus. It intentionally presents the situation as if they (the unnamed they) loathed him so much that a criminal or Roman state to begin with. The authors even have courage to put ""His blood shall be on us and on our children!" in their mouths. And it is my problem to get historical evidence against THAT?As you can see in Phase Two, I already listed this argument. You ignored this only to argue about virgin birth and other less important matters. (also ignoring my reminder that this discussion is about the reasons why Jesus was crucified since that has a lot to do with internal consistency of Gospels' narration)Con said: "I don't have to prove that it hasn't been corrupted, you are the one making the claim."I already made my claims and presented arguments. As to whether someone can truly prove whether Gospels were corrupted only basing on Gospels themselves - I highly doubt that. But one can prove their narration is inconsistent with history, our knowledge about groups which supposedly opposed Jesus and so on. One can unmask internal inconsistency of story made too complicated with inventions and "bones of old narrative jutting out of new" as Hyam puts it, to supply alternative theories.Con said: "Not only this, but many times he claims to be the Son of God (...) As for how the Jews understood his claim, there was no question (...) Any attempt to cast doubt on this event in Mark 14 is going to require hard evidence."Here it goes, my favourite argument. But this time, we change rules. You prove me that Jews would take offence at that statement. You do research and find what "Son of God" possibly meant to Jews. Take a role of Christian apologist and defend the view that narrative of Jews persecuting Jesus for that statement was plausible.Con said: "Oh, so you can appeal to Maccoby throughout the course of this debate, but the minute I cite a quote from someone, "hey don't do that". I am just really astonished at your hypocrisy and inconsistency."I don't point to some general quote-mined statement by someone and rely on their authority. I linked you two whole texts of claims and arguments Maccoby makes. I don't quote-mine some Christian authors' opinions, who have different views than you, to embarass you.You're becoming passive-aggressive since the last phase Pro, stop snapping at me unless you want to get worse scores for tone of dicussion.Con said: "Take your own advice and stop appealing to Maccoby who is NOT a New Testament scholar."Again, I did not claim he was. But he was a scholar - of Jewish history, of both Jewish and Christian religious customs.Con said: "For more information exposing this charlatan refer to...[2]"Is that meant to say you consider that article by tektonics unbiased? So then they too, "pick and choose", ignoring bulk of information Hyam introduced. (I ignored some of your text and won't respond to it because it was mostly just snapping at me with "did Hyam made you think that"? or calling Hyam a charlatan - no, an article from tektonics that doesn't exhaustingly debate him and one which dismisses most of his other claims as "irrelevant footnotes" is not enough for me. On few things which I did not respond to you were either right or there's no sense in discussing them further.)This phase was for me to provide both mine and Hyam's objections to Paul, so here it goes. "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law." (1st letter to Corinthians, 9:21-22)Here we have Paul admitting he's been intentionally acting as an orthodox Jew to some, and a Gentile to others. Note that he implies the "old law", Law of Moses, not longer needs to abide under supposed "law to Christ".Then, we have this curious fragment from Acts, 5:33-37, where Gamaliel rises to defend Christians. Why then Paul, a student of Gamaliel, would rise to persecute Christian, in an alleged Pharisaic zeal, back when he was supposed to be a Pharisee? More curiously, why Paul claims he was a Pharisee and temple enforcer / guard, when these were primarily occupied with Saducees favorable to Romans, who had the power to appoint them?Hyam outright states:"1 Paul was never a Pharisee rabbi, but was an adventurer of undistinguished background. He was attached to the Sadducees, as a police officer under the authority of the High Priest, before his conversion to belief in Jesus. His mastery of the kind of learning associated with the Pharisees was not great. He deliberately misrepresented his own biography in order to increase the effectiveness of missionary activities."What proof do we have? First of all, that temple enforcers were unlikely to be Pharisees. Second - that Pharisees were not as likely to kill Christians in fact - or not all of them. But then, Luke's account of Paul having been a student of Gamaliel would be an obvious lie.Then, my final points from Maccoby, the "alternate hypothesis" which I challege Con to contest on any grounds, not only biblical which cannot be a proof for themselves; the six points Maccoby makes. Out of those, answers to 1-4 interest me the most. (1)I find it that there's not enough space here to exhaust the subject so I'll end here. I will review article from tektonics in detail, but not here.Moreover, I want to address just one more issue. Con, I ask you to seriously read into (1) and (2) and answer those arguments. I was asking only for that ever since this debate was created by me, and all I've got from you was either snapping at me or Maccoby and an article from tektonics that doesn't explain a lot issues Maccoby pointed out.. I find this debate unsatisfactory since it was mostly exegesis and not addressing of most important issues of historical validity of reasons for which Jesus was supposedly crucified. Sources:(1) http://www.positiveatheism.org...(2) http://www.positiveatheism.org...