I call BS on Christianity

Pro insists that I have shown no evidence, ironic that his beliefs are based in a religion that shows no evidence which lead to the claim it was BS. Now when pros" religion comes under fire, when his logic that lacks reason and evidence comes under fire, Pro protests claiming I have no evidence for his lack of evidence. Maybe he has been holding out on us? But he has offered nothing but conjecture up to now. Pro has been dubiously been screwing the pouch and selling the puppies with his erroneous web sites. Then he has the audacity to and make erroneous claims of what these very same web sites are saying. Pros burden in this debate is to provide Christianity on a platter and tell us why I cannot call BS on it. Pro protest once again about this debate this time. Now are we going to be lead to believe participating "within the rules" for this debate is a shameful practice? I"ve noticed that when a Christian can think of nothing to say in his or her defense, Christians will resort to quoting the works of others in the hope it will make them sound wise and hide the fact they have no valid response. Pro states he is not an apologist because he believes the bible is the inerrant word of god, but he states this right after this that his denomination beliefs are based in a "re-corrected version" of all the bible/s out there. Forgive me, but when a bible is changed it is making apologies for gods" inerrant word, it is called blasphemy isn"t it? Pro now claims the bible needed to be easier to understand (by adding or subtracting god"s errors?) but that blasphemy AGAIN! My response is this, again you cannot get the rest of Christianity to agree by getting them to accept your claim about bible modifications, so neither do I feel compelled. It"s as simple as this".there are (still) 38000 Christian denominations, and hundreds of thousands of interpretations. The argument isn"t whether one is more reasonable than the other; the argument is there is no reason for me (or the audience for that matter) to choose one over the other and thus granting autonomy for his version of esotericism. Pro places the bible on the platter of this debate that no-one forced him into. Pro then goes to water because it has been, and is being debated. Perhaps Pro needs to finds a new hobby, perhaps knitting? Pro insists that Nazareth exists because of is travel agency says so, he then uses a site which is little more than representation of a political entity that lays claim to the land Nazareth is to have stood on. Without Nazareth this entity (Israel) could lose their claim and invalidate 2000 years of bloodshed to reclaim this land, and he assures us that they have no such hidden agenda in doing so. So Nazareth therefore MUST be real. Pro then cites Wikki, which is NOT a valid source because anybody can post their opinions about history on the Wikki. Pro believes I have discredited his Richard Bauckham for writing children"s books. Funny I only remember stating that Richard Bauckham agreed with my sources concerning the lack contemporaries of Jesus. Pro doesn"t seem to want to address this however. Pro quotes con and then makes the statement: {"Con should explain this, "If your bible was just re-written and changed as you claim, then how is this preserving it? You have conceded this point, was this your intent?" I would like to know how rewriting scripture does not preserve it? How else would you preserve it when paper and ink, fade and deteriate."} To answer Pro, re-writing it is changing what was written. Having just copied it as it was written is to preserve it is not changing it, you see the difference now? Pro is either deceived by his own grammar or is confused why his faith re-wrote the bible. Pro goes to water about "his" invalid sources and tries to reason that these invalid sources are claiming there are contemporaries to Jesus when all of them merely repeat what I"ve been saying all alone. No, no there are ZERO contemporaries concerning Jesus. I would be very surprised in this great big wide world with a superstitious 2000 year old claim if you could NOT find other believers. The trouble is they seem have no more of an idea why they believe than you do, and as they believe without evidence or contemporaries of Jesus, SO DO YOU! With that said, I have some time and space to provide valid, academically sound, fully accredited opinions about Jesus existence but since Pro hasn"t met his burden of proof concerning Jesus. I will move on and provide some evidence showing God is a fraud and never really existed according to Pre Jewish biblical writings. Maybe this is the very reason Pro doesn"t want me to address the O/T? God of the O/T is really spelled god"s in the plural tense and remained so until Christian "re-wrote god"s inerrant word. This was NOT a misinterpretation/miss translation, nowhere in the older scriptures does any sort of a god with the name God appear. Can you say polytheists? The God who was really god"s with many names, had many names because there were many god"s. Yahweh being one of them I remember correctly, and he seem to have a taste for human sacrifice. So if the father of Jesus is a fake""""""""""? http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com... by Isla Carroll and Percy E. Turner Professor of Biblical Studies at Rice University. This blog site has an accredited professor who is studying early Christian/Jewish polytheism. She references, sources and quotes a fully accredited series of studies that is summarized neatly on this blog. Here is a small taste of what lays ahead in this blog. Here's my quick take on Wrong's question. It is undeniable in my opinion that Judaism and Christianity before Nicaea were not monotheistic religions (as we define it today). In fact, one can question whether Christianity ever really became monotheistic - all depends on how convinced you are that the doctrine of the Trinity actually resolves the polytheism of a Father and Son being worshiped. Of course there is absolute resistance to this idea, especially among scholars who want early Judaism and Christianity to be monotheistic. So they have come up with all kinds of ways to contort the sources and their readings of them to make it look otherwise, including playing the heresy card. This professor doesn"t completely agree with the why, but the who, what, where and when remain unscathed, it makes for a great and quick read. Unless you cannot stand to see the god of the bible laying at your feet shaking in his death throes. Pro, the floor is yours, please don"t mind the dead body". clean up on aisle 3, can we get an associate on aisle 3 please?