There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Subduction Zone]

No… just calling a spade a spade. But I know in your imagination, anything is possible.

No, it is merely you losing a debate again when you cannot follow the standards of rational debate and getting angry due to that loss.

Again… mumbo jumbo through your personal opinion and myopic limited studying efforts as seen through your bias. I can’t say something different when it is obvious.

Hardly. Tell me what part of that simple post was too difficult for you to understand. I could try to make it simpler for you. But I really do not want to treat you as a child.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As you view it through your anti-Christ position. I understand… and it’s OK Sub. I give you every right to think what you think even when you are dead wrong.

Please, drop the false claims about others. Here is the problem, because you refuse to reason rationally. Because you eschew critical reasoning, you can only believe and you get very threatened by people that try to get you to calm down a bit. Yes, your particular sort of Christianity appears to be very wrong. That does not mean that all versions of Christianity are wrong.

 

[Kenny]

No, it is merely you losing a debate again when you cannot follow the standards of rational debate and getting angry due to that loss.\

another double standard… You are amazing!

Hardly. Tell me what part of that simple post was too difficult for you to understand. I could try to make it simpler for you. But I really do not want to treat you as a child.

Nothing on my part. I understand when you are wrong. What is difficult to understand is when I give you scholarly quote that you don’t want to address, you just respond “They are apologists” ….. GONG! - Flat earth approach and thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL… it is quite funny! I can’t deny it!

I love using the same tactics as Sub uses!

No, you really are not. You have to use biased sources. And you know it. I use historical sources, those that do not have an agenda. Just as when it comes to the myths of Genesis I use scientific sources. They do not have an agenda either. You unfortunately only have an agenda so you have to accuse others of having the same.

 

[Kenny]

Please, drop the false claims about others. Here is the problem, because you refuse to reason rationally. Because you eschew critical reasoning, you can only believe and you get very threatened by people that try to get you to calm down a bit. Yes, your particular sort of Christianity appears to be very wrong. That does not mean that all versions of Christianity are wrong.

LOL… so says the blind atheist who says he saw it all.

 

[Kenny]

I tried, but I realized that I can't compete with an ape.

You must be an apologist because when you disagree with him, one is automatically an apologist no matter what scholar you quote. .

 

[Subduction Zone]

another double standard… You are amazing!

Where is the double standard. And seriously, you need to start using these guys:

Nothing on my part. I understand when you are wrong. What is difficult to understand is when I give you scholarly quote that you don’t want to address, you just respond “They are apologists” ….. GONG! - Flat earth approach and thinking.

No, a Flat Earth approach is when one eschews reliable unbiased sources and has to falsely claim that they are biased as you keep doing. You use sources that instead of seeing what the evidence says assumes an answer and then tries to find excuses that support it. If your claims were valid you could find unbiased sources that support you. Why can't you manage to do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL… so says the blind atheist who says he saw it all.

No, I have never made that claim. I have only pointed out the flaws in your sources. Many you are really getting butt hurt when you have to repeatedly make false claims about others. Where have I done anything like that about you?

I merely use proper sources. Why do you hate people that can follow the evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You must be an apologist because when you disagree with him, one is automatically an apologist no matter what scholar you quote. .

LOL! Another false claim. You do not site scholars. That is the problem. You link to apologist sites. They are not scholars.

 

[Kenny]

Where is the double standard. And seriously, you need to start using these guys:

No, a Flat Earth approach is when one eschews reliable unbiased sources and has to falsely claim that they are biased as you keep doing. You use sources that instead of seeing what the evidence says assumes an answer and then tries to find excuses that support it. If your claims were valid you could find unbiased sources that support you. Why can't you manage to do that?

Another double standard...

Is there no end to it?

Regardless, sending some love your way...



In our camp, we believe God loves the world and that would include you. All within the context of my signature.

 

[Watchmen]

For some reason your opinion had more weight when I thought you were married, but now it just sounds, well...sad.

All the best to you.

Hey! Is this JD Vance?!?!

 

[Kenny]

LOL! Another false claim. You do not site scholars. That is the problem. You link to apologist sites. They are not scholars.

As you ignore the site I shared that included scholarly viewpoints from real scholars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another double standard...

Is there no end to it?

Regardless, sending some love your way...



In our camp, we believe God loves the world and that would include you. All within the context of my signature.

Where is my double standard? My only standard has been that one relies upon scholars. You have not done so. Here is a hint, there are some scholars that agree with you. You should try to find them.

 

[Kenny]

No, I have never made that claim. I have only pointed out the flaws in your sources. Many you are really getting butt hurt when you have to repeatedly make false claims about others. Where have I done anything like that about you?

I merely use proper sources. Why do you hate people that can follow the evidence?

Sub’s definition of ‘proper sources'

1) Must have an anti-Christ and/or anti-Bible stance
2) Must agree with Sub’s position

Got it!

PS… my quoted site contained both viewpoints… something I haven’t seen you do. That’s because I don’t have a double standard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As you ignore the site I shared that included scholarly viewpoints from real scholars.

Yes, it was an apologists site. Sorry, but that is a biased site where most of the people they quote are not scholars. This has been explained to you. If you have any real support there should be some scholars somewhere that support you. Apologists are the opposite of scholars.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, it was an apologists site. Sorry, but that is a biased site where most of the people they quote are not scholars. This has been explained to you. If you have any real support there should be some scholars somewhere that support you. Apologists are the opposite of scholars.

flat earth… if you can’t dispute what is written that quotes scholars, attack the author.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sub’s definition of ‘proper sources'

1) Must have an anti-Christ and/or anit-Bible stance
2) Must agree with Sub’s position

Got it!

Is making blatantly false claims about others a violation of the rules? It might be. No, none of my sources are "anti-Christ". I strive to see how people trying to be honest are anti-Christ. You appear to be openly claiming that one has to lie to support the Bible.

Do you not even know what a scholar is? A scholar is one that does research based upon all of the evidence. They cannot cherry pick what they choose as evidence. Then once the form an argument they publish in well respected professional journals where other scholars will try to either confirm or refute him. Again, one cannot ignore evidence because it is uncomfortable. That unfortunately is what apologists do. They heavily filter what facts they will look at in an attempt to try to argue that reality agrees with them. It is also why there is almost no respect for apologists among serious scholars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

flat earth… if you can’t dispute what is written that quotes scholars, attack the author.

No, I am just demanding that you do not use sources that have already shown themselves to be flawed. You are projecting again because you absolutely refuse to consider unbiased sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

flat earth… if you can’t dispute what is written that quotes scholars, attack the author.

No, I am just demanding that you do not use sources that have already shown themselves to be flawed. You are projecting again because you absolutely refuse to consider unbiased sources.

 

[Kenny]

Is making blatantly false claims about others a violation of the rules? It might be. No, none of my sources are "anti-Christ". I strive to see how people trying to be honest are anti-Christ. You appear to be openly claiming that one has to lie to support the Bible.

Do you not even know what a scholar is? A scholar is one that does research based upon all of the evidence. They cannot cherry pick what they choose as evidence. Then once the form an argument they publish in well respected professional journals where other scholars will try to either confirm or refute him. Again, one cannot ignore evidence because it is uncomfortable. That unfortunately is what apologists do. They heavily filter what facts they will look at in an attempt to try to argue that reality agrees with them. It is also why there is almost no respect for apologists among serious scholars.

I’m just interpreting your statements. I’m aloud to have a viewpoint. I didn’t say “YOU were anti-Christ” just that you quote only those who have an anti-Christ position.

You haven’t proven me wrong.