Prove a "Judeo" Religion

I am not completely sure whether or not I believe in a God, but I accept my opponent's offer of ignoring the subject of God's existence for the purposes of the debate. However, the argument of existence does not include the argument of God's nature (which my opponent presents in Part 1 of his argument) which I also think should be ignored. My opponent is basing his description of God off of the Bible, so rather than argue about the nature of God, it seems more practical to argue about the Bible itself. Before I go into rebuttals, I request that my opponent provide sources for his claims. Claims such as "almost all scholars in our age believe that Jesus was a real person" need a source, without which I can ignore this claim completely. I say this not just as a cheap way of getting away from arguing. I started this debate to find truth, not get an extra "win" on my profile. As a result, I want a real debate and I cannot argue against a point if I cannot even confirm its validity/truthfulness. It is the same if we were arguing in person and I said "Most Christians are bad people, so Christianity must be bad and immoral. " Not only is this a logical fallacy, but there is no source to back up my claim that "most Christians are bad people". It is an empty phrase without backing that doesn't even deserve a rebuttal. So please, I request that you provide me with reliable sources to back your claims. Rebuttals: 1) My opponent's first point rests solely on the assumption of a Universal Morality. That is, the idea that all humans abide by the same moral code. While this is generally true for most of the modern world, it was not always this way and probably will never be valid for every group on Earth. Our modern society may find certain behaviors to be immoral such as cannibalism, "foot binding", slavery and forced polygamy, however such behaviors were condoned in various societies before our time. Some are even present in societies today. This means that people's idea of "right and wrong" are not dependent on a set of "holy, God-given virtues" that every person is born with, but rather on individual's environment and the society's ideals. Having said this, I don't think that one can use humans' morality as a hint towards God because there have been (and still are) so many different moral codes around the world that one cannot conclude that there is a single, Universal Morality. I will ignore the second paragraph of my opponent's argument in Part 1 because though I do not accept your arguments (for reasons mentioned below in my "Side note"), neither of us can refute or prove these arguments. Side note: As mentioned, I am not sure whether or not I believe in a God. However, even if I do, I do not necessarily believe classical "Biblical creationist" ideas that God created things as they are today. Keeping this in mind, I request that my opponent stop the use of this notion in statements such as: "Therefore along with the rest of creation, the moral law would have also had to been created by God. " and " A God created a beautiful universe and this gives us a hint that God is also a creative being. In the same way an unartistic God couldn't create a beautiful universe, an immoral God couldn't create morality. " To make things easier, I admit that I am a believer of the Big Bang Theory as well as the Theory of Evolution. Please keep this in mind from now on when making arguments that cannot really be proven (but that you assumed I agree with). 2) "Almost all scholars in our age believe that Jesus was a real person. " I would like a source for this claim. "There are many ancient historians that have written about him and we even have writings from the people that knew Jesus (The New Testament). " I would like examples of such historians (with sources). Also, the Bible cannot be used for proof of Jesus because that's essentially the same as using the Bible to prove Christianity. Of course the Bible is going to support Christianity, just as I could use the Koran (Quran) to prove Islam. Only sources independent of religious texts could be used to prove the religious texts themselves. If my opponent would like to use the Gospels as independent proof, please say so and we can engage in argumentative discussion about them specifically. Otherwise, the Gospels are part of the Bible and cannot be considered as valid evidence. "You should have no doubt that Jesus was a real person. " At the moment, I don't see why not. On the subject of Josephus, my opponent quotes the historian and claims that Josephus' writing is evidence for Jesus' crucifixion (and therefore existence). However, it should be noted that Josephus was by no means an eyewitness. Josephus was only born around the time (if not several years after) Jesus was crucified. . https://answersingenesis.org... From what I've seen and read, there are no reliable eye-witness records of Jesus' existence or crucifixion besides the Bible itself. "The Bible affirms all of this and even explains why Jesus' body went missing from the empty tomb. More on that later. .. " Once again my opponent attempts to use the Bible as proof for itself. "Lets go back to the empty tomb. The historian Luke states (chapter 24) that the tomb was found empty by women. How did this happen? The best explanation is that Jesus was who he said he was and did in fact rise from the dead. " Logically speaking, rising from the dead is the worst explanation. Being eaten by animals, stolen by humans or disappearing by other means is a much more logical explanation than resurrection. The rest of the third paragraph of Part 2 of my opponent's argument is using the Bible as proof and can be disregarded. 3) This part of my opponent's argument seems to be a COUNTER-argument to a common claim. The claim is that there cannot be a benevolent God because evil exists. I have not made this claim and actually won't, so there is really nothing to argue here. Personally, I do not understand how one can praise a God for allowing us freewill which imminently leads to a lot of negative results like war, rape etc. Nevertheless, this section is not central to our debate as it addresses an argument which I have not made. So, let's see what we have so far. My opponent's argument in Part 1 seems to be more or less refuted as it relies on the assumption of Universal Morality, an idea that I think I have adequately addressed and proven to be false. My opponent's argument in Part 2 of Jesus' existence seems inadequately supported. A lack of citation of information combined with a lack of independent sources results in a failure to prove Jesus' existence, much less his divinity. My opponent's argument in Part 3 is more or less irrelevant to our debate for reasons stated previously. I remind my opponent that unless he proves it to be a valid source in this situation, he can't use religious text (Bible) to prove his point in this debate. It is the same as me using the Koran (Quran) to prove Islam. I also would like to ask my opponent a question. Do you believe the Theory of Evolution to be true? I would also like to ask my opponent another question. Since he is defending a literal interpretation of the Bible, that means that he must defend everything written in the Bible as true without any metaphorical analysis or interpretation. So, do you believe that all of the laws of nature were changed by/for Jesus for just several decades during Jesus' supposed life? And then returned to normal after his resurrection? By asking this, I'm essentially asking whether or not my opponent truly believes that incredible events such as Noah's flood, the plagues, Jesus' miracles etc. were the results of "magic" from above? I await my opponent's response.