Christianity is an Attack on Jesus Christ

=====> 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