Jon Curry's Knowledge Of History

I recently wrote some responses to Jon Curry here. He's responded to some of my comments here. Compare the quality of the two threads. Ask yourself who argues more reasonably, who understands the issues better, who provides more documentation, etc. Jon tells us:

"I had also asked why the myth busters didn't appear when the gospel accounts contradicted one another. He says gospel harmonies and other sources did that very thing. Really? Is he talking about Tatian writing in the 5th century? Because I don't think Tatian would qualify as an eyewitness or contemporary. If he's going to appeal to Tatian, why not also appeal to Gleason Archer or Josh McDowell? What we have here are vagueries. We need specifics."

This is the same Jon Curry who has argued against Jesus' existence, argued that every Pauline letter in the New Testament is a forgery, dated Eusebius to the Quartodeciman controversy of the second century, claimed that the earliest gospel manuscript that names its author dates four hundred years after the gospels were written, etc.

Jon should follow up his latest thread with another one about how unkind I am. He could comment on how he doesn't understand the relevance of the material I've linked to. He could tell us that he's willing to admit the inaccuracy of his claims about gospel harmonies and how that willingness reflects well on him, in contrast to my unwillingness to admit such errors. He could propose a new hypothetical argument against Christianity that corrects his previous errors, another hypothetical argument that's highly speculative, undocumented, and ignorant of large amounts of contrary data, then expect Christians to interact with his latest hypothetical. He could explain that the reason why he left those dozens of previous discussions with Christians concerning his previous hypotheticals, without interacting with their replies to him, was because those Christians were unreasonable. Etc.