It is more probably that the historical figure Jesus was in fact God than he was not

1. The uniform testimony of the Gospel indicates their truth. / 2. Fakes would have chosen more prominent people to ascribe authorship to. In explaining what he meant by uniform testimony, Pro writes, "I'm saying the early church claimed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels and there are no competing authors. If you do not believe they are the original 4 writers you must explain that." I've explained at length in the last round reasons to believe that the Evangelists were not the original authors (examples - the authors did not speak the language the Gospels were written in; the disciples were illiterate fishermen; there were reasons to ascribe false authorship to those men; the Gospels indicate that the writers did not know the geography of Judea, etc.). Pro only responded to some of those, and dropped my point about all of the contradictions within the Gospels choosing only to explain why some stories were mentioned twice and others not. 3. In A.D 125 Papias said Mark "made no mistake" and made "no false statement," and in A.D 180 Irenaeus confirmed authorship.Nowhere in Pro's source could I find verification that in 125 AD Papias confirmed authorship. If his link says that and I missed it, my opponent can feel free to copy and paste where that source mentions this into the comment section. Nevertheless, this is irrelevant because Pro dropped my point regarding the fact that Papias heard things that came from unwritten, oral traditions which are very unreliable. Pro also dropped my arguments pertaining to other historians and prominent figures from the time, such as Ignatius, Felix and the Bishop of Corinth who challenged the Gospels, their authorship and why. 4. Jesus claims to be God and says that he forgives sins.I can proclaim to be God; it doesn't make it true. This is not evidence - this is the claim that is trying to be proven. Further, it can be argued that the bible doesn't support Jesus ever claiming that He is in fact God. Mirza has done a debate in which he argues against several bible quotes indicating that Jesus and God are one in the same [8]. Nevertheless, the main point is that Jesus proclaiming this is not evidence at all. 5. It doesn't matter that the gospels were written long after Jesus died.Pro writes, "Tell me why people are so accepting of the reliability of the bibliographies of Alexander the Great when they were written 400 yrs after his death, but when numerous credible people write biographies of Jesus between 30-60 yrs of his death everyone thinks those are written way to far after his death to be reliable?" First, none of that is "evidence." At best it's an analogy, but not a very good one. Alexander the Great never claimed supernatural powers such as rising from the dead and ascending full body into Heaven. I've explained in the last round why a heavy burden falls upon those who claim such spectacular physical impossibilities. Also, we don't know for certain who the authors are, so it's misleading the audience to say that "credible people" spoke of the resurrection - especially since it's been proven that other people falsely spoke of Jesus (the apocryphal writers). Pro has dropped my argument that the Gospels were written around the same time as numerous apocryphal works on Christ. It is reasonable to assume that whatever motivated those writers to compose fictitious works on Christ also motivated the Gospel writers to do likewise. At the very least it proves that we have reason to be skeptical. Ironically, Pro challenges my source yet the source he provided regarding Papias confirming authorship was also from a free hosting site that "anyone with a computer" can make up (mindspring.com). He also challenges my proposed number of variations of the New Testament, as I noted there have been between 30K and 400K reported. If Pro wants scholarly sources for these numbers, they can be found here [9, 10]. 6. Paul, a converted Christian, says that Jesus is God.Pro writes, "The fact Paul says Jesus was resurrected is evidence because he made the creed, as I said earlier, somewhere in between 32-35AD which is a short years after Jesus' death." This does not prove in any way whatsoever that Jesus was God; it only proves that some man named Paul wrote a creed that may have claimed that. It doesn't make the creed true.7. Christianity spread after the crucifixion, so the resurrection is probably true.Pro states, "If the resurrection was a myth, the spread of the myth can be explained but not the origin... So if the resurrection is a myth you must explain who started it because it certainly wasn't any of the disciples. We can be sure of that." 8. Jesus endured a harsh crucifixion and was undoubtedly dead. This doesn't prove the resurrection to be true; all it proves is that Jesus was put to death like other criminals. Pro agrees.9. There are no competing burial stories about what happened to Jesus' body; The disciples sincerely believed the truth of the Resurrection.Pro says he will not waste character space addressing the probability that Jesus' body could have been stolen from the tomb. Fine, but then it must be considered as a possibility in my favor - otherwise I could easily say I don't want to waste character space responding to Pro's points, which I must take seriously no matter how absurd they might seem to me. Pro also says that whether a physical ascension violates what we know about physics is irrelevant if there is enough evidence to believe that Jesus is God, because God is not bound by the natural laws of the universe. However this is fallacious insofar as it relies on circular reasoning. The laws of physics could only be violated by Jesus if He were God, yet Pro is trying to use Jesus being God as an explanation for the violation of the laws. These cannot be used to prove each other. Has Pro given us enough evidence to warrant Jesus being considered God? So far his ONLY evidence are the unity of the Gospels (which I have discredited in questioning both the content and authorship, including but not limited to discrepancies and contradictions among them); prominent historical figures verifying authorship and the claims (which I have discredited in citing other prominent figures who were against the Gospel's content, and noting that Papias' confirmation was unreliable); Jesus claiming to be God (which is irrelevant - people in mental hospitals claim all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them true); Paul saying that Jesus was God (also irrelevant); the spread of Christianity (which does not verify that the claims were true, only spread) and "no competing burial stories." There are in fact other stories, and we have no reason to assume that Jesus could violate the laws of physics. Pro's evidence in suggesting why he could has been circular. All we have from Pro in support of the resolution are based on he said/she said testimony which includes no tangible evidence. The testimony itself can even be questioned based on who allegedly said it and no verifiable proof of authorship of the claims or their motives for doing so. 10. The disciples had no ulterior motives and all agree on what they observed first-hand.Again, I've challenged whether or not the disciples even wrote the Gospels amongst other discrepancies. [8] http://www.debate.org...[9] Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration. Oxford University Press. 2005. p. 71.[10] Bruce M. Metzger. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2001). p. 45.