Search results

The text NEVER uses the words "Jesus celebrated" or " Jesus attended" anything. It does not exist. You are simply making things up about the text. NRSV At that time the festival of the Dedication took place in Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of...

John 10:22 never use the words "celebrated" or "attended." Which translation would you like me to use to prove you wrong? NIV Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. The Jews who were there gathered...

Another lie. I never made such a claim. I said more than once the N.T. NEVER claims "Jesus celebrated it." Moreover the word "celebrate" is never used in John 10:22 as you have falsely claimed.

The word "celebrated" is not used in the verse or anywhere else in that section. Another lie. I never made that claim. I said more than once the N.T. NEVER claims "Jesus celebrated it."

Another lie. I said the New Testament never claims “Jesus celebrate it."

Another lie. I made no such claim. You must be really desperate. Anyone can go back and look at my post and see I never made such a claim. In fact I encourage everyone to check posts 189, 192, and 196.

That is a lie. I never said that and you know it. No, nor do you have any source stating that he did. Another lie. I never made that claim.

That was not your claim now was it. You stated “Jesus did celebrate it." Just another example of making a claim with zero evidence.

The N.T. NEVER claims "Jesus celebrated it."

Pure speculation is not objective evidence and you have none.

I for one do not deny that. To claim it was created after is absolutely ridiculous. Now you know.

There is nothing is unclear about those requests. I even used your own words in order to make it clear. Here I will do it again. Cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was...

How does that support your previous claims you NOW wish would just go away? Cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence. I know you can't

Trying to change the topic AGAIN! None of that can provide any sources for these claims made by YOU. Now all you have to do is cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed...

Trying to change the topic AGAIN! None of that can provide any sources for these claims made by YOU. Now all you have to do is cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed...

No point. I already know your claims are false.

Correct and I didn't. Also correct and you don't. Again you are correct because you do just that. In fact that is just what you are doing with this post. So now all you have to do is cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite...

I never said there was. In fact I never made any claims about what was or was not part of the canon. Not only is your point completely irrelevant but also misleading and a waste of time.

Why yes it does. Now all you have do is cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence. lol It would be IF YOU COULD cite the primary...

That you have no primary sources or manuscript evidence to support your claims. No need. You have provided no objective evidence to prove he is correct. It is asinine to believe anyone needs to prove him wrong when there are zero primary sources and no manuscript evidence to support your claims.