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

The subject of this debate will be one of the hypotheses who Jesus really was. It should be fairly obvious that I assume Jesus existed and that New Testament tells stories of real events that do have a grain of truth in them, or even a whole sack of grain. Nevertheless, I will argue from a position of ex-Christian non-believer / agnostic, that the stories have a certain spin that is the reason Christianity exists today in the first place. Presented in a concise manner by Hyam Maccoby, the hypothesis reflects on contradictions in the New Testament that are otherwise hardly pronounced nowadays. Those consist of issues mostly known by Jews themselves and seldom by others, but also historical arguments rarely brought up even by most stalwart atheists, who seem to be as blind to them as ordinary believers. The story of Jesus as hypothesized by Hyam can be summarized as: Jesus was a Jewish Messiah clairmant whose role was to overthrow Roman occupation by means of God's divine intervention rather than full-scale military revolt similar to, for example, Simon Bar-Kokhba's revolt. To achieve God's sympathy for the cause Jesus intended to renew people's vows to God, to "refine them like silver and test them like gold", quoting Zechariah 13:8-9, so that converted and repenting sinners and devout, orthodox Jews would appease God's eyes, show him that people of Israel are worthy of his guidance and help. Such an intervention would be very similar to any other miraculous military interventions of God - e. g. David vs Goliath, Joshua and Jericho, and so on. In Hyam's opinion Jesus sympathized with Pharisees, who were discredited and misrepresented in the New Testament, reflecting post-temple destruction tensions between Pharisees and newly founded 'Christians sect'. The Christian sect is completely different than Jesus's followers, Hyam claims, and the true followers of Jesus are actually thought to be Pharisees by Hyam. (later dubbed 'the Ebionites', descending from "Judeochristians", the original followers of Jesus, as a Jewish Messiah)Another important issue will be Saul from Tarsus / St. Paul's involvement in narrating Jesus's story, thought to be the leader of the "Christian camp" versus "Jews (Pharisees) camp". Hyam in particular claims Paul lied about much of his background and that he intentionally proselytized people to believe in Jesus as a different person than he was in real life, injecting his teachings with soteriology and some pagan themes from other religions. I have no round plan for the debate, but I intend to: first, present loopholes in the story told by Christians themselves, then present and defend my own version of the story. I am aware I may lack enough evidence to prove my own, revised version of Hyam's hypothesis, but I at least want to find out in the debate whether the loopholes in the story narrated by New Testament and Christians are as strong as I think. I'm aware my debater may not be familiar with works of Maccoby. I'd like them to revise at very least those:(1) . http://www.positiveatheism.org...(2) . http://www.positiveatheism.org...In addition, please be very familiar with New Testament in general, and please revise Zechariah from Old Testament. (the hypothesis puts great emphasis on Jesus following Zechariah's writings, often literally)One last disclaimer: I am willing to scrap and start up this debate again as long as no sensible debater appears.