Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Prophecies FROM the OT. Again Jesus even said to follow the OT's laws. And of course you don't see them killing gays and witches ect.! 1) It still SAYS TO which should be a moral red flag and by not doing so you are directly disobeying your god. And 2) because it's the 21sr century! You think any of them could do it In this society? Of course not! Theyd be thrown in prison! A few century's ago and back further they WERE doing it! It was the actual LAW. The point I was making was if they wouldn't get in trouble, a lot of Christians would be crazy enough to do it just because god said so. WRONG. The gospels were NOT eyewitness accounts. They were published over 6 decades after his supposed death! Also, and I've said this before, there were historians alive during that time and nobody wrote a single word about him or his miracles or the resurrection. NOTHING. Don't you think someone that amazing and influential would have HUNDREDS writing about him? Like "dear diary a man freaking cured blind man Joe today it was amazing!" but no. The only thing bridging that 60 year gap is the letters of Paul. And he only learned from word of mouth and included NOTHING about miracles, the virgin birth, yada yada yada. Just his life and crucifixion. The gospel authors never met Jesus in their lives whoever they were. Also back to your comment "the OT is for Jews". It's the same god, so is can you not actively read and follow the laws of the OT? It even says "this is the word of god and it will stand forever". It is for ALL god believers. Aaaaaand for my argument you have yet to acknowledge:  I watched some stuff on Evan Craig on YouTube including a debate between him and Prof. Erhman (look that up) and he never gave any archeological evidence for anything important or really hard to believe. And in the debate between him and Prof. Erhman, he gives no evidence for anything archeological or otherwise, and doesn't even respond to prof. Erhmans questions. Also he starts with "I believe". Right away that's a red flag. If this guy had any convincing evidence he would use it clearly right away. He does not. This is what has been proven about the bible: a couple people actually existed (Jesus included), the places in the bible existed, and a few minor events POSSIBLY happened. Now if these things are true does that mean the whole bible is true? Of course not! Just cuz Jerusalem exists that means the world was flooded by god? Just cuz a man named Jesus existed he was everything they say he was and performed impossible things? No! There's ZERO evidence for the bulk of it. The only evidence that exists is for the underlying settings or people these fabricated stories were based on. In fact, archeological study shows the world couldn't possibly have flooded due to countless reasons. There were historians living during Jesus's time. If he was so widely known and so important, why is he now noted in any of these historians writings? No miracles, no resurrection, nothing. But all this in depth knowledge of Jesus were supposed to take as truth from some anonymous guy? And even look at the old testament, how could anybody know how god created the universe? Or the story of Adam and eve? Nobody could ever have observed these things! Basically the bulk of what I'm saying is even if you can prove historically that some things happened and some people existed (and so far that's extremely few) that doesn't make the bibles claims about magic sky daddies and miracles true or even reasonable. What most evidence proposes is that a man existed (whether his name is Jesus or not is unknown) and was a teacher of morals who had followers. He was executed by the Romans for this reason. That's it. People have taken this and exaggerated it. For example, a 16th century newspaper showed a story of a farmer who killed a snake in his field. In reality and the story the snake was like 2 ft long max. But the front page photo showed a 8+ft long beast with huge fangs breathing fire. People make stuff up. Human imagination blows things up naturally and invents fake but exciting things. This is likely what happened with Jesus. Seeing as the authors of the gospels never met Jesus in their lives. The gospels were written 6 decades after his supposed death. The authors couldntve possibly known him! And why wait so long to write about him if he's so important? If it were true we'd see tons of texts from historians or average people giving their own accounts on what they witnessed. Instead we have stories from people learning about him by word of mouth decades later. It doesnt add up. This decades gap is only bridged by the letters from Paul that are poorly preserved an roughly translated. Reguardless, Paul, whom more likely met or witnessed Jesus than the gospel authors only talks about his moral teachings and crucifixion. That's it. No miracles, no resurrection. Speaking of moral teachings, the ones included in the bible are not the only gospels that were written. Take for example, the gospel of timothy. In this one as well as the others not included in the bible, they show Jesus as more of a man and teacher than a god and have far less bold statements like the miracles and rising to heaven on a cloud. It is because of this that the catholic church chose not to include them when they made the bible. It is likely that these gospels are more accurate than the bible's. Also, one can look as what the bible has plagiarized from texts before it. Mithra, Dionysus, Horus, 3 of about a dozen god's that share traits with Jesus such as: the birthday of december 25, a virgin mother, children of larger god's, performing miracles such as water to wine, walking on water, and healing the blind, having 12 diciples, being called names like "the truth", "the light", "the savior". These god's share all these things with jesus (not all 3 have all of them but they do have most, Horus does in fact share all traits with Jesus). And they ALL died, and rose on the third day. This is clear plagiarism from religions presaging Christianity. Satan comes from the earliest pagan forms of satanism which many historians believe was one of humanities first real religions. In sanskrit Satan means truth but in Hebrew it means enemy, Hebrew came after Sanskrit, it's not just a coincidental mis translation. It wad clearly altered to fit the religion. Also look at the holidays. Easter, why the eggs and rabbits? They're pagan symbols for fertility. During spring early pagans would celebrate the rebirth of the land after the dead of winter. Death. Rebirth. Sounds familiar doesn't it? And it just happens to be exactly when jesus dies and is reborn. Christmas, clearly the celebration of the winter solstice. Also any word ending in mass- is based in pagan roots. There's tons more things, even stories in the bible that were taken from old religions and slightly altered, I just can't remember em but look it up. It's out there. Here's where I got most of this:Erhman did a good job of arguing it in the 1st part of the videos on the debate between him and Craig. The bible is unreliable in many ways and that being said should not be taken as sufficient evidence of any kind for anything Christianity says. Erhman also said before starting that the audience must keep an open mind during the debate. I suggest you do the same. Open your eyes to the evidence. The scale has been tipped so far to our side by our metric to s of evidence that it's fallen over. All of what I've just said is things I've read in my history of research on the bible and Christianity from sources I do not remember. However search the Internet for it and you'll find it, it's pretty common knowledge.