Omar should be rejected because his argument is weak. (Bible analogy).

Thank you in advance to the Con. I look forward to an interesting debate. Format 1)Introduction and Primary Argument 2)Rebuttal 3)Counter rebuttal and Conclusion. The Year is 2017, you decide to take an extended vacation to a remote area in the middle east, you are so sick of being a slave to your phone you and a group of 12 friends leave them behind. The people are largely illiterate but you do go through small towns, however they don't have any advanced technology. You run into Omar, it is said he was born of a virgin. He does all the miracles that Jesus did and you witnessed them all first hand in their entirety and hear all of lessons and teachings as well. He is murdered raised from the dead, and ascends into heaven. For the case presented Jesus (or any other Messiah) has not appeared, there is only Omar, a middle eastern Jew, and you know nothing but the Jewish teachings of the old testament, as well as the oral Torah that was taught in the day and passed on verbally. Do you Worship Omar as the Messiah? I would argue that no matter the miracles that the person performs, you still can not worship him as God. You still have to evaluate the argument the person made and the circumstances. A) Is God a megalomaniac? I would argue that demanding worship is, and that an omni-benevolent entity would not demand that they be worshiped. B) Why did God come in the form of a man to you in the remote area of the world while you were on vacation with no way to record the events accurately? It would make much more sense if his goal was to let his people know his will, to show up in the most educated densely populated areas of the world as the message would be recorded more accurately by more sources, or wait till technology was far enough advanced to video his exact teachings? After all he waited 100+ thousand years to come to man what is a couple more thousand? He would surely know that technology would get to where it was today, and he could inform the world all at once and have proof for all time. Or why not make a repeat performance every few 100 years? C) Would you expect anyone to believe you when you went home and told them? or would they think you were crazy? how about 2000 years later when your written book was translated many times over and changed many times through the years? I would argue that the reason it is still believed is because it was a populist uprising that could not be put down, and so it was co-opted, by the church and then used to control the masses by religious rather than political power. D) After seeing Omar you wonder why he did not give you any great insights in which you could have added to your book in order to prove it was inspired by a higher order entity. For example If it was 2000 years ago, he could have informed you that the earth actually goes around the sun, that there are billions and billion of galaxies out there and we are but one, and so on and so forth. If you were to go back even 200 years you could include so much knowledge that has been learned that it would be easy to prove you have advanced knowledge of the future. Why did this not happen? In fact there are errors made that should not have been. E) If God wanted us to believe only what he said through Omar, why not then simply cut a mountain in half and inscribe His wishes on the side, in all languages present and future, as it would take no effort at all for an omnipotent being to do. F) Why have so many passages in the bible that could be edited and would make it better? You could make a very strong argument that the bible is Blasphemy against God, as throughout the bible it puts human characteristics on Him, and in many cases makes him out to be a deranged psychopath. I will end there, but sorry Omar your argument was weak and therefore we should reject it, even though you did miraculous things. There are good lessons to be learned on ethics from Omar, but this does not add any validity to Omar's argument.