Did William Shakespeare exist?

[Mudhammam]

That's the 'so what' part.  You clowns are champions of the false-equivalency.

But if you really want to get into it how come your church scribes didn't do a better job of saving this supposedly holy horseshit they were supposed to be copying.  Seems like someone really let your side down.

The fact that we have any surviving manuscripts from the Greco-Roman world is largely attributable to the Arabs who at least at that point in their history saw the value of preserving the written word....unlike jesus freak thugs who ran around burning down libraries.

And what false-equivalency would that be?

It's strange that your biggest champion--and here the word would appear to take on special meaning among actual scholars though not for you internet types--I mean, of course, Richard Carrier, who argues on the one hand that kooks and quacks were prominent in the first century (as has been pretty much been the case in all periods, a point that is obviously true, and for the better part of human history only known through documentation far less preserved than the early Christian writings), but then argues that the use of the marvelous and the miraculous poses a unique problem in this one particular instance; though, what is most unique, would arguably be how much information surrounding this character, and Christian thought in general, dominates the West after your so-called godboy supposedly appears on the scene as a common criminal... And this argument of yours and those made by trolls less educated than you just so happens to coincide with an enthusiasm for the Christ figure, evident in all of your posts, outdone only by Christian apologists. Interesting, to say the least.