You are making statements about Christianity. You are claiming that you can “show me my errors”. So we agree that if anyone here makes a statement, they should have some sort of basis for it. Your basis is often the Bible or some theological commentary. Why should that be considered evidence? Why should it be considered equal to peer reviewed history or other forms of reason and logic?
The Bible is where Christians have said, “This is what we believe.” If you want answers about Christianity, the Bible is where you will find them.
While that statement is true, it does not answer the question.
I think I did. Lausten says I make statements about Christianity and can show him the errors he makes concerning Christian beliefs. Since the Bible is the authority of what Christians believe, that’s what I use to correct any error on the subject. Peer reviewed history and the use of worldly reason and logic do not tell us about Christian beliefs. They may be used to critique Christianity, but they aren’t the authority on what Christianity is.
The Bible says the Jewish people wandered in the desert for 40 years, yet there is no archeological evidence supporting that. So “Why should (the Bible) be considered equal to peer reviewed history or other forms of reason and logic?”