[KrisKrinkle]

I dealt above board with the issues I suggested

In your post 37 you made the following statements:

"...should have to be proven authentic and not disproven as inauthentic."

"...there is no previous information to that effect..."

"...should automatically be assumed to be inauthentic with a huge burden of proof on anyone claiming such to be the case..."

In my post 40 I wrote: "So, can you prove your statements:" followed by the list of your statements recorded directly above this paragraph. I was not asking about the "epileptic" or the "wife" parts. I was asking about your statements.

You responded with your post 41 which I found accurate enough, but evasive because it did not respond to what I was asking about in my post 40.

[Lakeshark]

He's not the one evading, his point is crystal clear.

You're the one who is giving reality a way to stretch itself into something else.

[xzins]

I made those statements about Ms King’s claim that Jesus was married.

She would have prove that claim by those methods.

Are you asking me to prove that those standards I came up with are valid or rational?