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

It is important to first outline Pro’s logic in reaching the conclusion, that it is more probable that Jesus was God than not (or the Son of God, as I don’t want to be semantic). 1. The Gospels are accurate accounts of the life of Jesus.2. According to the Gospels, Jesus demonstrates supernatural powers.3. Thus, Jesus‘ claims of divinity are credible.While there is a logical gap between the 2nd and 3rd point - the leap from “Jesus really did perform miracles” to “Jesus‘ claim to be the Son of God is valid” which my opponent must connect - I object mostly to the first point, which I believe will take up the bulk of this debate. The claim of supernatural powers as a demonstration of one’s relation to God or divinity is nothing new. In what is regarded as the oldest piece of literature, The Epic of Gilgamesh’s Utnapishtim is given the power of eternal life and therefore becomes a deity - a sort of halfway god. The text is fundamental in our understanding of Early Sumerian religion. Similar to the New Testament, the virgin birth of Romulus of Rome by a Vestal Virgin serves as the Ceasar family’s justification of divine lineage. Her story is found in a number of Roman texts including Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita. There have also been numerous claims of resurrection. For example, upon the death of Osiris, Isis erects a golden phallus and sings a song in his name, which causes him to come back to life. Because of this miracle, he becomes a a god. While most would find these claims fallacious, and deem them myth, the miracles of Jesus are seen by many as facts.The list of similar claims can fill pages. However, virtually all Christians believe Jesus was the only Son of God. Additionally, because Jesus’ supernatural powers are used as justification of his religious insight being correct, they must also reject claims of supernatural powers by individuals whose beliefs conflict with Christianity. As this is a debate about probability, the sheer number of others who have claimed to be God/ the Son of God in addition to those cited as having supernatural powers together with beliefs incompatible with Christianity make Pro’s position statistically impossible. Pro, though, will undoubtably respond by saying that the sources of the claims must be taken into account. This is true. As a baseline, though, all the sources are equally credible. In order for his position to become statisticlally possible, he must prove that the accounts he uses as evidence (the Gospels) are more credible than the other texts, including the ones mentioned above, which conflict with Christianity. Next, my opponent must demonstrate that events in the Gospels attributed to Jesus, and are generally accepted, were in fact supernatural. For example, most historians agree on the basic timeline of Jesus crucifixion, and what happened afterwards. However, no historian can say an act was certainly supernatural, for that would mean disproving every single natural possibility. Miracles are by definition very rare, so my opponent must show that the natural explanation of this event is very unlikely. Conversely, I will be arguing that the Gospels are not a reliable source of historical information, and secondarily, that the resurrection described by the Gospels (as it is the miracle Pro puts most emphasis on) has plausible non-supernatural alternative explanations. Keep in mind this is only my opening statement, I will go further into detail about the following arguments in later rounds. When evaluating historical claims and determining the source's (Gospels') reliability, we must ask ourselves about the degree of separation between the actual events and the writers of the source. There is absolutely no debate about whether the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses; it is highly unlikely that they were even written by the poor Aramaic-speaking direct followers of Jesus. Instead, evidence points to the texts being written by highly trained Greek-speaking writers.For example, The Gospel According to Luke has been called by a number of scholars the most elegant, sophisticated use of post-Classic Greek language, making it clear that the writer was well-trained and extremely competent(2). Furthermore, the Gospels were written between 35-65 years after the death of Jesus.Why did it take so long to write the Gospels? Jesus made it clear to his disciples that the end of the world would come before their deaths, or the deaths of their contemporaries. In other words, before the 3rd generation. There was no point in writing a textual account considering that the end of times was fast approaching. Also, considering the fact that there was a high number of illiterate peasants in the region, there were more efficient ways to spread the faith. Specifically, through oral story telling, in the same way that many faiths form their tradition. A great example of this is The Illiad. There is a 3-4 century gap between the the events of The Illiad and their documentation by Homer, and before the writing of the story the events were circulated orally. While we may understand The Illiad as having a backbone of history, but wrapped in many layers of myth, a closer examination of Ancient Greek opinion is due. Herodotus, considered the “Father of History” said about the epics: “It was Homer and Hesiod who composed a divine genealogy for the Greeks, and who gave the gods their titles, allocated to them their powers and fields of expertise, and made clear their forms.” Not only did the Greeks view The Iliad as a historical account, but also the foundation of their religion.The same can be said of the Gospels. It is clear that the authors relied on oral tradition in which details have been added, altered, or removed throughout a number of decades. Because of the discrepancies between the four gospels - ranging from minor to significant - it can not be said that the authors meticulously gathered information from numerous eyewitnesses as historians - such as Herodotus - attempt to do. To summarize, the seeming historical inaccuracy of the gospels stemming from their disparate accounts of even simple events points to the use of myth-like oral story telling as the authors‘ background research. Thus, they are historically unreliable. Even worse for Pro’s case, that the gospels are historically accurate, is that the authors are far from impartial. More than just impartial, the texts were written for the sole purpose of convincing non-believers that Jesus was divine. There is also evidence that each of the four were tailored to convert certain groups of people. For example, Matthew goes to great lengths to reinforce the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in what seems to be a conversion effort directed at Jews still unconvinced that Jesus was the Messiah. Luke was an attempt to convert upper class Greeks and Romans as a) the extremely high quality writing would resonate with them, and b) it is addressed to Theophilus (a common high-class name and an honorary title among the educated at the time), and explicitly states that its purpose is to convince him of the divinity of Jesus(3). After reading this opening, further reading is not needed to presume one is in for a miracle-packed 24 chapters. The Gospels, as sources of supernatural claims, were created for the purpose of convincing people that Jesus was probably God. The authors wrote doctrine, thus their works -being primary sources - should not be cited as accurate accounts of the life of Jesus. I seem to be running out of space, so I’ll leave the miracle of the resurrection for my next post. I’ll briefly say my greatest objection to my opponent’s argument: point 4. You cannot compare the Gospels to Plutarch because while the former is the primary source we have about the life of Jesus, Plutarch would have used an extensive line of earlier sources, some written by contemporaries of Alexander(4). I hope to address 9, 10, and issue of hostile eyewitnesses next round.