The authors of the four gospels sourced from myths, not directly from eyewitnesses (debate #2)

My point still stands you cannot interpret the mountains of data for the majority view based upon “one off” evidences here or there that are based on fallacies and bad interpretations. Again the Example:I have one Egyptian glyph that appears to be a “light bulb” and claim super advance society and ignore the countless glyphs that showed a Bronze Age existence with Bronze Age tech. Again the layout of what has occurred. My opponent creates a resolution that claims the Gospels are later generational myths and not eye witness accounts. He now contends they could be either written or Oral traditions and the Gospels were written after two generations. He now does not concern himself if they are true or not. (But suggests miracles by default are not true get added to the mundane and serves as evidence to mythological accounts. . )My first positive argument Contention 1:- I prove that these documents did not change over time or “evolve”. These are static documents (I cited Jerome’s early work in 300’s A. D. ) **This is important because if they were from written local documents you would expect to see variations that would be substantial. Considering the massive number of theological ideas after 150 A. D. in key areas of the world you would certainly expect it and yet Jerome found none. - I prove definitively they were early and within the lifetime of the Apostles (See Contention 2)- I prove there was no manuscripts claiming these Gospels were faked, by the “real” Apostles. (I point to Jerome again) ** How this has bearing is the fact that you would expect to see documents “correcting” inaccuracies to these Oral Gospels or written Gospels that existed. Well after the life of the Apostles expired. You would see battles over whose account was accurate. Instead you find only citations from the Early Church fathers in the second and third generations directly to these Gospels. You do not see statements like “it is orally give to us by Mark” and “it is recited from Luke” in all churches. - I show there are ZERO competing theological documents with as early a date as the Gospels and even Acts. (I again cited Jerome’s work on the Vulgate) ** How this applies, if this again was Oral no one undertook to write it down? If they were written why not some false gospels that date as early as the others to seriously confuse Jerome? How long is my opponent stating it now takes to become an oral myth? One year? Ten? 150? The church asserts that the life and accounts of Jesus were shared orally before the Gospels were written. These Oral accounts are recorded however within two generations. He has already stated outside of two generations is this now changing as he is becoming convinced these are early documents? Contention 2 –We have seen five evidences from me that are definitive that these accounts are early.2 are abstract3 are direct evidences(There are a vast number I could cite but I am limited due to character constraints. )Evidence 1 - Luke Being Early – Acts not including the account of Paul’s Martyrdom:Luke would have included the death of the main Character of the book of Act’s and the key historical figure of the book that was a mere few years of later from the conclusion of the book. My opponent is “re-speculating” on what Luke did or did not believe. How does he know Luke genuinely believed what was being told him? My opponent’s statements are rife with speculation. You are telling me with all of the other myths that were handed down but made up by other people, the late author would not include this one where Paul was a martyr? Or Luke could not find one miraculous one to believe since he believed all the other miraculous ones? Still special pleading. Evidence 2 – The fall of Jerusalem not recorded. My opponent drops the fact that the fall of Jerusalem should have been included in a late authorship of Acts but mysteriously was not. The entire world knew of this event. Luke wrote the Gospel with the prophecy and failed to record the fulfillment in Acts? The rest of the Evidence:My opponent appears to concede the following evidences. - the Rylands Papyri that was found in Egypt that contains a fragment of John, and dates to A. D. 130. From this fragment we can conclude that John was completed well before A. D. 130 because, not only did the gospel have to be written, it had to be hand copied and make its way down from Greece to Egypt. My opponent then concedes this to be factual? - Bishop of Antioch, wrote a letter before his martyrdom in Rome in A. D. 115, quoting all the Gospels and other N. T. letters. My opponent then concedes this to be factual? FINALLY something more than speculation from my opponent! His sources have a different opinion than O’Callaghan and Theide but what are scholars for! - Dead Sea Scrolls Cave 7. Jose Callahan discovered a fragment of the Gospel of Mark and dated it to have been written in A. D. 50. He also discovered fragments of Acts and other epistles and dated them to have been written slightly after A. D. 50. My opponent takes issue with the above. To respond:Carsten Thiede supported O’Callaghan’s work with an evidence that this was a clear reference to the first century name for the Sea of Galilee within the text. . https://www.eisenbrauns.com...There are no other competing theories to this document. The other scholars are just uncertain. There are other documents that could be cited to be New Testament in the caves as well. Concerning My opponents Positive argument 1:I have shown that this line of speculative reasoning is false and not good evidence to support the resolution. This is a false dilemma fallacy clear and simple. There are so many other possible solutions that are more likely than the dilemma that is created. My opponent asserts that Jesus and the Gospel writers more than likely only spoke Aramaic. - That is unlikely considering the deep Hellenisation underwent by Antichous Epiphanes and the Selucid Empire in the Jewish country. My opponent also asserts a low chance of education and literacy by Jesus and the Gospel writers. - Though this is also speculative it is irrelevant due to the scribal system in the Roman Empire. Any uneducated bumpkin could write any concept in any language. - We see that Jesus was teaching in the Temple at the age of 12. He received quite the education to achieve this. - The Gospel writers themselves spent 3 years traveling and training under Jesus. That includes Greek areas. - The Gospel writers were well traveled for decades after their calling. My opponent asserts a Greek only problem after laying out the false dilemmas. - This is not a problem considering the vast amounts of Aramaic statements translated into Greek in the Gospels. - Second this “new” interpretation is not proven to be correct. - The traditional interpretation is as follows:The traditional interpretation:- Jesus said you must be “born again”. - Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about a physical second birth. - Jesus was actually talking about being born again through the Spirit not the womb. - No concern for a double entendreConcerning my opponent’s Point 3 - Miracles Summary:My opponent has done nothing to show that miracles get added to texts that are of a later origin. This is just speculation. How could this possibly be known by anyone? It must be assumed that miracles are not true and get added. I reject this assumption and state that all miracles are true even ones recorded in secular documents. Prove me wrong! Neither he nor I can prove or disprove that miracles get added to texts after a certain set time frame. Only a presumption based on naturalism would make this statement a certainty and warrant for evidence. Concerning my opponent’s Point 4 – The Q Document Summary:The Historical and majority view of historians that a direct shared witness can account for ALL of the similarities and BETTER accounts for ALL the dissimilarities.