Originally posted by @romans1009This is surely the standard belief of all Christians. But I don't think your certainty and sincerity are - not being 'evidence' in and of themselves - the subject of this thread: 'Evidence please'.
I believe the books of the Bible as they exist today are an accurate representation of what was written by the original authors, though one has to be careful in choosing a translation.
Originally posted by @romans1009[1] That's where my sincere answers are.
When your responses to sincere questions are [1] “read the thread,” [2] “it’s obvious what I’m referring to” and [3] “you sound like so and so,” it’s not worth continuing.
Have a good evening!🙂
[2] What I have been referring to has been crystal clear since I first addressed you on page 34
[3] Well, you do. To an uncanny degree.
Originally posted by @fmfAnd so here you are, attacking him for his belief (and please, do not attempt to misrepresent yourself, that IS what you are doing) and 'dodging and weaving', engaging in your favorite 'forum combat' pastime against any Christian who dares show their heads, unfamiliar as the new people may be with you. Those who have been around here awhile already know not to engage you seriously.
I do not find there to be enough credible evidence that Jesus was a supernatural being. You must know that that is my position. Surely?
My point was that you do not know the hearts of those men either, so just stop. We already know that you will say anything you think will fly in your attempt to discredit Christians. You cannot expect him to think that these authors were maleficent in their hearts, just as we cannot expect you to think they believed in, and were reporting accurately, what they saw. So the entire point is extremely moot.
Originally posted by @fmfAnd yet you ARE 'certain' that what they wrote is untrue.
I do not find there to be enough credible evidence that Jesus was a supernatural being. You must know that that is my position. Surely?
You have even less reason to take that stance as he does in taking the opposite.
You're just 'taking the piss' with him, because (1) he's a Christian, and (2) he's new, and hasn't yet learned to stay away from you.
Originally posted by @suzianneHe is a Christian and I am not. You are a Christian, and share his beliefs, so it's understandable if you believe I have even less reason to take that stance as he does in taking the opposite".
You have even less reason to take that stance as he does in taking the opposite.
Originally posted by @suzianneI'm not sure what this screed is in aid of. I said to him, as I often used to say to dj2becker, I will make whatever I will of what he has to say about supposed evidence; I'm not here to divest him of his belief in the Bible. His response to this has been stuff like asking me whether I even know that there's an Old Testament etc. etc. Odd chap. I have not "attacked him for his belief". That is something you have made up.
And so here you are, attacking him for his belief (and please, do not attempt to misrepresent yourself, that IS what you are doing) and 'dodging and weaving', engaging in your favorite 'forum combat' pastime against any Christian who dares show their heads, unfamiliar as the new people may be with you. Those who have been around here awhile already know n ...[text shortened]... lieved in, and were reporting accurately, what they saw. So the entire point is extremely moot.