Jesus is the Son of God who Died on the Cross

Firstly, many scholars do indeed believe that that gospels were written in a time very lose or after 70 A.D. due to recorded historical events contained within them, such as the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem which happened in this time. The gospels are not related to Acts [1]. Secondly, since my opponent is drawing his own rules up as to determine the validity of a source material, so will I. I hold that we must know the authors and source of the material under question in order for it to gain some kind of validity. Right now, we don't know who wrote the gospels, and probably never will [1]. It is true faith alone that we believe these words to be from the mouths of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In addition, I would like the source material from which my opponent finds the logic in using the 5 points he provided to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. In counter to you, the works of Luke may in fact be in part derived from the writings of Josephus, not the other way around [1]. This would cause a huge problem for you since it is widely accepted that Luke writings offered the inspiration for Josephus. "We have more than 3, but 7 Gospel writers testifying to Jesus death and Sonship. What is amazing is that unlike most classical writings of antiquity, the New Testament passes all five and more of the criteria set out above!" ---You also forgot to mention that there are discrepancies between the different gospels, and that some were not included because they did not provide the message that early church leaders were trying to send. This above segment is the perfect way for me to segway into my next point: The bible has been under constant reform and revision since it discovery, and all we know from the gospels have most likely been manipulated by early church leaders. Why does the bible consider some text as truthful and others as apocryphal? You have been very adamant in sticking by your "Principle of Embarrassment". I bring forth the example of Charles Manson to display the fact that despite going past societal norms he was still able to create a group of diehard followers. In this respect, Charles Manson and Jesus are the same. Despite having committed far worse "embarrassments", Manson was still able to manipulate others around him, an they saw him as a prophet. AND-- even though his mission has failed and he has more or less revealed himself to be a sham, his followers still cling to him and vehemently claim heir allegiance. Obviously, your "embarrassment" theory doesn't hold. Now lets imagine that Charles Manson lived 2000 years ago, and all we know of him were the writings of his few followers and their adoring view of him. And they would lie for him too. Think about that: we live in a day in age where people should know more about the world than our ancestors, but despite this we still have people clinging to radical ideas beyond logic. Now consider the apostles and the time period they grew up in. It was a much simpler time, and religion and magic and curses were considered to be powerful forces in everyday life. You still have not even addressed the fact that no one even claimed to see the actual Jesus, all they saw was a ghost of the man. Now, you expect everyone to believe as fact that a man rose from the dead and visited the writers of his gospel in a ghost form? How about we take a step back and consider that if you saw another book, which contained even more evidence, and didn't break any of your rules, you'd be forced to believe in that too. Like the Koran. I'm trying to get the point across that since both the Bible and Koran weave fantastical tales which require a suspension of the laws of physics to believe, and that both provide historical evidence in their own way, that they in effect must cancel other out as valid sources. Since both claim to be the word of God, and since both have conflicting messages, both cannot be the word of God. Let it be known that the resolution states that: Jesus is the Son of God who Died on the Cross. There is no mention of having to disprove the Bible, or prove the Koran, to debate this. I agree that Jesus died, all men do, but we must attach the "Son of God" title for me to concede. My opponent has done little else than invent rules to test validity, and then use the very test under question to support his claims. I have provided outside evidence, flaws in logic, and even took the side of the Holy Koran in order to prove a point. My opponent insists on digging through questionable historical information in order to prove the existence of God instead of realizing that no one should accept anything written on papyrus to be fact. History evolves, just like science. When we find some new evidence for something, we must accept it and force ourselves to look at it in a new way. Bringing in religious beliefs complicates the matter, since those who are devout will no doubt find ways to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that so-and-so existed and that this-and-that happened. As it stands, we must accept a margin of error and reasonable doubt in order to believe in the Resurrection, and that is unacceptable. [1] http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com...