Search results

internet mining not allowed

i've just re edited my reply as i felt i didn't explain myself clearly enough i never said its represents the entire series you implied that i did i was just demonstrating johnny's hypocrisy, by the use of the quotes that was it again its your opinion that i dont get christianity if its not...

i am quite aware how big and varied the bible is, and i have read pauls letters and listened to them being preached on (not in a while i might add) albeit around half are forgeries(not by him or certainly disputed) and also in them he never speaks about jesus/son of god as real person(which is...

john cooper clarke for me ;-)

you said it mate

if you have something to say explain yourself instead of soundbite sly digs a hollow keyboard warrior indeed

not for everyone, so no its not "very daft" The answer is no. The fact that God inaugurated a new covenant does not mean that He made a mistake with the old covenant. The reason for this, however, may not be immediately evident. The answer to the question becomes clearer when we examine...

not really an answer to my question though

are you saying the old testament is a load of old cobblers then you just a new testament man? do we have a breakthrough here?

conclusive evidence or as our club says irrefutable evidence

deary me, its an argument not proof

wont be going anywhere you know that, don't want to miss your categoric proof

you're doing it again stating something as a fact the floor is yours although you will vacate it rather quicker than a old trafford fire drill prove it

doesn't have to be interesting to you, who do you think you are, ha ha. although being factual maybe uncomfortable for you when the petty insults start its time for you to quit whilst you're behind

indoctrination is a powerful tool

you really are on shallow arguments these days (although this one you run on a regular basis) , numbers does not equate to fact you know that

you know this game you make the claim it is on you to prove it not the other way round

johnny johnny johnny what claptrap

well then will anyone of the (+85%) prove otherwise, not you of course you've been if i might say been rubbish at it over the years ;-)

ricky sums it up quite nicely If we took something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand year’s time that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years time, they’d all be back.