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

My opponent posts a video to another debate about the same topic. The video is 2 hours long and isn't even used as a source. It is just a substitution for my opponent making his own argument. Since my opponent is using the video as a source, I will use it as well. 1. When I did not confuse oral tradition with oral history. Oral tradition is reliable as evidence for the events that took place during Jesus's time period. Oral history would be the equivalent to interviewing holocaust survivors to learn more about the events. The people of Jesus's time and location have a strong oral rememberance of the past. It is pretty much agreed across the board by New Testament scholars that Jesus lived, died , had an empty tomb and had people see him after his death. Even Erhman in the video agrees on those 4 points. If my opponent wants to discredit my arguments he should do it with sources that disagree with my arguments. Erhman my disagree with the conclusion I present here but the arguments he mostly agrees with. Also I would like to note and it is confirmed in my opponents video source the time gap between the events and Paul's writing to the Corinthians briefly mentioning the event are with-in 5 years of it. Are there some inconsistencies in the accounts of Jesus's death and resurrection? Yes, as would be expected of multiple testimony to the fact. All the important parts of the story agree. It's the insignificant details such as the exact time of Jesus's death that conflict. I can't remember what time I had lunch yesterday. I do know that I had lunch yesterday despite that. Anytime we have recollections of the past and discuss them with friends our facts don't always match our friends facts, but the main part does. It's the main part that is important. 2. Where As I pointed out the location of the gospels are verified because of the traditions only someone living within a few years of Christ's death would have known about. The location is also able to be deduced by the puns in used in the New Testament. My opponent fails to refute my mention of the puns that can only be understood in Aramaic. 3. By whom This has already been covered and if you look at my opponents 2 hour long YouTube clip, you can see that Paul can be verified as the author of Corinthians. My opponent also equates oral tradition with legend or myth. This isn't the same thing These books aren't written as legend. They have a bunch of embarrassing facts that would have been disregarded if it was mere legend. The female witnesses would have been left out, the baptism showing Jesus as inferior to John the Baptist would have been missing. Also irrelevant facts would have been left out. Before Jesus saved the prostitute that was about to be stoned, he drew a line in the sand. This fact was placed in the story for practically no reason. Other facts that a legend or a myth would have included are left in as well. 4. Sitz im Leben These inconsistencies are relatively unimportant things we are talking about people remembering important things and then forgetting the insignificant details, such as the exact time of death. The traditions and other things mentioned help verify the dates and this point hasn't been refuted. Conclusion My opponent has failed to refute my evidence for the death and ressurection of Jesus. He has also dropped several of my points, such as my argument about outside resistance that would keep the disciples honest or how it would be ridiculous for men to die, to protect a fraud. In the video my opponent produced you can see Erhman (my opponents source) agrees with me on these 4 points. 1. Jesus existed 2. Jesus died 3. Jesus's tomb was found to be empty 4. Jesus was seen after his death This is evidence substantiating my claim. Where is my opponents evidence substantiating the opposite claim. Revisiting the Resolution "I am to show that Disbelief in Jesus Christ/God or Atheism is more Substantiated than belief that Jesus Christ is worthy of worship. " This is confusing wording. I touched on semantics in the first round to give my opponent a chance to better explain his resolution. He altered it to what I quoted above and it isn't much better then the original resolution. My opponent even gives the definition to the word substantiate so it would be used properly. Based on the resolution and my opponents definition of the word substantiate here is how the arguments should be judged. Please revisit round 1 and the beginning of my opponents argument in round 2 to verify this. Did my opponent offer more evidence for Atheism then I did for Christianity It may sound unfair that he has to provide more evidence for a negative then I do for a positive, but keep in mind my opponent created that burden of proof for himself. He then reaffirmed that's what he needed to do in round 2. Thank you Sagey for this wonderful debate.