Christianity is an Attack on Jesus Christ

>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