Search results

Of course. You may have been having an argument, which is when it gets personal. I don't know, since I wasn't there. But I'm sure you had to do more than give your spouse your view, you had to give her reasons why, or if you made an assertion, you had to tell her where you learned your...

Rodney, my friend, you can't force me to engage with you. You seem like a nice guy. If it were some other subject I'd take you up on it. But I'm not interested in Daniel. If you keep coming at me, I'm just going to ignore it in the future. I'm not trying to be rude. But I don't have to...

This year on Holocaust Remembrance Day, there are so many things to consider. There are the usual things like how important it is to recall the six million Jews who died, and the many others who perished at the hands of the Nazis and say "Never again." We should meditate on the absolute...

Yes, it's interesting that given Paul's direct instructions, two gospels nevertheless choose to include genealogies anyways. Differing ones. LOL

He may be referring to Paul's admonition to Christians not to get caught up in petty squabbles with each other, but I'm not sure.

There are, but I am not interested in debating Daniel. I just am thoroughly uninterested in apocalyptic writings.

In a conversation, there is no serious disagreement. You and I, we are talking about serious disagreements.

I'm not sure why you think debating is a sin. Your own NT says to always have an answer ready. A good answer means having reasons and points and evidence. Again, it is not up to me to do the research. LOL

I simply didn't consider your post worth a reply. Sometimes the same stuff comes up over and over, and I get tired of it.

The gazillions of posts by you going back and forth with us, especially with Jewjitzu, are ample evidence of the contrary. I rest my case.

You need to supply a source. You did not. You did not bother to check any of those out. The most proper debate etiquette is to supply a succinct quote from a good source, and then cite the source.

Again, this is a debate site. Conversation also happen, but what you and I do, along with Rachel Redux, Harel13, and Jewjitzu, is called debate. Calling it a conversation doesn't change things.

This is not a source. This is a google search engine list.

You debate the whole time you are in here. You just aren't very good at it.

I'm gonna bow out Rod-ney. There are just certain types of debates that totally bore me to death, debates that I think are totally worthless. Among them are math debates. Till then, just remember what I said -- prophetic years are a concoction of Christians, they never did exist.

Because in a debate forum, the obligation is upon the person making the claim to provide the evidence for it. You expect us to accept things just at your word. Pretty arrogant, and lazy debating.

If its so easy, where is your source?

It has been explained to you on more than one occasion that you are in a debate forum. It is the obligation of the person making the claim to back up their claims. Thus it is YOUR obligation to do the searching and provide the evidence. We on the other hand are to provide the evidence for our...

It really doesn't. first you have to decide which of the times for the decrees you are going to use for your start date, because there was more than one, and it's everyone's best guess. But then even when you cherry pick the best date, it still doesn't add to33 AD. In order to get that...

IOW you have no source. Got it.