It is more probable that Jesus was God than that He was not

I still believe that I outlined your logic correctly. You say “the gospels and Paul’s accounts being accurate plus the fact of resurrection would bring us to the conclusion that it is more probable that Jesus was God”. However, the resurrection and other miracles, as factual, rely on the gospels and Paul being accurate. So: gospels & Paul correct -(implies)-> resurrection/miracles. If gospels and Paul are inaccurate, there is no reason to believe that Jesus performed miracles. And it is entirely because Jesus performed miracles that Christians believe they should take his claims of being God seriously. My problem with this is that there is absolutely no logical connection between one’s supernatural powers and his claims about his own divine status being true. To say that as a “baseline” all sources are equally credible is not incorrect at all. This is because all that is directly given to a reader in textual claims are words on a page. Outside evidence, such as cross-referencing and dating, is needed to demonstrate that one is more credible than the other. It’s not an argument, but an introduction. However, while I never meant that my opponent should argue about the non-credibility of each other source, or myself their credibility, it’s a good introduction because it highlights the fact that there are so many conflicting divine claims - and as I argue - no decent evidence to suggest that the gospels/Paul should be taken with any more seriousness than the rest. When I said Jesus made it clear to his disciples that the end was coming you said I provided no scriptural evidence. Matthew 24:29-35: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven....Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” As for not hearing the argument before, I try my best to be innovative. The Illiad was used as an example because I believe it was written similarly to how the New Testament was written. While there is some historical backbone, as Troy was probably invaded by the Greeks, I doubt anyone today will say that Achilles was probably a deity. However, like the New Testament, Ancient Greeks believed it to be a historically and religiously accurate account. The supernatural parts of it must have been developed through years of oral storytelling. Pro maintains that the Gospels were not written like this, saying that they could have been the accounts of Jesus’ original followers transcribed by Greek writers. However, there are certain parts of the Gospels which are extremely awkward in Aramaic, and very difficult to translate to that language or English. But they sound perfectly elegant, and even poetic, in Koine Greek. John 3:3-8, for example, is only comprehensible in Greek because of “ἄνωθεν”, a double entendre of again and from above only present in Greek. When Jesus said, “No one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above” (John 3:3 NRSV), Nicodemus thought Jesus said “…without being born again.” Jesus meant “…born of the Spirit.” This exchange only makes sense in the eyes of a) a well-trained Koine Greek speaker, who b) believed that the spiritual realm was in heaven above (John 3:31). Thus, these kinds of passages (I used the most obvious), could not have been told by Jesus’ original Aramaic speaking followers. Once again, I reiterate that the Gospels were written by liberate Greek writers as doctrine intended to convert people to Christianity. Why else would it be repeated throughout Matthew that Jesus was the Old Testament Messiah, in addition to the test being filled with Old Testament references, than to convert unconvinced Jews? You say “Even if the gospels were solely to convert people, (i'm not claiming they are) that gives no evidence that they are unreliable.” However, because they are used by us as primary sources, the fact that they have a purpose other than giving an objective historical account is a reason not to take them as such. In addition, they give disparate accounts of events that, if meticulously researched as the author of Luke claims, should not be contradictory. For example, did Jesus carry the cross or did Simon carry the cross? Did both robbers mock Jesus during the crucifixion, or was it just one? Were Jesus’ disciples frightened or overjoyed when they saw the supposed reincarnation? It depends which Gospel you choose to believe. Thus, they do not appear to be precisely researched from objective contemporary sources such as eyewitnesses, but more likely based off whichever version of the oral myth the author thought himself most knowledgeable of, or just his favorite. As for the resurrection, it is not necessary for someone to actively try to start rumors for it to be based on legend. Rumors spread and evolve due to the broken-telephone system which is oral storytelling. If one eyewitness said something along the lines of “I swear, I ‘felt’ Jesus personally after his death”, that ambiguous statement can easily evolve into “Jesus’ disciples personally felt Jesus after his death”, and it’s not a long-shot for “felt” to be changed into “saw”. That’s not necessarily the specific way it must have happened, but that’s how rumors work. Even if only one disciple had a hallucination of Jesus and said he saw him, rumors can easily alter that to “all of them saw Jesus” in the course of 3-6 decades. My opponent raised a good point in the first round about hostile eyewitnesses. However, in a vast, largely illiterate area that the rumors would have spread, there is no way an eyewitness could effectively stop them. If someone was inaccurately telling the story of Jesus to a group of people at one corner of Israel, that version is what every person in that group believed. They then tell more people. As the story is propagated exponentially (and likely with greater deviance from the truth each time), how can the relatively few eyewitness mass communicate the true version to everyone? The only realistic way would be through an eyewitness's written account, but there is no evidence this existed. In conclusion, the Gospels, by being sourced disparately from oral legends, and not objectively, should not be taken as accurate historical accounts of Jesus‘ life. I also restate my first objection about the logic of Jesus divine claims being correct. i hope to go evidence from Paul next round.