Russellonius

Agreed.

As everybody can see I'm a newcomer. I didn't come here to get answers. I came to share and test some answers I've found. I didn't expect to encounter so much resistance among free-thinkers and rationalists to the suggestion that Christian theological doctrines should not be part of the analysis of skeptics. But it seems I may have made a small error in my presentation at the thread called "Historical Methodology for HJ/MJ Arguments" and a certain someone aggressively demanded that I correct my statement.

That certain someone cited a text in opposition to my assertion that supports my assertion. And then the debate degenerated into a battle of wills, then died.

So why do skeptics support the doctrine of supersessionism? I'd really like to know.

Can someone explain that to me nicely? (I doubt it.)

darstec

Obviously you have little experience with True Believers and their conversations. They are far, far worse than anything you will find in this forum.

And if you have any familiarity with early American history, especially the Constitutional Convention you would know that even among the brightest of the Founding Fathers there was vehement, visceral debate and even duels.

It can get very frustrating on a forum devoted to biblical criticism, when the True Believers repeatedly write the same 2000 year old mantras that almost all of us have already committed to memory. There are some of them that we know before they type the very first syllable what they are going to write.

popgoestheweasel

I find the discussion here less civil that at some other sites. Nevertheless it is very interesting and worth following.