I call BS on Christianity

Thank you for your last round Con. Con didn't approve of my generalization of Christinaity and he suggested that I loosely defined the term. I provided a solid framework for Christianity. Con has full right to only focus on what he precieves as weaknesses in my argument. Also, when Con refers to BS he is using it in a derogatory term and I am using as defined in round 1. Let's move on... Con's rebuttal: Con never offers any instances of rotten storyline, instances where it does not make since, why it is not a history book, where it is contradicting, and what Christian sect conforms to the Old Testament. All Christinaity holds the Old Testament as sacred but not obligating, as Christians we are obligated to follow the New Testament. C1) Historical Relevance Con brings up the wide variety of Bibles and faiths of Christianity. I only need to varify the authenticity of the New Testament and the KJV. Renewal is a part of God’s preservation plan that ensures that we have His inerrant Word in texts that He has ordained. http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com... Scholarly opinion views that the New Testament is indeed contemporary with the apostles. Every historical criterion, the text of the New Testament is vastly better documented and corroborated than any other document of these times. Luke acknowledges the existence of earlier verbal and written sources. If earlier collections of Jesus' sayings did exist there seems no reason at all why the gospel authors should not have quoted them. http://life.liegeman.org... http://richardbauckham.co.uk... The King James Version can be considered the Word of God in the English language. All modern translations must often rely upon the Received Text for substance, for the manuscripts of the King James text are historically more numerous than the modern translations, not to mention, massively more consistent. http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com... Con makes baseless assertions about the original Old Testament having only five books. The Hebrew Old Testament is divided into three sections, TORAH (The Law): NEVI'IM (The Prophets): KETUVIM (The Writings). Con needs to show how the storyline and historical value are diminished. He also needs to offer us the books that suppose to have been in the Bible that isn't. This was very confusing as Con suggest the Old Testament has too many books and then he says it does not have enough. Con brings up the Zohar and then says, "Zohar claim to be the oldest Jewish based religion.... Ironic that all religions make the claim they are the oldest and wisest." Zohar is not Christian by any means, hence, Zohar. Remember that a sect can only be Christain if it follows and believes the words of Jesus Christ which are recorded in the New Testament. C2) Christian Teachings Con simply wants to blame the Christian doctrine for all the sects that take the name of Christainity. I can claim I am anything but it does not make me that thing. We must look at the doctrine on the New Testament and see if that sect follows those teachings. Con has mistaken Christainity as one absolute sect, there are many interpretations, but that does not change the Word inside. 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." No one denomination should rule over Christainity. This is why we are focusing on what is in the New Testament and not what others say is there. Con becomes irrational himself if he believes that God must impregnant Mary like human beings do. Only temporal beings need to mate and be male and female. God is eternal and He does not need to procreate like humans, He simply creates from His eternal nature, Jesus already existed, Jesus is God. The suggestion that Mary was raped in anyway is absurd. This verse does not sound like Mary was raped in anyway: Luke 1:38, "I am the Lord’s servant," Mary answered. "May your word to me be fulfilled." Then the angel left her. Con asks, "Does every man sin?" Yes, they do. My opponents attempts to suggest that the verses he citied have contradictions are laughable. First, everyone sins and it is that simple. Secondly, when a Christian ask for repentance of sin they are cleansed, therefore without sin. Those saved are blameless but not sinless. C3) Validly of Jesus Con asserts that any person with sound mind and body would never believe the story of Jesus Christ but I contend that people do that very thing. Con mentions there where no contemporaries in Jesus time but that is a mistake. During the time of Jesus, there were other "holy men" are what are called "Hasidim." A Jewish Hasid was someone who had a close relationship with God and had the ability to call upon God. In comparing these healers with Jesus, we also see some glaring differences. First, Honi had no control over the forces of nature, but resorted to power other then themselves through prayer. Jesus was different because when He did a healing He did not "receive" power; He did it with a simple, powerful word that was His own. http://chab123.wordpress.com... Accounts verify a man named Jesus lived and was recorded correctly in the Bible. What does the claims of Horus or Jupiter offer to discredit that a man named Jesus Christ ever walked the earth? From what I have seen, none. Justine asserted that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the entire divine of logos. My opponent needs to back up his claims here. http://www.britannica.com... " About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease." Antiquities, XVIII, 33 http://www.josephus.org...... "And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, and accusing them of having transgressed the law delivered them up to be stoned." (Jewish Antiquities 20:29) http://www.sacred-texts.com...... :"It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for 40 days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover." http://www.sacred-texts.com...... Con asserts that the Bible contradicts itself but he does not even know the birth place of Jesus Christ which was Bethlehem. Con says that, "Nazareth, the city that never was. The rational mind would have a hard time believing Jesus was born in a town that never existed, now wouldn"t they?" A rational mind would know the story and the birth place and Nazareth has always been a town, before Christ. The city of Nazareth was a small and insignificant agricultural village in the time of Jesus. It had no trade routes, was of little economic importance and was never mentioned in the Old Testament or other ancient texts. http://www.nazareth-israel.com....... Conclusion Con has not offered any substancial evidence against Christianity but mere assertions. I have shown evidence that Jesus Christ is considered by historians as a real person. Con did not show any errors within the Bible itself or the doctrine of Christainity. The Biblical text are considered the most preserved text in known history. I think the resolution is affirmed until Con shows otherwise. I send it back to Con.