You choose the topic!

"Thanks to my opponent for their argument. I did see in the comments section where you acknowledged that you violated the structure of this debate. Don't worry about it, though. :)" Thank you for your understanding! Criticism of Bart Ehrman. The main reason I question the honesty of Ehrman is that his scholarly writings seem to come to a different conclusion than his popular works. To the general public, he makes it sound as if we don't know that the gospels really said or who the authors really are, but when he writes to those who know better, he is more honest. Sources: http://crossexamined.org... "I said the gospels were written "nearly" 40 years after the resurrection" I was under the impression that you believed the earliest gospel was written at this point, while I argue that the latest gospel was written at this point. I am happy to see that you agree with the general timeline. I acknowledge your mention of the earlier works of Paul. "The issue I brought up is that there are no eyewitness accounts of the resurrection that were recorded at the exact time of the resurrection." So it seems the issue you have is why would the writers wait so long? The answer is the authors of the gospels started writing down their accounts when some of the disciples were being killed. Historians have argued that the writers worried that if they died, the information would be lost. This is the most plausible reason for the wait. Also we don't need the writers to write down the information originally for the information to be reliable. Reliability of Oral Tradition: I think something needs to be stated before I address this. The gospels are not cases of oral tradition; they are cases of memory. If the Gospel writers truly are eyewitnesses or interviewers of eyewitnesses, the only element of doubt is the memory of the witness. This is not an example of the telephone game where 20 people pass the information on. It seems difficult to imagine an eyewitness forgetting something and filling in the idea that Jesus rose from the dead. Such a powerful event would certainly be beyond forgetting. As for the reliability of oral tradition, here is my source: http://reknew.org... Writers of the Gospels and Illiterate Disciples: Firstly, the dialect of Greek was Koine Greek. This was known as the common dialect of Greek, making it more likely that uneducated men would understand it. While you may be correct that most Jews at the time could not read Greek, I still submit that many could. In fact, John's father was certainly no illiterate peasant, as he owned a fishing fleet and had several employees. It is likely that he was literate and taught his son. Matthew was a tax collector, so he certainly knew how to read because of his job. Peter's home was excavated in 2011 and reveals that he was no peasant. While he was not formally educated, it is easy to believe he was literate. This combined with the evidence that they wrote their names on the gospels, and none of our manuscripts contradict these title, the most reasonable belief is that they actually did write the New Testament. http://www.apologeticsguy.com... "You brought up how it is recorded that Jesus was sweating blood like inmates on death row prior to his crucifixion. You then claim that this could only have been documented by an eyewitness, as its inclusion in the Bible has allegedly been ridiculed. There's nothing disproving the possibility that this detail could have been passed down orally from an eyewitness. In fact, that's how the gospels were spread and shared before they were documented by presumably highly skilled Greek scholars." I disagree with you that this is actually what happened, but I would actually be okay with conceding this. You just provided me with everything I need to establish that Jesus really rose from the dead. If the gospel accounts really include information from eyewitnesses (even if it was simply passed on from them), and the information is reliable enough to believe that Jesus sweat blood, it is also reliable enough to demonstrate this fact: the disciples claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. If the disciples really did claim that they saw Jesus, we have three options. 1) They were lying. 2) They were wrong 3) Jesus really rose from death. Did they lie? The first reason we know that they could not have lied is that they include embarrassing information. If they were making up a story, they would not portray themselves as unintelligent, unfaithful, followers of Jesus. They would not have made women the ones who first saw the tomb, and they would not have made up the fact that Jesus sweat blood. Secondly, they never could have had a successful conspiracy. According to detective J Warner Wallace, there are several things that make conspiracies successful: limited participants, limited pressure, tight connections, and easy communication. Based on these criteria, the disciples never could have made up a story like the resurrection of Jesus. There were 12 apostles and many other disciples who attested to seeing Jesus alive from the dead. That is way too many. Most successful conspiracies involve 2 or 3 people. Also, the disciples had enormous pressure to stop. Many were starved, imprisoned, stoned, whipped, beaten, and crucified, and none recanted what they claimed to have seen. That is a lot to go through for a lie. Thirdly, the disciples had no tight connections. Only a few of them were related, and none of them knew eachother long enough too keep a conspiracy like that silent. Lastly, the disciples were spread out and had no good form of communication. Peter had no way of communicating with Paul at times to make sure they got their story straight. Any idea that they lied is simply unreasonable. The reasons above and many more are what have led the majority of historians and New Testament scholars to believe that the disciples had actual experiences of Jesus alive from the dead. While they are quick to say, that doesn't mean they actually saw Him, this fact is telling. This is one of the minimal facts that nearly all scholars accept: https://ses.edu... Were they mistaken? I don't think you would make the claim that Jesus never really died, so I won't provide evidence now. If you question it, I will then provide such reasons. How could the disciples think that they saw Jesus when they really did not? One example is that they had hallucinations. This, however, is simply not reasonable. The fatal problem for this is hallucinations only affect individuals, just like dreams. If you and I each have a dream, it is practically impossible that we will each have the same exact dream with all of the same characters. If one wants to assume hallucinations, one must assume that multiple people happened to hallucinate the exact same thing at different times and locations. Such would be a greater miracle than the resurrection itself. Conclusion: Since the disciples believed what they saw, and they were not mistaken, the most reasonable explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead. This relies upon the fact that the gospels are reliable enough to tell us what the disciples said and did. Such a fact, is well within the range of modern scholarship, so the conclusion that I draw is also well within such range. Contradictions: The timing contradiction is solved if you realize that the Jews had a different form of time than the Romans. Mark wrote to the Jews, while John wrote to the gentiles. The rest of your "contradictions" rely upon a particular fallacy. You assume that if one account leaves out a detail that the other mentions, there is a contradiction, which is simply false. Realizing this solves the rest of the supposed contradictions.