Kelly vs Matt Slick
I listened to part 3 of the Matt Slick/Kelly debate, and could not believe how much Kelly lied. She either lied or was just ignorant of the facts. Her arguments were all based mostly on silence anyway. Here are a few of her flaws
1. She said we have tons of historical data supporting the historical reality of Alexander the Great. That is a complete lie. Roman historian A. N. Sherwin -White, for example, stated that what we know about Alexander can fit on a couple of pieces of paper, and his biography wasn't even written untill 400 years after his death.
2. It is historically fallacious to even equate the evidence for a world ruler to that of a peasant Galliean preacher who sufferd extreme marginality through death by execution. These are FALSE criteria the atheist want to play with. Despite the fact Alex was a world ruler, we have more corroberated evidence for the historicity of Christ then for Alex anyway.
3. Without offering a single shred of evidence for her claim, Kelly argued that the corroberative evidence he offered in favor of Christ's historicity (Talmud, Tacitus, Josephus, etc) were disputed passages. That also is a lie Kelly. Even the secular "Encyclopedia Britanica" under the section "Jesus" - 1990 edition, states that the Talmud, Tacitus and Josephus are INDEPENDANT sources for Christ. They are NOT disputed!
Stop lying, or get aquainted with the facts before you engage in such errors.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur