Ok, since you're much smarter and better debater than me, why don't you tell me how is your argument any different instead of doing meta and ad homs?

Here, I'll interpret my argument for you so you can see it's not a strawman: My critique was that having no contemporary records of something in history doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. Are you aware most historical accounts are written many years after the subject they record? If that were the criteria, most of history's events and figures would be questionable. But people like yourself obviously don't extend that level of skepticism in every case but save it mostly for Jesus Christ. This is a double standard. Your argument is fallacious, sir.

Also, do we have to mention we have roman historians like Josephus and Tacitus who wrote a few decades after Christ and attest to his existence? I'm sure you know about this but since it was 30 years later I guess he couldn't have known a guy like this existed during Pontius Pilate and Herod's rule, that he claimed he was king of the jews and was crucified. Some passages of Paul's epistles like 1 Corinthians 15 are dated to be written in the 30's so within years of Christ's Resurrection. There's a reason why all serious historians (many of which aren't at all Christian btw) accept Jesus' existence.

Ok, since you're much smarter and better debater than me, why don't you tell me how is your argument any different instead of doing meta and ad homs?

Here, I'll interpret my argument for you so you can see it's not a strawman: My critique was that having no contemporary records of something in history doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. Are you aware most historical accounts are written many years after the subject they record? If that were the criteria, most of history's events and figures would be questionable. But people like yourself obviously don't extend that level of skepticism in every case but save it mostly for Jesus Christ. This is a double standard. Your argument is fallacious, sir.

Also, do we have to mention we have roman historians like Josephus who wrote a few decades after Christ and attest to his existence? I'm sure you know about this but since it was 30 years later I guess he couldn't have known a guy like this existed during Pontius Pilate and Herod's rule, that he claimed he was king of the jews and was crucified. Some passages of Paul's epistles like 1 Corinthians 15 are dated to be written in the 30's so within years of Christ's Resurrection. There's a reason why all serious historians (many of which aren't at all Christian btw) accept Jesus' existence.

Ok, since you're much smarter and better debater than me, why don't you tell me how is your argument any different instead of doing meta and ad homs?

Here, I'll interpret my argument for you so you can see it's not a strawman: My critique was that having no contemporary records of something in history doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. Are you aware most historical accounts are written many years after the subject they record? If that were the criteria, most of history's events and figures would be questionable. But people like yourself obviously don't extend that level of skepticism in every case but save it mostly for Jesus Christ. This is a double standard. Your argument is fallacious, sir.

Also, do we have to mention we have roman historians like Josephus who wrote a few decades after Christ and attest to his existence? I'm sure you know about this but since it was 30 years later I guess he couldn't have known a guy like this existed during Pontius Pilate and Herod's rule, that he claimed he was king of the jews and was crucified. There's a reason why all serious historians (many of which aren't at all Christian btw) accept Jesus' existence.

Ok, since you're much smarter and better debater than me, why don't you tell me how is your argument any different instead of doing meta and ad homs?

Here, I'll interpret my argument for you so you can see it's not a strawman: My critique was that having no contemporary records of something in history doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. If that were the criteria, most of history's events and figures would be questionable. But people like yourself obviously don't extend that level of skepticism in every case but save it mostly for Jesus Christ. This is a double standard. Your argument is fallacious, sir.

Also, do we have to mention we have roman historians like Josephus who wrote a few decades after Christ and attest to his existence? I'm sure you know about this but since it was 30 years later I guess he couldn't have known a guy like this existed during Pontius Pilate and Herod's rule, that he claimed he was king of the jews and was crucified. There's a reason why all serious historians (many of which aren't at all Christian btw) accept Jesus' existence.

Ok, since you're much smarter and better debater than me, why don't you tell me how is your argument any different instead of doing meta and ad homs?

Here, I'll interpret my argument for you so you can see it's not a strawman: My critique was that having no contemporary records of something in history doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. If that were the criteria, most of history's events and figures would be questionable. But people like yourself obviously don't extend that level of skepticism in every case but save it mostly for Jesus Christ. This is a double standard. Your argument is fallacious, sir.

Also, do we have to mention we have roman historians like Josephus who wrote a few decades after Christ and attest to his existence? I'm sure you know about this but since it was 30 years later I guess he couldn't have known a guy like this existed during Pontius Pilate and Herod's rule, that he claimed he was king of the jews and was crucified. There's a reason why all serious historians (many of which aren't at all Christianity btw) accept Jesus' existence.

Ok, since you're much smarter and better debater than me, why don't you tell me how is your argument any different instead of doing meta and ad homs?

Here, I'll interpret my argument for you so you can see it's not a strawman: My critique was that having no contemporary records of something in history doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. If that were the criteria, most of history's events and figures would be questionable. But people like yourself obviously don't extend that level of skepticism in every case but save it mostly for Jesus Christ. This is a double standard. Your argument is fallacious, sir.

Also, do we have to mention we have roman historians like Josephus who wrote a few decades after Christ and attest to his existence? I'm sure you know about this but since it was 30 years later I guess he couldn't have known a guy like this existed during Pontius Pilate and Herod's rule, that he claimed he was king of the jews and was crucified. There's a reason why all serious historians (many of which are opposed to Christianity btw) accept Jesus' existence.

Ok, since you're much smarter and better debater than me, why don't you tell me how is your argument any different instead of doing meta and ad homs?

Here, I'll interpret my argument for you so you can see it's not a strawman: My critique was that having no contemporary records of something in history doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. If that were the criteria, most of history's events and figures would be questionable. But people like yourself obviously don't extend that level of skepticism in every case but save it mostly for Jesus Christ. This is a double standard. Your argument is fallacious, sir.

Ok, since you're much smarter and better debater than me, why don't you tell me how is your argument any different instead of doing meta and ad homs?

Here, I'll interpret my argument to you: My critique was that having no contemporary records of something in history doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. If that were the criteria, most of history's events and figures would be questionable. But people like yourself obviously don't extend that level of skepticism in every case but save it mostly for Jesus Christ. This is a double standard. Your argument is fallacious, sir.

Ok, since you're much smarter and better debater than me, why don't you tell me how is your argument any different instead of doing meta and ad homs?

My critique was that having no contemporary records of something in history doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. If that were the criteria, most of history's events and figures would be questionable. But people like yourself obviously don't extend that level of skepticism in every case but save it mostly for Jesus Christ. This is a double standard. Your argument is fallacious, sir.

Ok, since you're much smarter and better debater than me, why don't you tell me how is your argument any different instead of doing meta and ad homs?