As soon as I asked you that I realized that my next point has nothing to do with it, so sorry about making you answer that.

Anyways, lets flash forward 1500 years, we are now in the year 3500, now in regards to the existence of Christ what are they gonna find from people during our generation?  they will find that their was debate, some people agreed that he existed, other disagreed, but the issue is that they are using sources from almost 2000 years prior. 

Now, lets flash back 1700 years, what does everyone (that made mention of him) say about Jesus.  They say he existed, in fact their is no dispute from any non-Christian sources that a man named Jesus walked the earth.  Now why is that?  Because back then, they actually had credible sources, over time, those sources obviously dissappeared, but up until around the 18th centuary, no one disputed the existence of God. 

Now look,you can argue all you want, and make excuses as to why this is, but arguing that the absense of contemporary evidence that Jesus existed proves that Jesus did not exist, is probably the worst argument someone can make, as I can use the same argument that there is no contemporary evidence that suggests that Jesus did not exist.

Sure, everything recorded is likely second hand sources, but back then, no one disagreed that Jesus existed.  

so you don't believe anything about history unless there was a contemporary author at that time writing it down as it happened?

As soon as I asked you that I realized that my next point has nothing to do with it, so sorry about making you answer that.

Anyways, lets flash forward 1500 years, we are now in the year 3500, now in regards to the existence of Christ what are they gonna find from people during our generation?  they will find that their was debate, some people agreed that he existed, other disagreed, but the issue is that they are using sources from almost 2000 years prior. 

Now, lets flash back 1700 years, what does everyone (that made mention of him) say about Jesus.  They say he existed, in fact their is no dispute from any non-Christian sources that a man named Jesus walked the earth.  Now why is that?  Because back then, they actually had credible sources, over time, those sources obviously dissappeared, but up until around the 18th centuary, no one disputed the existence of God. 

Now look,you can argue all you want, and make excuses as to why this is, but arguing that the absense of contemporary evidence that Jesus existed proves that Jesus did not exist, is probably the worst argument someone can make, as I can use the same argument that there is no contemporary evidence that suggests that Jesus did not exist.

Sure, everything recorded is likely second hand sources, but back then, no one disagreed that Jesus existed.  

so you don't believe anything about history unless there was a contemporary author at that time writing it down as it happened?

what documents are you referring to?

As soon as I asked you that I realized that my next point has nothing to do with it, so sorry about making you answer that.

Anyways, lets flash forward 1500 years, we are now in the year 3500, now in regards to the existence of Christ what are they gonna find from people during our generation?  they will find that their was debate, some people agreed that he existed, other disagreed, but the issue is that they are using sources from almost 2000 years prior. 

Now, lets flash back 1700 years, what does everyone (that made mention of him) say about Jesus.  They say he existed, in fact their is no dispute from any non-Christian sources that a man named Jesus walked the earth.  Now why is that?  Because back then, they actually had credible sources, over time, those sources obviously dissappeared, but up until around the 18th centuary, no one disputed the existence of God. 

Now look,you can argue all you want, and make excuses as to why this is, but arguing that the absense of contemporary evidence that Jesus existed proves that Jesus did not exist, is probably the worst argument someone can make, as I can use the same argument that there is no contemporary evidence that suggests that Jesus did not exist.

Sure, everything recorded is likely second hand sources, but back then, no one disagreed that Jesus existed.  

so you don't believe anything about history unless there was a contemporary author at that time writing it down as it happened?

what documents are you referring to?

As soon as I asked you that I realized that my next point has nothing to do with it, so sorry about making you answer that.

Anyways, lets flash forward 1500 years, we are now in the year 3500, now in regards to the existence of Christ what are they gonna find from people during our generation?  they will find that their was debate, some people agreed that he existed, other disagreed, but the issue is that they are using sources from almost 2000 years prior. 

Now, lets flash back 1700 years, what does everyone (that made mention of him) say about Jesus.  They say he existed, in fact their is no dispute from any non-Christian sources that a man named Jesus walked the earth.  Now why is that?  Because back then, they actually had credible sources, over time, those sources obviously dissappeared, but up until around the 18th centuary, no one disputed the existence of God. 

Now look,you can argue all you want, and make excuses as to why this is, but arguing that the absense of contemporary evidence that Jesus existed proves that Jesus did not exist, is probably the worst argument someone can make, as I can use the same argument that there is no contemporary evidence that suggests that Jesus did not exist.

Sure, everything recorded is likely second hand sources, but back then, no one disagreed that Jesus existed.  

so you don't believe anything about history unless there was a contemporary author at that time writing it down as it happened?