Atheism (Disbelief) can be Substantiated, Where The Worship of Jesus Christ Cannot.

Thanks Con for accepting the challenge:I will refresh the Objectives for this debate:I am to show that Disbelief in Jesus Christ/God or Atheism is more Substantiated than belief that Jesus Christ is worthy of worship.My points are: If Jesus existed, he is still not worthy of worship unless he can be confirmed as being capable of Saving Souls. If scripture has it that Jesus saved souls and was resurrected and ascended to Heaven to take the role of God, this is still not evidence that he actually did anything, because that scripture needs to have the backing of impartial, eye witnesses that he actually performed such miracles. Only if Jesus can be proven to exist with actual impartial, contemporary, eye-witness testimony to his ability to perform miracles and he was actually resurrected and ascended into Heaven as God, would worship of Jesus be substantiated. Failing any of those above, then worship of Jesus is unsupported by evidence and thus Irrational, since it cannot be substantiated that he is a Messiah, nor that he is God. If the worship of Jesus is unsubstantiated, then it follows that disbelief in Jesus as a Messiah is indeed Correct and thus the position of Atheism is indeed Substantiated and worship of Jesus is definitely Unsubstantiated. The primary questions in most Historians minds are when applying Historical Methodology are:Source: Wikipedia: The Historical Methodhttp://en.wikipedia.org..."1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)? 2. Where was it produced (localization)? 3. By whom was it produced (authorship)? 4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)? 5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)? 6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?"Considering all 6 points of historical evidence for the deeds and divinity of Jesus Christ.1: Where was the evidence produced (Sources are only from Written accounts, no sculptural, pictorial nor archaeological evidence exists for Jesus Christ.Note: There have been no Contemporary Eye Witness accounts to any of the life of Jesus Christ.All accounts arose after his death. His disciples were illiterate Aramaic speaking people.Primary sources: Gospels, Historians estimations on the period that the Gospels were written as between 30 to 100 years after the death of Jesus Christ.Secondary Source for Jesus Christ's life comes from the writings of Saul of Tarsus.Saul's writings appeared around 20 years after the Death of Jesus.External to the Bible accounts of Jesus:Josephus Flavius: Accounts 50 to 60 years after the death of Jesus.Cornelius Tacitus: 70 to 100 years after the death of JesusGaius Suetonius Tranquillas 110 years after the death of Jesus.There are others, but in all cases, they are from hearsay, possible legendary evidence and thus irrelevant to proving anything concrete or Substantiated about Jesus Christ.They are only evidence of The Legend Of Jesus.2: Where was this evidence produced: In all cases, this is actually unknown. Nobody can pinpoint a location for the original writings for the New Testament.3: By Whom was it Authored: Gospels: Authors are completely unknown, they were not the Disciples whose names they stole for possibly devious reasons, they were written in Greek, which not one of the disciples could read, write nor probably speak. So The Bible Accounts of Jesus Fail The Test For Authentic, Contemporary Authorship. The Gospels are thus Unsubstantiated as Evidence For Jesus.Writings attributed to Saul: Handwriting experts believe that 3 of the writings attributed may have been Sauls as they appear to have been created by the same person, the rest are dubious at best.Writings of Josephus Flavius: From a study into the original documents, it appears that there has been some alterations (interpolations) made by devout Christians afterwards, likely to try and create more evidence for Jesus.Other writings: Authorship appears to be correct, though being so long after the life of Jesus, they can be discounted as illegitimate as confirming evidence for any of the Divinity of Jesus Christ.4: From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)? No pre-existing legitimate material can be located. The Bible Fails Such Analysis When Referring To The Life Of Jesus Christ. Some historians cite a document called simply 'Q' as the source for the Gospel of Matthew, but it cannot be located and it's existence is unsubstantiated as being the source.5: In What Original Form Was It Produced: (Integrity) Original Form was purely oral tradition: The most unreliable form of information transmission: No Integrity Exists In 30 years of Oral Transmission:The Gospels which bear the Apostles names were written in a language foreign to the Apostles, in Greek, where >> Thus The Gospels Offer Absolutely No Historical Integrity:6: What is the evidential value of the accounts of Jesus Christ. (Credibility)All Wrintings Concerning Jesus Christ are From Hearsay Accounts, passed on by Oral (extremely unreliable) Transmission over a very long period of time, thus not one account of the Life of Jesus Christ has any Credibility.Summing up the case for the Historical Jesus using The 6 Point Historical Method:Evidence for Jesus Christ FAILS in all Six Historical Points:Okay it appears from historical evidence that Jesus is a dubious character, he possibly lived, but maybe not, his existence cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt by evidence.But, existing does not make him worthy of being worshiped.To Be Worthy Of Worship, He Must Not Only Have Existed, But Be Proven As Divine.Well, It Reads Like This: If Jesus was really Resurrected, he is the Messiah/God and thus divine and worthy of worship. If Jesus was not Resurrected, then he was just another False Prophet and not worthy of any worship.Though Fact Is, There Is No Verifiable Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ. I will draw the attention of Con to this fact: No Resurrection, No Justification nor Substantiation in the worship of Jesus Christ. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://webzoom.freewebs.com...http://rationalwiki.org...http://ehrmanblog.org...Here is one of the world's leading NT scholars, Bart Ehrman, stating why Historians do not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.As Bart Ehrman states in the lecture: When a Historian considers any evidence for the past concerning any events, they must consider only the Most Probable Natural (simplest) Conclusion, where in all cases, Unnatural Events Like Miracles Are The Least Probable (most complex) Conclusions, thus when considering all evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, any good, honest Historian, must conclude that it did not happen, Jesus Was Not Resurrected, Thus Jesus Is Not Worthy Of Worship and Such Worship Of Jesus Christ As Divine, Is Unsubstantiated.Making Atheism the Far More Substantiated Position!Over to You Con: