Jesus is the Son of God who Died on the Cross

My opponent is taking the path of proving the legitimacy of the Bible by quoting its own passages and holding steadfast that since the Gospels were written relatively close (read: anywhere from 70-200 years after the birth of Christ) to the actual life of Jesus that this in itself provides some kind of proof of his divinity. I would like to make it clear that many of the apostles, if not all, were waiting until the twilight of their lives to record such important information. I do not doubt my opponents claim that a man named Jesus lived some 2000 years ago and quite possibly died by crucifixion. But, in order for my opponent to claim that Jesus is in fact the son of God, he must be able to prove his subsequent resurrection. And the only way he can do so is by putting the validity of the Bible above the laws of nature that we hold as scientific fact today. I find it less than satisfactory that all Pro provides for evidence of something as monumental as the resurrection is a few passages from a manuscript written anywhere between 70-200 years after the actual event took place. To make matters worse, all of his sources are taken directly from the book in which this debate is trying to determine its validity. The Koran is the actual eyewitness testimony of Mohammad speaking to the angel Gabriel [1]. I do not use this statement in and of itself to prove the validity of the Koran, but merely to highlight the fact that as far as eyewitness testimony goes the Koran is one step ahead. Instead of having questions about the origins and writers of the 4 gospels, we have very clear proof that the pieces of the Koran were almost immediately transcribed and by a team of scribes by Mohammad's side. Anticipating my opponents next move, I offer both religions humble beginnings and now world wide acceptance as a moot point, since both religions are comparable to this. I cannot offer a direct counter to my opponents claims of "intentional embarrassment" in the gospels. It was irregular during the time period to be sure, but this is not good enough reason to accept the fact that a man rose from the dead. Resurrection, as it currently stands, is not possible by any modern means. And if it were, too much decay had already taken place in the body of Jesus for it to be viable for resurrection. I ask my opponent why I should believe the testimony of 11 men, who lived in an age where any sort of natural phenomena was met with a fear of God, that a man rose from the dead. Even if we do consider resurrection to be possible, they did not even examine the body of Christ. What they had experienced in the hours after Jesus' supposed resurrection was an apparition of the man, a ghostly image of their savior. So saying that the apostles were eyewitnesses to this event is stretching the truth. All my opponent has to offer for proof is the very pages of the bible which we are debating he validity of. This is not sufficient proof. The burden of disproving scientific law is on my opponents shoulders. Also, determining which holy book contains the true word of God is paramount to this debate. Basically, it isn't possible to determine this without an incredible amount of proof, which is why religion is often referred to as "faith". But as far as evidence goes, the Koran, which was transcribed from the mouth of Mohammad and a team of scholars offers a more solid basis for evidence. This doesn't necessarily mean Mohammad's text is the word of God, but it is much more likely since it was recorded far better and with more precision than any of the four gospels. I thank my opponent and await the next round. [1] http://www.enotes.com...