Obviously, you had no serious intention of discussion history and every intention of venting you bile on somebody you could label "heretic".
Kevmo: "***Where have I generated such a pretense... let’s see... nowhere. I posted about history and then I posted my religious viewpoint after I had already been forced to endure your bowlsheet."
Your alleged "history" is nothing more than religion masquerading as history.
Now at least you've dropped all pretense and revealed your true purpose, which is to label those who disagree with your "history" as "heretics".
Kevmo: "***Because that is not the case.
I was an atheist and then ran across this evidence that Jesus had claimed divinity before the Sanhedrin and accepted Christ as Savior.
One came before the other.
You, as usual, got it wrong. Flat wrong.
So flat wrong that you appear to be operating as a heretic."
Sorry, FRiend, but there's no "evidence".
It is simply your interpretation of text which others may well interpret differently.
It's a little like that old story of the emperor's new clothes -- sorry, but I just don't see them.
Kevmo: "You’re incredibly ignorant, you’re accusatory, projecting, and now I see you are a simple heretic."
FRiend, you can't know how relieved I am that Kevmo is not also "ignorant", "accusatory" and "projecting", to say nothing of "heretic".
</sarc>
Obviously, you had no serious intention of discussion history and every intention of venting you bile on somebody you could label “heretic”.
***It’s all on this thread for any lurker to see where I started and where your heretical projections pushed the discussion.
Sorry, FRiend, but there’s no “evidence”.
***According to your idealogically driven, revisionist viewpoint. Which is now properly identified as heresy.