Kevmo: “I don’t dismiss it. I just don’t want to read it at this time because the first time I’ve heard of it was from you, and you don’t really show a strong grasp of istoricity.
So it colors my perception of Crossan. Have you read anyone else? Yamauchi? Ramsay? FF Bruce? Stauffer? Even Josh McDowell?”
FRiend, I’m a “history buff”, not a scholar, but I do “get” the difference between “history” and “religious beliefs”.
***You sure as hell do NOT. Post #1864, you can’t even tell the difference. What a poser.
Real history may often include data which is contrary to your religious orthodoxy.
***I would love to have seen some “real history” posted by you throughout this thread, but you put up only one source about Pilate and it CONFIRMED the gospel portrait of him. You post and post and post over & over again this same accusation, but a simple click on one link blows your piece of sheeite accusation out of the water. So the reassertion in the face of being proven wrong is a sign that you’ve downshifted into being a troll, not just a simple heretic.
Here’s the link, heretic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
You will certainly find such data in the books of Crossan.
***It is beyond me why any freeper would want to read this author after seeing your efforts, knowing that you haven’t clicked on links, and seem unaware of plenty of other historians. You’re a heretic, and a loon.
But, since Kevmo allows no such data into your own arguments, that fact proves you’re not here about “history”.
***Here’s the link, heretic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
Kevmo: “Just ‘cause you say it that way, don’t make it so.
If it were true, what you said, then you could easily point to one or two places in this thread where I pushed a religious viewpoint as historical. Go ahead.”
FRiend, it’s easy for you to prove me wrong:
***As usual, you screwed the pooch. It was a challenge to you to back up YOUR assertion, not talk about MY assertion. Geez, you aren’t even a very good troll.
all you need do is quote some words of your own which are contrary to your own religious orthodoxy.
***And having seen your posts along those lines, it leads me to believe you are a heretic.
I have certainly seen none such from you.
***What a strange post. I’ve certainly seen anti-orthodox views from you, but most of them are just worthless vanities. It is the heresy you’ve posted that distinguishes you.
Sorry, but post #1,864 is your post, where you make unsubstantiated claims, nothing more.
But I do rescind one of my opinions about you: now that you have revealed the true essence of your core nature, I could not consider you a "poser".
But I'm starting to wonder if maybe "poser" wasn't a bit better than your "real deal"?
I mean, as a "poser" you were at least half rational.
Now the ratio of rational discussion to insane accusations is nearing zero to 100%.