Spooky coincidences.

[fr0d0]

---

And again you insist that you are faultless...

You were the one who refused to acknowledge the problems with the history of the bible, the way the texts were mangled and politicised, the forged sections and entire books, the inconsistencies with the gospel accounts etc, even insisting after all of that "The gospels are four different accounts of the same story" which even chronologically can't be true, it was a story that was continually retold and over time gained features that weren't originally there.

I also pointed out the differences between the earliest manuscripts and and the contents of the bible as it is now, especially regarding the doctrine of the trinity, which was added to in attempt to substantiate rather vague passages into the doctrine that was commonly preached.

You dismissed all of it with hardly any (in most cases no) argument at all, it was your usual barrage of assertions and avoiding points of contention all together.

You're thinking of leaving? Shame, i was looking forward to hearing your definition and defence of theism.

---

And this is your derailment of the subject into one of your own interest. I explained that historicity was of very little interest to me yet you try to force me into discussing it with you. As I briefly demonstrated, all of your supposed inconsistencies are no more than wild fabrication and exaggeration of fact. I'm not interested in examining that to the n'th degree, and I told you this clearly.

You're demonstrating clearly what I said above was your issue here.