The New Testament is not a reliable historical document

I apologize for my delayed response; my opponent has burdened me with strong arguments that have required a thorough investigation. Now, onto the debate.I. The Gospels1. The NativityA.) The GenealogiesMy opponent introduces an interesting argument. As it would seem, both genealogies (Matthew & Luke) contradict each other. There is only one explanation for such a controversy; the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are two separate genealogies. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. [1]B.) The Date of Jesus' birthThe issue regarding the Census Quirinius in Luke is quite a controversial topic in mainstream theology. Allow me too address this contention with some possible reasons. Firstly, as stated by historian A. N. Sherwin White, The censuses were taken in different provinces over a period of time. However, Caesar Augustus was the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. Luke uses the present tense to indicate that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly throughout the empire rather than only one time.Secondly, papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt, for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number of years, and substantiates Luke’s reference to Augustus’ census, but it seems to work against the Lucan account in terms of the year when Jesus was born. Why? Because the 14-year intervals do not intersect with the year of Jesus’ birth in 4 B.C.The mentioning of the census in Luke 2:1 is the only historical reference of this census from antiquity, yet it rests on a plausible reconstruction of events. Edwin Yamauchi comments, "…this is a case where we do have something recorded in the New Testament which is not directly correlated by extra-biblical evidence. This doesn’t mean that it did not happen, however, because there are many things that occur only in a given text without corroborative evidence of other texts or inscriptions." But what about Luke’s reference, "this was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria?" When Luke says this was the "first" census that took place under Quirinius, the Greek word prote, usually translated "first," according to some Greek scholars can also be translated "prior." If that is Luke’s meaning, then, he would be referring to a census taken prior to the one taken when Quirinius was governor in 6 A.D. Is it possible that a prior census was taken, or even taken by Quirinius himself? Well, historians know that Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria between 12 B.C. to 2 B.C. He was responsible for reducing the number of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia. As such, he was a highly placed military figure in the Near East and highly trusted by Emperor Caesar Augustus. Augustus, knowing of the turmoil in Herod the Great’s territory, may well have put his trusted friend Quirinius in charge of a census enrollment in the region of Syria just before the end of Herod’s life. The time period from 7 to 6 B.C. also coincides with the transition period between the rule of the two legates of Syria: Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C. and Varus from 7 to 4 B.C. The transition of power between these two men took place between 7 to 6 B.C., and Augustus again may have appointed his friend Quirinius to step in and conduct a census taxation when he could not trust anyone else. [2] [4]C.) The Slaughter of InfantsHistorian, Robert Eisenman argues that the story may have its origins in Herod's murder of his own sons, an act which made a deep impression at the time and was recorded by Josephus as well as in the 1st century Jewish apocryphal work, the Assumption of Moses, where it is cast as a prophecy: An insolent king will succeed [the Hasmonean priests]… he will slay all the young. [3][4] Other arguments against historicity include the silence of Josephus (who does record several other examples of Herod’s willingness to commit such acts to protect his power, noting that he "never stopped avenging and punishing every day those who had chosen to be of the party of his enemies") [5] and the views that the story is an apologetic device or a constructed fulfilment of prophesy.[6] [7]"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." Hos. 11:1 (NIV)My opponent's reference to this verse is irrelevant. Regardless of who God is referring to in this specific instance; Jesus descends from the line of David, then from the line of Abraham whom was father of the Israelites. [8]II. New Testament ForgeriesMost, if not all attempts to denounce the New Testiment as forgery are usually based merely off of the differing styles of writing; as my opponent has done. My opponent brings to rise Dr. Bart Ehrman, a leading controversial, liberalist thinker whom attacks the New Testiment by means of "exposing" lies within. Ehrman goes on to assert that many New Testament books that do claim authorship within the text, such as Ephesians, Colossians, and the letters of Peter and James, are not written by the claimed authors. It should be noted that this is not based on manuscript evidence. It’s based largely on the style of the text, and there are many conservative scholars who are not convinced by these arguments. Thus, Ehrman is stating liberal opinion as fact. [9] Ehrman writes with little regards for a just and balanced examination of the apostolic writings. Instead, he degrades the writer of 1 Timothy and rephrases his words. Ehrman does not appear to care about the writer’s reasoning, but rather to slant the writer’s words about the birthright of men and rephrase them as being against the equal value of women. Ehrman libels using the stigma of degrading women saying, “Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant.” Yet, the writer of 1 Timothy instructs women to be modestly dressed as women of godliness and to be of good works being in peace (with all submission). The Greek word behind peace is often mistranslated “silence”. Yet, Paul used the same Greek word telling the men and all to “lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” (1 Tim. 2:2). Was Paul telling everyone to shut up and not say a word for the rest of their lives? No, but Ehrman’s paraphrase implies such as he directs this toward with bias. Ehrman has a contradiction of interest with the virtue of submission being essential to primitive Christianity. The writer of 1 Timothy never says that women must be pregnant. Either Ehrman’s dishonesty or his prejudice is shown here. For the Apostle Paul wrote that Eve was saved by childbearing as the antecedent of “she” is Eve in 1 Timothy 2:15. [10]Onto Pro.[1] http://www.gotquestions.org...[2] http://www.ankerberg.com...[3] Assumption of Moses 6:2–6[4] Robert Eisenman, James The Brother of Jesus, 1997, I.3 "Romans, Herodians and Jewish sects," p.49; see also E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1993, p.87-88[5] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XV [6] Paul L. Maier, "Herod and the Infants of Bethlehem", in Chronos, Kairos, Christos II, Mercer University Press (1998), p.172-175[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...[9] http://www.christianpost.com...[10] godsbreath.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/who-wrote-ehrman/