Christianity is the one, true religion

Thanks to Con for that opening.Recall that my overall argument for the resolution was this:1. If Christianity is true, then it is the one true religion.2. Christianity is true.3. Therefore, Christianity is the one true religion.I defended each of these premises, so let's see how Con responded to them.1. If Christianity is true, then it is the one true religion.Here, I argued that since every other religion contradicts Christianity, it follows that if Christianity is true, then it is the only true religion.Con gave two arguments against the first premise.First argumentPro claims that Christianity being true is not enough to show that it is exclusively true and that I must take the further step of showing that other religions (like Judaism and Islam) are false. Con must not have noticed that I already did so by appealing to the law of non-contradiction. Since all other religions contradict Christianity in some way, it follows that if Christianity is true, all other religions must be false.Concerning Islam, one of its essential teachings is that God has no son. But one of the essential teachings of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of God. They cannot both be true. If it's true that Jesus is the son of God, as Christianity teaches, then it follows by the law of non-contradiction that Islam is false.Judaism denies that Jesus is the messiah. Christianity affirms that Jesus is the messiah. They cannot both be true. If Jesus is the messiah, as Christians claim, then Judaism is false by the law of non-contradiction.Second argumentCon claims that the only way to show Christianity is exclusively true is to show that Jesus made such an exclusive claim. But since the gospels are historically unreliable, it cannot be shown that Jesus made any such claim.Con's error is in his premise that the only way to show Christianity to be exclusively true is to show that Jesus said so. I have already shown another way--the law of non-contradiction. By the law of non-contradiction, if Christianity is true, and if every other religion contradicts Christianity, then it follows that every other religion is false and that Christianity is the only true religion. That did not require showing that Jesus made any claims to exclusivity. So Con's second argument is fallacious.So, my first premise has survived Con's critique. He gave two faulty arguments against the first premise, and I refuted both of them. The first premise is unscathed. Now let's look at the second premise.2. Christianity is true.In the last round, I said that for Christianity to be true, seven points must also be true, and for Con to disprove Christianity, he only needed to refute one of them.Unfortunately for Con, he didn't even attempt to refute any of them. He explicitly conceded that God exists and didn't so much as deny any of the other points. So, my second premise remains unrefuted as well.ConclusionSince I have defended both of my premises, and since Con has failed to rebut any of my arguments or show why either premise is false, so far my burden of proof has been met, and Con's has not.Don't get tripped up on my use of "burden of proof" when applied to Con. Yes, it is a stipulation of this debate that I have the burden of proof, which means that I must show that the resolution is true. However, Con has a burden to show that my argument is unsound. When I say Con has a burden of proof, what I mean is that Con has the burden of showing that my arguments are unsound. He doesn't have to show that the resolution is false; only that I haven't proven it to be true. Of course he can show it to be false if he wants to, and that would satisfy his burden.