It is more probably that the historical figure Jesus was in fact God than he was not

Pro has a significant advantage insofar as character space. I must respond to all of his contentions, so arguments in my favor will lie within the rebuttal and discredit of his claims. Although the burden is shared equally, if I can negate his points then we have every reason to assume that a historical Jesus was just a man. Since this debate is 5 rounds, I reserve the right to make additional points in my favor later on in the debate.1. The uniform testimony of the Gospel indicates their truth.The gospels are not exactly uniform. There are contradictions in the texts regarding the events surrounding Jesus' life during Passion Week; the Last Supper; the accounts of Judas' betrayal; the arrest of Jesus and denial of Peter; the trial and crucifixion of Peter; Jesus' burial and the empty tomb; and Jesus' resurrection and ascension [1]. Keep in mind that some of the most sensational miracles are only mentioned by one author, such as John's resurrection of Lazarus and Matthew's saints who rose from their graves and strolled through the town. Such spectacular events would not have been ignored by other Gospel writers if they had actually occurred, especially when we consider that comparatively trivial passages are often repeated word for word in the synoptics.Prophetic claims throughout the Gospels are based upon mistranslated OT texts (Matt 2:5-6), invented OT texts (Matt 27:3-10), and non-existent OT texts (Matt. 2: 23). Upon examination of the OT claims, none of the alleged prophecies stand up. However what should be noted is the fact the Gospels follow the literary pattern of traditional myths. The Gospel of Mark upon which all other Gospels are based [2] is modeled after Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, often following almost identical grammar, story structure and events. It is a well known fact that scribes of Mark's day strove to emulate the works of Homer, and the sheer amount of similarities between the two cannot be explained as mere chance [3]. 2. The fact that Mark and Luke were lesser known people means they were probably the authors, as fakes would have chosen more prominent people to ascribe authorship to. None of the Gospel writers identified themselves. It was not until 180 AD that names were finally assigned to all four Gospel authors, and there is no way to verify the claims. Saying fakes MIGHT have chosen more obscure people is not evidence, and two of the people selected were in fact prominent followers of Jesus. In other words, this dismantles Pro's contention because it means fakes would have absolutely had a reason to ascribe false ownership to those people. Furthermore, the Gospels were all written in a language foreign to the one spoken by Jesus and his disciples, indicating that they were not written by disciples. The disciples were mostly illiterate fishermen, not Greek scholars. There is also reason to believe that the authors of the Gospels were not in fact eye witnesses. The first Gospel upon which all others are based (Mark) contains many geographical errors, indicating that the author was unfamiliar with the area around Judea [4]. 3. In A.D 125 Papias said Mark "made no mistake" and made "no false statement," and in A.D 180 Irenaeus confirmed authorship.This is false. Irenaeus makes clear that neither Mark nor Luke were eye-witnesses of Jesus or the Gospel Events. Irenaeus agreed with Papias in saying Mark and Luke were NOT eyewitnesses to Jesus, and that Matthew wrote Hebrew [5]. It should also be noted that Papias reports he heard things that came from an unwritten, oral tradition which is very unreliable [6]. Between 150-160 AD, Ignatius wrote seven letters showing no knowledge of the Gospels. Around 155 AD, Minucius Felix wrote, "He who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men... When you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth." Like Ignatius, Felix explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion.Around 170 AD, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, claims Christians were changing and faking his own letters just as they had changed the "scriptures of the Lord." Further, Pagan writers of this time and later pointedly note that Jesus may not have even existed as a historical figure (though I do not wish to make that a focal point of this debate), and that myth forms the basis of the Gospels. Even some Christian writers complained the Gospels were manufactured stories. 4. Jesus claims to be God and says that he forgives sins.I will address this in the next round. 5. It doesn't matter that the gospels were written long after Jesus died.There are no original Gospel documents. The earliest viable copies date to the fourth century, and none of the 5,400 extant manuscripts are the same. It is estimated that the number of variations between manuscripts total between 200,000 and 400,000 [5]! This amount of discrepancies certainly challenges the validity of the content. Furthermore, there is a plethora of evidence of tampering and interpolations among the various manuscripts. Various stories were not present in the earliest manuscripts but were added later. According to the majority of Biblical scholars, the earliest Gospel (Mark) was composed at least 40 years after the death of Christ. Urban legends are known to arise in a matter of days. Forty plus years is plenty of time for serious myth-making to occur. Additionally, the Gospels were written around the same time as numerous apocryphal works on Christ, many of which are similar to the Gospels. It is reasonable to assume that whatever motivated the apocryphal writers to compose fictitious works on Christ also motivated the Gospel writers to do likewise [4].6. Paul, a converted Christian, says that Jesus is God.This is not really evidence of anything... 7. Christianity spread after the crucifixion, so the resurrection is probably true.There are a lot of reasons that attribute to the spread of Christianity; I will expand on that in the next round. 8. Jesus endured a harsh crucifixion and was undoubtedly dead. This doesn't prove the resurrection to be true; all it proves is that Jesus was put to death like other criminals. 9. There are no competing burial stories about what happened to Jesus' body after he was placed in the tomb. It would have taken several men to roll the stone back up in order to reopen the tomb. The disciples sincerely believed the truth of the Resurrection.First, there are conflicting stories about the Resurrection within the Gospels themselves. Second, I've argued that the disciples were probably not even present at the time. Third, it is indeed possible that the body of Jesus was stolen from the tomb. Yes, it might have taken several men, but assuming the body was indeed missing then this is the most plausible explanation. A physical ascension violates everything we know about the laws of physics. Roy Hoover posits that the idea of the ascension is dependent on a certain view of the cosmos, namely that the cosmos has a three-level structure. However Steven Davis responds to the three-story-universe view by declaring that it is a metaphor, not a cosmology. Bringing modern science to bear on the story is a matter of eisegesis (reading into the text something that is not there) rather than exegesis (letting the text speak for itself). This view may be properly accused of being ad hoc and contrived [7]. In other words, we have no reason to believe in a physical ascension. 10. The disciples had no ulterior motives and all agree on what they observed first-hand.I've challenged whether or not the disciples even wrote the Gospels amongst other discrepancies. Out of character space - Back to Pro for now. Good luck.SOURCES ---> http://www.debate.org...