But if I'm too assume countless historical figures with less evidence existed than by default I must by the same standards accept christ existed

^

it's utter non-sense to assume otherwise

the bible is pure

you dont

it says so in their own website

you really don

@troglodytes where

I'm convinced

the difference is the want of the person existing

why are they saying it

nope

not at all

<:kekboi:417880491182653450>

I'm convinced with historical reference

totally rational

Hannibal had no contemporary scholar record him. That is the big one I can think of off the top of my head. Yet, we assume he existed from antedotal evidence. We have historic records of Christ.

I am also very rational.

were greeks blonde, eternal?

Only a smallfrequency

Well lets go by what evidence there is

greeks were olive skinned

always

what do you have banjod?

I meant small

yes or no question

JA

NEIN

DNA or lack of and just historical refference?

It is 4:30 in the morning. But yes, there are a small frequency in blonde greeks.

DNA EVIDENCE DOES NOT EXIST PAST 500 YEARS

RETARD

let me be more clear

corpses with blonde hair

@troglodytes why is mixing data bad.

if that's doesn't exist then we defer to historical reference

more room for weaseling

What does that even mean

dude