I made no claims other than the New Testament is sufficient evidence for its own claims.
And yet instead of offering the evidence you claim it contains, you
waffle and whine, and make excuses, and avoid the topic entirely. Why
isn't *that* a surprise? Thanks for admitting you are a liar who has
nothing to offer, not evidence, not intelligence, not even a
functional brain. But then that's normal for the vast majority of
theists who visit a.a.
I couldn't care less what you think about content of this evidence, it remains evidence for its own validity.
And yet you admit you're lying by the very fact that you can't even
offer one iota of this supposed NT evidence! lol! Thanks for the
admission in front of everyone on Usenet.
What is the evidence for the existence of a Roman Empire? All we have are unsubstantiated accounts compiled centuries after the fall of Rome. In fact the earliest -original- sources are from early Christians.
LIE. Unsubstantiated? Go read some history, you appalling
ignoramus. Go learn some archaeology.
2. There is no external corroboration whatseover.
Of what in particular?
Of what I wrote about on December 15th, in a message on this thread
which you read since you responded to it, unless you're in the
brainbdead habit of blindly "responding" to messages you haven't even
read. Judged by how far out in left field you are, that actually
wouldn't surprise me at all.
Are you naturally this dense, or did you have to get special Ed? The
NT is about Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, or did you
miss that bit?
3. The gospels were - not a single one of them - written at the time
of the supposed events.
Nor were any other first century sources, secular or otherwise.
LIE.
4. The gospels have the timeline totally screwed up - the people they
mention in positions of power could not have been in those positions
as described.
Be specific
Are you unaware of the sad litany of contradiction in the NT? Go
read:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=&as_epq=New+Testament+Contradictions&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=
5. Jesus said, according to NT mythology, that he would return before
people alive in his time had died. He failed. That, right there,
alone, destroys your claim for the divinity of Jesus.
I have made no claim for the divinity of Jesus, you did that.
We're not talking about you, you abysmally stupid asshole, we're
talking about the NT which expressly *does* make that claim. But
thanks for admitting that I'm right and the NT is bullshit.
So all fiction is LIE?
Er, that would be the definition of fiction you moron. Or are you now
going to try and argue that "historical fiction" is actually all
true? lol!
Demonstrably false in every detail or just the ones you don't like? Did Jesus the man never exist or just the one reputed to have exception talents? Can you even comprehend the distinction?
Seriously? Go read what I write numbnuts. Until then you're not in
any position to take me on because you quite evidently have no clue
whatsoever as you what you're talking about. But then you never did.
I have offered no evidence so I have none to defend.
You offered the NT you fucking liar, as the very first line of your
response (reproduced above) shows. Are you really so fucked up that
you can't even remember what you wrote just a few sentences before
that one?
Or are you now backtracking on *every* *single* *claim* *you've*
*made* you spinless piece of theist trash?
This is why I have absolurtely ZERO respect for any of you worthless,
lying, piece of shit theists who visit a.a.
Now put up or run away again as you've done *every* *single* *time*
I've called you out for the lowlife, vacuous, two-faced hypocritical
lying scum theist that you are.
Budikka