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

Con said: "I really don't know what your criteria is for what is and what is not reliable in the New Testament..." My criteria for establishing what is reliable in the New Testament is primarily congruity with other sources, especially those historical i.e. Josephus. Secondary criterion is internal congruity. I presented historical evidence contrary to historical narration and have established that several quotes which Con argues me to cherry-pick either don't make much sense to be mentioned by narrators of Christian version of the story, or they actually go against it. Con said: "Everything that supposedly supports your position is fine, everything else has to go, you cannot have your cake and eat it too, if anyone had the authority to cherry pick like you, we could arrive at thousands of different conclusions that the New Testament never meant to communicate." Maccoby tried establishing different version of the story by the process of elimination of quotes that seemed biased / manipulated to him, he looked carefully at lines of New Testament that did not make any sense, in criticising Pharisees for example, or ones which conflated / intentionally made a strawman of their dogma so they appear as evil, legalist or dogmatic to an outsider. Maccoby also a provided positive hypothesis about Jesus of his own, namely that he was a Pharisee himself / was supportive of teachings. I only added more historical arguments (e.g. pertaining to the death on cross) to his hypothesis. I also repeat again: I am not insincere in picking quotes that do seem authentic to me and rejecting others. I started this debate with the assumption that New Testament has been intentionally manipulated with (which is by no means a revolutionary or aggressive thesis to contemporary biblical scholars), and it is Con's burden to prove it is wholly congruous, both with itself and external historical evidence. Con said: “If you really did "establish your case from the New Testament" then you wouldn't come to the conclusion that Jesus didn't claim to be God, or that Paul corrupted the message of Jesus (...)" What Jesus did or didn't claim is still object of the debate. I argue that it does indeed work that way - namely, that if I pose a serious argument as to the credulity of NT narration about the reason Jesus was crucified, then the rest of narration breaks like a chain as well. Therefore alternative hypotheses as to why such a narration would've been invented are permissible as long as my argument remains valid. And again, NO, I do not rely on Ignatius' testimony claiming Jesus was God, just as I do not rely on Paul's - that much should be obvious since the last phase. Con said: "Why Jesus was crucified is not the topic of this debate, the only thing that needs to be proved is that Jesus was in fact crucified (...)" HardRockHallelujah, you miss that completely. Hyam's hypothesis does contend that Jesus was crucified, but it questions the reasons for which he was crucified. It questions NT authors' narration about which Jews did in fact crucify him and why. I don't have space nor do I have time to argue whether he really was crucified; for the sake of the whole debate I assumed that to be true, but I explicitly made the case for other reasons for Jesus to be crucified in my argument from Phase Two. Con said: "Let me quote to you (...) Gerd Lüdemann (...) You really expect me to doubt the crucifixion of Jesus based on the (ignorant) testimony of a disbelieving Jew like Maccoby (...)" First of all, that's appeal to authority, which unfortunately for Con should backfire, for Gerd Lüdemann did claim much of sayings attributed to Jesus were falsifications. Gerd possibly didn't question crucifixion, a key event in Jesus' life, but he did question Christian narration about him. Secondly, it makes no sense for Con to take precedence of one scholar disbeliever's informed opinion over another (mind you that Hyam was a scholar studying Christian religious tradition as well), and even then, I repeat, Hyam does not claim crucifixion did not happen. Con said: "I am not here to debate whether or not Almah should be translated as "young maiden" or "virgin", that wasn't my point, my point was the early Christians believed it, and that the New Testament Gospels contain the story." But this issue may be important to determining from where comes this dogma. In Matthew, for example, it is explicitly stated he was born this way in order to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy. Anyway, I think this issue doesn't concern subject of the debate. Con said: "How exactly is pointing out the fact that Jews didn't believe in original sin relevant to this debate? We aren't debating the theology of Jews and Christians (...)" Again, this debate IS about comparing beliefs of Jews (Pharisees) with those of Christians and applying Jesus' own words to help in determining who the historical Jesus was. I thought this was very clear from my Phase Two argument about Jesus' clear statement on the Law on the Mount Olives. Con said: "Secondly, Ignatius most certainly believe in the Virgin Birth, for what reason, again is irrelevant." I'll repeat the argument for convenience: it is important for determining the source of the dogma. Con said: "Not sure what you mean by silence in Christian writings before Ignatius...Matthew and Luke were written decades before Ignatius even wrote his letter." But Acts and Mark certainly were before Matthew and Luke. Con said: "Show me anywhere in the Bible except for in the case of Jesus that anyone OTHER than Yahweh forgives sins, its one thing to forgive someone for something they did against you, it's another thing to say that you can forgive sins committed against God, according to Micah 7:18-19, only God has that authority." I'll repeat again: nowhere it is said a prophet cannot be a mediator, a messenger between God and the sinner. One good example of sectarian Jewish prophet who helped people cleanse sins was John the Baptist, allegedly an Essene. Most Jews did indeed observe Yom Kippur instead, to wash their sins. But it could be Essenes were among common Jews (including Pharisees). Con said: "Mark presents a divine Jesus in the very first chapter: (...) Here the author of Mark takes Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 that talks about a prophet preparing the way of The LORD (the divine name) and applies this passage to John the Baptist as the prophet preparing the way for Jesus." The prophecy was about Elijah being sent (Mal 4:5); John the Baptist flatly denied he's Elijah in John 1:21. Con said: "Again read the passage carefully (...)" I implore you to do the same. The context is that the young man asked Jesus a question, referring to Jesus as a "Good Lord", with Jesus instantly interrupting the question to correct him: there's noone (perfectly) good but God. This interruption only makes sense in context of Jesus being a monotheist Jew chastising a man for carelessly applying attributes reserved for God ('Lord', 'good') to a human. Jesus doesn't deny he's acting in good will, but he never claims he's perfect either. For instance, if we presuppose his sinless nature, it makes no sense for him to become baptized by John, which was usually done to clean sins. Con said "Continue reading and Jesus says if you want eternal life, be ready to die and follow me, showing you that Jesus thought he was the standard of good." But this sentence needn't only make sense in Christian soteriology. It also could mean something to an orthodox Jew. You see, Jewish Zealots from Masada were ready to commit mass sacrifice, believing they would live eternally as well. (1) This sentence could be meaningful when said by a Jewish Messiah, not only when attributed to a Christ redeeming humanity with his own death. Con said: "I will ask you again, show me the evidence that it is a later interpolation." One can infer it from textual analysis itself. Apostles didn't call Jesus a God when he raised Lazarus from dead, or when he did other alleged miracles. But suddenly a Thomas immediately claims Jesus to be God when seeing his stigma. Where's Thomas' own proof? There's none, except faith, which is the moral that this story tries to force on people. I will return to this point when discussing "redemption through faith vs through works" and teachings of Paul in the next phase. Con said: "Did you even bother reading the evidences that I provided as well as Michael Licona's evidence?" I already responded to this when claiming none of the Gospels are trustworthy on the issue. I'm still waiting for Con to respond to my own argument about reason of Jesus' crucifixion, which undermines him supposedly predicting it. I also urge Con not to use ad verecundiam. Con said: " Jesus makes it clear why he ordered his disciples to buy swords (...)" It still doesn't make sense, since Jesus was already "counted among transgressors". He supposedly already knew of Judas' betrayal, and did not need to buy swords to become arrested. He wasn't even tried for that. The writers already justified arrest of Jesus when they invented Judas, one of the most dramatic and implausible characters in the story. Con said: "As far as Jesus saying "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me" he didn't say it because God has forsaken him, he simply said it to point his audience to the 22nd Psalm." What evidence can possibly support that Jesus (surely) referred to Psalm 22, but not in context of his own fate? Con said: "(...) but ultimately find its literal fulfillment in the Messiah." That's the very issue I'm arguing about here - Jewish Messiah wasn't supposed to die but to free Israeli people from their physical oppression. I hope to finally discuss Paul and his influence in the next chapter and that Con responds to arguments about crucifixion. Sources: (1) - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...