I believe God exists, So the story of the Christ is un-necessary

Thank You. I want to bring it to the audiences attention that my opponent started out by saying she will defend a figure LIKE Christ as being on equal terms in power and status as God. As well as the Biblical Christ. In round two my opponent presented arguments from a Buddhist point of view and in also an ancient Egyptian point of view and also Jodie Foster in the film contact, as examples of those who are not Christians but have the ability to link and communicate with God. I will now point out that above in round 3 my opponent claims that using other religions as references are not prohibited although he himself was the first to cite such references outside of Christianity. I will ask the audience here to make a special not of how my opponent wishes to cite sources outside of Christianity to further strengthen her arguments, but when I do so he claims it is irrelevant to the Christian God. I will also like to point out that I do not argue a for or against the Christian God. I make no reference to God as being confined by he narrative of Christianity or any such religion, all I offer is examples of equally established authoritative religions that contradict each other. For example my opponent claims God makes no sacrifice himself for humanity, until the arrival of Jesus, According to Christianity. Although we can accept Christianity as one authority source, there are other religions who can claim equal authority, and can conclude quite the contrary, as I have shown above in my round two, by quoting the Gita. God indeed is himself the ultimate sacrifice. I see no reason why the Christian narrative of God should be used as the only authoritative source, and I make no special reference to the Christian God as being the one true God, therefore I can simply ignore the arguments presented by my opponent as bias to only one version of God I gave my definition of God in round one as the creator of the cosmos, and a highly intelligent being, also in my round three I said God must carry certain attributes to be qualified for the title God, such as being supreme. This establishes Gods position in this argument, God is God full stop, If somebody is higher in rank than God, then God o longer qualifies to be God, as there is somebody else who is now superior to God, that would make that somebody the highest in rank, and would qualify them for the title as God. time I mentioned that this is in the very least how we must define God. Now we have established by logic that God must necessarily be the highest in rank or the supreme being, we now have to workout how A man called Jesus is to elevated to being on an equal level to God in power rank and authority. Just because my opponent states a Biblical scripture in which Jesus himself declares himself as being given ultimate authority, is not enough to convince me that just because it is written in the bible it is true He states. Matthew 28:18-20 "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Even C.S Lewis, Claims Jesus is either a liar a lunatic or Lord. If you ask me, I do not believe Jesus, but I could be wrong, but one thing I do know is that the answer to C.S Lewis claim, is that the answer ultimately rests on faith. A faith believing in what Jesus said was true. I don't believe it. I see no reason why Jesus has to adopt the highest ranking authority as being God. Assuming this is true for a minute Notice how Jesus says Matthew 28:18-20 "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. So even according to this scripture, authority was given to Jesus by a higher authority, meaning Jesus was never God but was made superior to God, by gaining ultimate authority. I consider Jesus as an impostor, the definition of an impostor is somebody who assumes the identity of another. Jesus elevates himself to having the ultimate authority of God, this is blasphemy in the highest sense. Also Nirvana is a Buddhist state of mind, it is the ultimate goal, it is not a reference to God, at all. indeed Buddhist do not concern themselves with God.