If theists understood "evidence"

[RoadRunner79]

It seems that we jumped topics completely now (leaping more than creeping).   I have discussed this recently, and you are going to have to support your claims with more than fanciful stories, like with evidence and reason.

LMAO, you're so predictable ...

Well it's getting off topic, and as I said, I've recently discussed this.   I believe that after a bunch of run around, if we can get to it (and the poster even knows) we are going to find out, that the only evidence for these claims is essentially textual criticism.   A little bit different style or words used in the writings.  And this is easily explained by what we know of Paul used of an amanuenses as well as differences in time of writing or audience, and purpose.   It certainly doesn't warrant the storytelling above or necessarily indicate any such thing. 

Now forgive me, if I don't want to do this dance, for something that is off topic and I have recently discussed.  Perhaps it would be better suited to that thread or a new one.    I'm still curious as to the "what" behind the OP if theists only understood evidence.   Perhaps you would like to answer that?