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. :) So just to recap, you acknowledge that you "completely agree" with my first contention (which was the denial by historical agnosticism). You also admit that neither of us can prove our case 100%. Criticism of Bart Ehrman: You began by attacking Dr. Bart Ehrman, who was my primary source for my second contention. While you admit that he rarely makes false claims, you asserted that he rarely gives the whole truth. I'd like to see a source and/or example(s) to back up this claim. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I don't believe your criticism is valid. Date of the Gospels: You refute my claim that the gospels were written 40 years after the resurrection, however, you claim "we can safely place the book of Acts conservatively around 65 AD or within 35 years of the resurrection event." In the same paragraph, you claim that "we can safely place Luke around 62 AD." Now just to clarify, I said the gospels were written "nearly" 40 years after the resurrection. Despite your criticism, we actually agree on the general time the gospels were written. I also made sure to say there were other records documented earlier than 40 years after the resurrection. As an example, I brought up Paul's writings from approximately 20 years after the resurrection. So we both agree that there were documents written nearly 20 years after the resurrection as well. 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. Reliability of Oral Tradition: You claim that "oral tradition is usually accurate within 200 years." That's a very interesting claim and I noticed you didn't provide any sources or examples of it. Essentially, you're claiming that all oral renditions of the gospels that were later documented remained completely unaltered as they were passed along. That's a very bold claim. Writers of the Gospels and Illiterate Disciples: I got this information from the video featuring Dr. Ehrman. He claims that the gospels were originally written in Greek, meaning they were likely written by highly-trained Greek scholars rather than the uneducated disciples. I now agree with you that the gospel itself explicitly states that Paul and John were uneducated rather than specifically illiterate. But that doesn't disprove that they were illiterate. You then claim that most uneducated Jews at the time were fully literate. I have no idea where you got that idea from. According to Christian apologist and professor of chemistry John Oakes, the Jewish literacy rate may have been slightly higher than 1.5% of the entire population around the time of Jesus Christ. That's extremely small! Now neither of us can prove or disprove that the disciples were literate; we can only assume. I argue that its safer to assume that Paul and John - two "uneducated" lower class men - were part of the 98.5% of the Jewish population that wasn't literate. You later claim in the same paragraph, "it says that the leaders were astonished by how much these supposedly uneducated men knew." That's not what it says though. It says that they were astonished by the courage of the uneducated men, not their knowledge. Contradictions in the Bible: This is actually one of my most significant points and you completely glossed over it. These aren't "supposed contradictions", they are genuine discrepancies over the date of the crucifixion, the time of day the crucifixion took place, who carried the cross before the crucifixion, and what the robbers did before the crucifixion among other contradictions. Specifically relating to the resurrection, I brought up and even cited discrepancies over how many women were at Jesus's tomb, the placement of the stone at the tomb, and who the women saw in the tomb when they entered. I think you ought to take a look at these discrepancies and at least address some of them. I understand that we are limited to 8,000 characters, however, you can't just dismiss my argument altogether. Sweating Blood Argument: 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. -- Jewish Literacy Rate - http://evidenceforchristianity.org...