I call BS on Christianity

Con I am not under fire because you have not provided any evidence. Simply making accusations does not equal evidence. Not once has my reasoning or evidence came under fire. See, Con has simply thrown baseballs through my window but my arguments foundation still stands strong. Con says I am offering conjecture, well, let's look at what I have offered. C1) Historical Relevance I offered evidence that showed the Bible has found nations that modern science did not believe existed. The Bible has influenced our beliefs and laws. That Christianity is based on real historical events involving real people. I verified the authenticity of the New Testament and the KJV and the King James text are massively more consistent. The New Testament is considered 99.5% pure. The only objection Con brings up is translation. Con never gives us evidence that the Bible has had changes, what those changes are, and what resulted from those changes. This contention has been addressed like baseballs in the window. Con drops his assertion about the Hebrew OT, the Zohar, and he blatantly denies that Nazareth exist after multiple sources have shown it did and does. He still has not shown that Nazareth did not exist, he simply asserts it. He has not addressed any of the evidence that the NT is a very accurate document. Con has not refuted this contention. C2) Christian Teachings I have shown that in the New Testament, there are many precepts that call us to be Christ like. Con has not shown us why we should not live Christ like. Con still has not addressed my remarks on Christian doctrine. Therefore, this contention stands. C3) Validly of Jesus I have shown prophecies of Jesus that were given in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New, Con has not addressed this. I have offered contemporaries from Jesus time with multiple historical sources that remarked on Jesus Christ. Not to mention the numerous sources within the Bible itself as contemporaries. Should we deny academic studies of the Bible and its authencity? Rebuttal Con has not shown that any information I have provided is incorrect, he has just claimed it is. Con I am calling Bona fide sound on Christianity not you. Cons tactics in this debate and his ignoring of the contentions I've presented is shameful. He clearly wants to bash Christianity without any logical reasoning or evidence. He thinks we should just accept what he says because he says it. Con has not shown one time that the KJV corrected the original text. Now, translating text is not correcting them, correcting is changing teachings from the original. Con has not shown that the KJV has done this. Con claims that because Christianity has different types of Bibles we should reject all of Christianity. Well, Con has not shown us that these Bibles are any different from each other, or they have different wording, or teaching, or belief system. Con must show the doctrine of Christianity is wrong or the Bible I am using is wrong, he has not done that. I established which Bible we are using but even if I did not we can research scripture and interpreted it, as I have claimed the interpretation is upon the person reading it. We have not addressed any Biblical doctrine in this debate. Perhaps instead of debating topics as these Con should take up talking to a brick wall because that seems to be what I am doing here. I quote Con quoting himself about Richard Bauckham, "I quote "You can also read some of my poetry, and two story books written for children (adults also enjoy them) about the MacBears of Bearloch." Thanks Richard, but no thanks, we good?" Then Con says this round, "Funny I only remember stating that Richard Bauckham agreed with my sources concerning the lack contemporaries of Jesus." Therefore, Con cannot go back and read what he posted to know what he said, sad really. Then he acts like I did not address what he said about Richard Bauckman. Con says that re-writing changes what is written and this could be true, but it also could not be true. People can write exactly what was written previously. Con has not shown that the KJV has changed from the text it was copied from. We see Con had no time to provide us with valid, academically sound, fully accredited opinions about Jesus existence because he couldn't. Con says that God was worded in plural in the OT and that Christians changed it. Well, the name for God in Hebrew was Elohim and is both plural and singular. On top of the fact that God gave His name as YHWH which is a single individual and not a multiplicity of gods or personalities and is consistent with what we find throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Con never shows us that the Biblical God suggests human sacrifice. Cons own source Isla Carroll says, "Hebrews worshiped one god but allowed for the existence of other gods", I do not object to that. http://www.israelofgod.org... The fact that the Bible mentions YHWH more than any other form of God or name for God in the Bible makes it clear by Con's own source that they worshipped one God- YHWH. Con then tries to be funny by suggesting this evidence leaves God laying on the floor at my feet. His source agrees with me and then rejects that YHWH was mentioned as the God of Israel, showing they were Monotheistic. They did not have to deny other entities existing but only must have worshipped one God to be monotheistic. The four Hebrew consonants that comprise YHWH are given in Scripture as God's holy Covenant name, and it is this form of His name that is the most frequently used in the Bible (about 6,800 times). http://www.agapebiblestudy.com... Hopefully Con will provide us with some real evidence and rebuttals next round. Con must negate the resolution and my contentions, he has not done that. Back to Con.