i think jesus was confused...or maybe luke and john were

[waitasec]

Truth will always continue to be truth----no matter how long one "thinks" about it.

why do you suppose the rain is self explanatory?

perhaps it's because it doesn't need to be spoken for...
unlike your god.

 

[sincerly]

why do you suppose the rain is self explanatory?

perhaps it's because it doesn't need to be spoken for...
unlike your god.

Irrelevant to the topic.(and has been explained---and you are continuing to Deny).

 

[waitasec]

Irrelevant to the topic.(and has been explained---and you are continuing to Deny).

hmmm....

Truth will always continue to be truth----no matter how long one "thinks" about it.

what are you saying? that your topic is more relevant?

you can :ignore:, :run: or burry your head in the sand...

it still doesn't change the fact that your god cannot speak for itself like the rain can

 

[sincerly]

hmmm....

Continue to think!

How about the OP?

 

[waitasec]

Continue to think!



How about the OP?

oh so now you want to talk about the OP....how convenient for you
:run:

 

[sincerly]

oh so now you want to talk about the OP....how convenient for you
:run:

That is supposed to be the topic---but then, you are still confused in your false claims.

 

[waitasec]

That is supposed to be the topic--

so why did you play along until now?

 

[sincerly]

so why did you play along until now?

Why does it matter?... this is still Off-topic of the OP.

 

[waitasec]

Why does it matter?...

because you're ducking and you know it...


so why did yo play along until now....or are yo going to duck this question too

 

[sincerly]

because you're ducking and you know it...


so why did yo play along until now....or are yo going to duck this question too

your question is still off-topic. Back to the OP topic, if you have any new material. that is what you are ducking.

 

[waitasec]

your question is still off-topic. Back to the OP topic, if you have any new material. that is what you are ducking.

i started this thread and i hereby give you permission to go off topic...

so...
why do you suppose the rain is self explanatory?

perhaps it's because it doesn't need to be spoken for...
unlike your god.

 

[sincerly]

i started this thread and i hereby give you permission to go off topic...

so...
why do you suppose the rain is self explanatory?

perhaps it's because it doesn't need to be spoken for...
unlike your god.

Waitasec, The "Rule" was given so that other posters interested in a particular topic whouldn't be hi-jacked into another topic. The Rule didn't give permission for the OP questioner to change the topic or the Rule.

 

[waitasec]

Waitasec, The "Rule" was given so that other posters interested in a particular topic whouldn't be hi-jacked into another topic. The Rule didn't give permission for the OP questioner to change the topic or the Rule.

yet you hi jack other posts...and you were playing along in this thread until i asked

why does your god fail to speak for itself?

which is pertinent to the thread.
cowardly ducking techniques are very telling.

excellent work at proving my point.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Waitasec, The "Rule" was given so that other posters interested in a particular topic whouldn't be hi-jacked into another topic. The Rule didn't give permission for the OP questioner to change the topic or the Rule.

yet you hi jack other posts...and you were playing along in this thread until i asked

First, that is a false accusation that I have Hi-jacked any topics. As you acknowledge, I have "played along" given correcting material to the off-topic comments which others initiated. This OP topic hasn't been addressed for many pages because of the numerous changes and mostly by you posts.

Your "Until I asked" was another in a continuing train of "off-topic comments.

why does your god fail to speak for itself?

and that contrasted to "rain"?

which is pertinent to the thread.

"Rain" isn't the OP topic.

cowardly ducking techniques are very telling.

Isn't that statement breaking another of the "Rules"?

 

[waitasec]

Isn't that statement breaking another of the "Rules"?

no....
so why can't your god speak for itself?

meaning, why does god depend on the quite often flawed and contradictory claims of the gospels?

 

[sincerly]

no....

so why can't your god speak for itself?

meaning, why does god depend on the quite often flawed and contradictory claims of the gospels?

Waitasec, who else were you addressing with "cowardly"?? That is against one of the rules.

GOD has spoken and it was recorded. I doubt that your really want GOD to address you prior to HIS Judgment day. Those Scriptures are only flawed because you disagree wit the facts presented in them.
It is still your posts which are confused/contradictory.

 

[waitasec]

Waitasec, who else were you addressing with "cowardly"?? That is against one of the rules.

not at all
if it walks like a duck....

GOD has spoken and it was recorded.

prove it....oh thats right you can't...

I doubt that your really want GOD to address you prior to HIS Judgment day. Those Scriptures are only flawed because you disagree wit the facts presented in them.

correction
i do not understand why one would support unsupported claims

It is still your posts which are confused/contradictory.

what do you expect? when one polishes a turd, it's still a turd.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Waitasec, who else were you addressing with "cowardly"?? That is against one of the rules.

not at all
if it walks like a duck....

So now you are claiming to be addressing a duck?

GOD has spoken and it was recorded.

prove it....oh thats right you can't...

The records are still present by those witnesss who wrote them.

I doubt that your really want GOD to address you prior to HIS Judgment day. Those Scriptures are only flawed because you disagree with the facts presented in them.

correction
i do not understand why one would support unsupported claims

You do it with most posts.

It is still your posts which are confused/contradictory.

what do you expect? when one polishes a turd, it's still a turd.

Do you really expect your "polishing" to change the nature of your posts?

 

[waitasec]

The records are still present by those witnesss who wrote them.

no.
what we have are copies of copies of copies

there are no eye witness accounts. only historical evidence that shows
judaism changed around the time of jesus.

You do it with most posts.

prove it.

Do you really expect your "polishing" to change the nature of your posts?

well for someone who thinks my posts are turds, you sure do spend a lot of time dealing with it....and a lot of time polishing them.

 

[sincerly]

prove it....oh thats right you can't...

Originally Posted by waitasec
prove it....oh thats right you can't...

The records are still present by those witnesss who wrote them.

no.
what we have are copies of copies of copies

there are no eye witness accounts. only historical evidence that shows
judaism changed around the time of jesus.

Thank-you! Modern society still makes "copies of copies of Copies" as evidence of the original. The "copies" didn't/don't change the messages of the original.
Yes, there were eye-witnesses to most of things written--Even the personal things (David and Bathsheba) were made known.

How did Judaism change 2000 years ago??

Originally Posted by waitasec
correction
i do not understand why one would support unsupported claims

You do it with most posts.

prove it.

Start with your OP.

Originally Posted by waitasec
what do you expect? when one polishes a turd, it's still a turd.

Do you really expect your "polishing" to change the nature of your posts?

well for someone who thinks my posts are turds, you sure do spend a lot of time dealing with it....and a lot of time polishing them.

That was your own nomenclature, However, I do spend time with your Posts---NOT in polishing, but in refuting the errors therein.