Christianity is probably the one true religion.

It is obvious to me that Con didn't even bother reading most of what I have presented, because I pretty much addressed everything if not all he said in his "rebuttal".Con said that "There were very few historians that HEARD about Jesus. none of them ever heard of him. no one wrote anything about Jesus until 40 years after he passed which is one reason why most schools don't teach kids anything about Jesus."My response: Maybe you should actually read my opening statement, because I gave you well known historians living at the time who mention Jesus. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions him in the passing.The Roman historian, Tacitus mentions Jesus.Lucian, a Greek Satirist early 2nd century in a letter mentions the Christians, who, and I quote "worship a man to this day...who...was crucified" Thallus, a 1st century Roman historian mentions the darkness that takes place after the crucifixion of Jesus.The Gospel of Truth, a 2nd century gnostic Gospel mentions the crucifixon of Jesus.The Apostle Paul, a man who was aquainted with the original disciples of Jesus (Peter, James, and John) mentions Jesus times without number in his letters.Are you saying that a non-existent man had disciples?I could go on and on, but just for the record, within 150 years of Jesus' life we have 40 independent sources that mention the existence of Jesus.Con said "you cant pass a paragraph around the room by whispering person to person without the story being changed and exaggerated by the time it gets back to you."My response: You have no evidence that this is what happened. The Jews at the 1st century was an oral culture. And not only that, they were very good at it. They weren't the type of people who would pass a message on to someone while changing the story little by little until we lose the full scope of what was originally intended. Michael Licona, a conservative NT scholar says that a much better analogy to how the Gospel story passed would not be "the telephone game" but rather "the passing on of the martial arts form"For example, I learn Taekwondo from the creator of Taekwondo, then I pass it on to my students, and they pass it on to their students and so on. I may try to alter what I was given, but the one who created it would be alive to correct me if I tried to alter what he gave me, and for every subsequent generation, so that every generation would be confident that they have what was originally invented. Now obviously some legends develop over time, no question about that, but these Gospels are 1st century material, during which the eyewitnesses were still alive.Con said " deceptive leaders with an agenda of their own"My response: So you are saying that the disciples just had an agenda of their own? You are aware that virtually every NT critic agrees that the disciples suffered for their beliefs in the Resurrection of Jesus, right? If you are going to say that they "just had an agenda" show me the evidence, I showed you my evidence that the disciples suffered for their beliefs, now show me yours.Con said "And peoples belief that Christianity is true is almost always based on the belief that american morality and culture"My response: I believe in Christianity because Jesus left the tomb empty, if I am going to listen to anyone tell me about God, it's probably good to listen to the man whom God has put his stamp of approval on, God isn't going to raise a fraud from the dead, that would be deception on his part.Con said "which consists of vague reminiscences of precepts heard in early youth which in our case was christian precepts making us no different than other countries"My response: Really? You are aware that I am an ex-Muslim right? I don't believe what my parents taught me was true, I believe something that I studied on my own and came to my own conclusions, does this sound like brainwashing to you, or rational investigation?Con said "no first hand accounts even."My response: This statement assumes that the Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses, which requires you to take a skeptical approach to all the early evidence of authorship of the Gospels. Scholarship in and of itself proves nothing, what is your evidence?We have early testimony from Church Fathers telling us who wrote the Gospels, based on their early testimony (40-50 years for Mark and Matthew) of who wrote them.There was never anyone in the history of the early church who denied that the Apostle Matthew wrote Matthew. Noe one in the history of the early church denied that John wrote John. It is only now that modern scholarship likes to cast doubt on everything, including the authorship of the Gospels. Would you accept this skepticism for your world view?Con said " and after all nothing was written about jesus until 40-70 years after he died by so few historians and i could use the same argument for Buddha"My response: Which again is begging the question, assuming what you have yet to prove. The only reason that the earliest Gospel is dated to 70 AD is because the world view of atheists require that, Jesus predicted an event in the Gospels that happened 70 AD, so if it was written earlier, than that would mean Jesus pedicted the future, which wreak havoc on an Atheist's postion. But the Gospels aside, you are wrong. The earliest NT book wrriten is 1 Thessalonians, written in either 49 or 50 AD (19-20 years after the death of Jesus), and these dates are not disputed, even amongst skeptical scholars. Con said "and if the bible is unreliable what are the cances that the most ridiculous claim in it is "reliable""My response: Look, the skeptical scholars have no problem with you citing the NT, yes they don't accept the majority of it, but if you don't quote the NT, they will, and what they do accept from the NT, we as Christians can build a solid foundation for the Resurrection. So I did NOT mean to say "assume the entire NT is unreliable", I meant to say that what a skeptical NT specialist accepts from the NT is considered "reliable", what they don't accept is "unreliable", remember, I only said assumption, not a given.Con said "you said if the bible is not inspired and not reliable it COULD be true."My response: I already answered this. See the response I gave to your previous objection.Con said "if its false which is the only unreliable way it could be then the Resurrection didnt happen. are you a kid?"My resonse: Yeah, maybe if you actually READ what I say, I never said "If the Bible is false, Jesus is still raised from the dead". At what point did I ever say that? See now you are attacking straw man because that's all you can do, you can't address the points I have raised. By the way, calling me a kid doesn't prove your atheism, maybe you're a kid, because you think that insults=case proven, kid. :)Con said "i am running out of time and your completely irrational cant refute anything i said and im out of time and sure nothing you said beyond that was important. if so ill respond to it in the next round."My response: Let me see...I didn't get a rebuttal until now, but yet, you are complaining that I didn't address anything you said. What did you even say? All you did was ramble on about a bunch of different topics like Buddhism or American culture, which don't prove your atheism.You didn't address the evidence I gave that Jesus was crucified, no refutation at all. You didn't address the evidence I gave that the disciples of Jesus had experiences in which they believed was Jesus appearing to them, no refutation at all. You didn't address the evidence that I gave that Jesus' tomb was empty, no refutation at all. And here you are telling me that "you didn't address what I said", oh the irony.It's time for you to start the debate. Give me solid evidence that I should trust your world view, simply getting emotional and saying "well all religions are the same anyways" does not prove your atheism. I am still waiting to hear better thought-out arguments, because so far, I have gotten nothing from you.