Jesus is the Son of God who Died on the Cross

I would like a Muslim who doesn't believe Jesus died and doesn't believe Jesus was the Son of God to debate me on the following topic. The New Testament teaches that Jesus is the Son of God (Matt 3:16-17; 16:16; 1Mark 1:9-11; Luke 1;35; John 1:29), and that he was crucified. (Matt 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 19; Acts 26:23; 1 Cor 15:3-8) Muslims don't believe these two Bible teachings, but the New Testament is more reliable than the Quar'an to give us accurate information on weather Jesus died and was the Son of God, or not, for the following reasons: (1) The NT documents that mention his death and Sonship were written closer to the time of the original events regarding Jesus than the Quar'an; Earlier Than 200AD The "Bodmer Papyri" contains a text of the Gospel of John, dated circa 200-225AD. Given that John is accepted by scholars as the last written gospel, it is reasonable to conclude that the other gospels were in circulation by 200AD. Earlier Than 180AD Tatian's "Diatessaron" contains the four gospels before his death in 180AD. Earlier Than 170 AD" The Muratorian fragments (170 AD) mentions Luke as canonical. Earlier Than 150AD Justin Martyr, in his "First Apology" (150AD) quotes and alludes to the Gospel of John Chapter 3 (1 Apol. 61, 4-5). This is consistent with the fact that Justin was Tatian's teacher and surely knew what Tatian knew about the existing gospels. Earlier Than 130AD Papias of Hierapolis mentioned writings by Matthew and Mark when he wrote his five-volume "Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord" around 130AD. This is consistent with the fact that the famous "Ryland's Papyri" contains a fragment of John's gospel dating to the same period of time (130AD). Earlier Than 120AD Polycarp quoted from the gospels and other letters of the New Testament in a letter he wrote to the Philippian Church in 120AD. Earlier Than 110AD Ignatius wrote several letters around 110AD that quote or allude to the Gospel of Matthew. Earlier Than 100AD The "Didache" or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (100AD) also quotes from Matthew's version of the Lord's Prayer in Didache 8:1. Earlier Than 95AD Clement utilized sections from Matthew's gospel in 1 Clement 13:1-2 around 95AD. Earlier Than 70AD None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D. Earlier Than 64AD The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. We add to this the omission of the Jewish war with the Romans that started in 66AD, accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of [the apostle] James (A.D. 61), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)," (McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, Tenn., 1993, p. 80.) Since Luke was written before Acts, it must date earlier that 64AD. (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:14) When Paul wrote to Timothy in 64 AD, he quoted a passage from Luke as Scripture (1 Tim 5:10; Luke 10:7). Earlier Than 55AD Paul wrote to the Romans, the Corinthians and the Galatians, between 48AD and 60AD. In 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 Paul draws on Luke 22:19-20, pushing Luke's account back into the early 50s. I've assembled these pieces of evidence that establish the early dating of the gospels and arranged them from the most recent (200 AD) to most ancient for a reason. As we read down the list of evidences, we come to understand that the first piece of evidence from 200 AD is further validated and supported by the second piece of evidence from 180 AD. Each subsequent piece of evidence then continues to support the prior evidential claims. There is good reason, therefore, to believe that the gospels appeared within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses who claimed to write them. They therefore furnish better evidence for what happened to Jesus than the Quar'an that did not exist until the time of Muhammed around 610 CE, over 600 years after the facts. Unlike the Qur'an which was compiled much more recently, we do not find with the Gospels such an enormous gap of time between that which the New Testament speaks about and when it was written down. (2) The Gospels have eyewitness testimony to Jeus' life. (John 1:14; 21:20-25; 1 Cor 15:3-8; 1 John 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:16-18; Matt 17:1-9; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36). The Quar'an does not. (3) The embarrassment criteria reflects the honesty of the writers. Joseph of Aramethea (Matt 27:57-61; Mark 15:43) is unlikely to be a Christian invention since he was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that was hated by the Jews, and condemned Jesus; women discovering the tomb empty and being the first witnesses of the risen Lord is unlikely to be a Jewish invention because women's testimony was not considered reliable in 1st century Palestine (Matt 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20); the apostles abandoned Jesus, argued among themselves about who was greater, and no Christian would have invented stories on Jesus' limitations while claiming he was God. This shows the disciples were willing to record accurate history, even when it made them, or even Jesus, look bad. My opponent must show us why we should trust the Quar'an over authors of this caliber. (4) The dissimilarity criteria: Jews had no belief in a dying Messiah, so his death is unlikely to be a Jewish invention. (5) Unlike Moses (Exo 4) Jesus (John 7:31), the Apostles, and Paul (Matt 10:1; 1 Cor 2:1-5) Muhammad, came with no supernatural proofs of his divine commission. Time and again his critics complained of this and repeatedly he told them that his work was not that of producing signs but merely to preach, and that his lack of signs was for the purpose of testing their faith. But what is faith without proof? Anyone could claim to be sent of God. Moses, Christ, the apostles and Paul proved it by the performance of many miracles, but where were Muhammad's miracles? He confessed in the Quran to having none. (Suras 2:118; 10:38; 11:13; 6:109, Ali) Plainly it quotes God as saying, "We refrain from sending Signs, only because men of former years treated them as false." (Sura 17:59, Ali) That explicitly does not allow for any signs, so we can't prove Mohammed was sent by God, but Jesus and Bible writers were! Mohammed (1) was not an eyewitness like some Gospel writers, (2) was not a contemporary like other Gospel writers, (3) his Quar'an isn't as close to the time of Jesus as the New Testament, (4) had no miracles to back his claim of being God's prophet. I also showed the honesty of Bible writers from the embarrassment and dissimilarity criteria. I leave it to my opponent to overcome this evidence in favor of the Islamic view that Jesus didn't die, nor was the Son of God.