It is more probably that the historical figure Jesus was in fact God than he was not

1. I explained how the language problem could be simply solved (see previous round). I went back and read all of your previous round and could not find a reason why early Christians would have a reason to attribute authorship to Mark and Luke, who weren't even in the 12 disciples. Also, Matthew was but "as a former tax collector, he would have been the most infamous character next to Judas Iscariot." I could see why the apocryphal gospels, which were written close to 100 years after, would have been attributed to people like Judas and Mary. That's because those names hold weight. However that makes the case even stronger that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the original writers. I answered you question about the "non-existent" OT texts. I thought the solution was easy enough. Matt 2:5-6 is in reference to Micah 5:2, I do not see what you're pointing out there. In Matt 27:3-10 it is not invented, there is a problem with it though. Matthew attributed the quote to Jeremiah when it is found in Zachariah. There, I just made your argument for you (: There are 3 thoughts on this subject. 1.Some think it could be a copyist error. Perhaps Matthew wrote Zechariah, but an early copyist mistakenly put Jeremiah instead, and this rare mistake was repeated in subsequent copies. 2.Some think that Jeremiah spoke this prophecy and Zechariah recorded it. This may be the word spoken by Jeremiah, but recorded by Zechariah. 3.Some think that Matthew refers to scroll of Jeremiah, which included the book of Zechariah. There, I believe I covered all the scripture you mentioned and if I didn't please tell me the exact passage and I will be sure to do that in the next round. When you say there are contradictions surrounding Jesus' life you need to be specific so that I can clarify them for you. Simply saying there are contradiction at "the last supper" is not specific enough. You said you could not find where Papias confirmed authorship so I will paste it here: And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them. You can read it in the Greek which is provided right next to it if you would like. That was his confirmation of Mark, He goes on do the rest. Also Papias would have gotten his information from Hierapolis who listened to Polycarp, who had heard John the Baptist speak himself. That's one of the most reliable sources you will ever find in literature written around the date. I'm not arguing that people have not always challenged the Gospels. People have always and will always deny the incarnation and crucifixion. Does not hurt any of my cases that the gospels are reliable. You are right when you say that just because Jesus claims to be God does not make true. I just point it out for the fact some people will say Jesus never even claimed to be God. Muslims will often claim this and others. None of my points, by themselves prove Jesus is God. They all work together to show that it is more probable that Jesus is God than he is not. The Alexander biographies comparison to the biographies of Jesus was to compare time tables of how long true statements tend to last. It is not misleading in the least bit to say that credible people spoke of the resurrection. I know people spoke falsely of Jesus in the apocryphal gospels. Are you trying to make the connection that since some people lie about Jesus, that makes them all liars? I would not make that connection. The fact that the apocryphal writers lied about Jesus has no impact on the reliability of the actual gospels. Yes mindspring is a a free hosting site but then the Greek is right there. If you think that is not the original text just let me know. Again, Paul, claiming Jesus was crucified and resurrected does not make it true by itself. But it does add to the evidence. You claimed that it was "some man named Paul" well you are correct but this guy named Paul also wrote several other letters that have all been found historically accurate. It wasn't some random guy. I like how you quoted me but took out the part where I explained it. Thanks for that haha. I said the disciples did not believe in a Messiah who would suffer much less die. Think about what they did after Jesus died. They hid because they were scared they were going to be killed. And then all of a sudden we see them going out and boldly preaching the Gospel. What caused the change? I would say the resurrection. What would you say? Jesus death was not like a lot of other criminals. Crucifixion was one of the most horrendous deaths someone could die at that time. Jesus dying does not make him God but it is certainly a piece to the belief. Jesus being God is my explanation for the violations of physical laws. That seems to be the most logical in my opinion. What would be yours? Thank you for your time and again if I have not responded in an appropriate manner to any of your arguments just let me know please and I will clarify.