None is only singular only when it refers to a quantity of one thing (no amount is left, hence “None of the coffee is left”) but plural when it refers to a plurality of things (no things are left, hence “None of the doughnuts are left”). See the commentary at Mirriam-Webster.

‘None’ is singular. Ergo, “none of these “things”…relateS…”

You pretended you had read the debate and seen our discussion. You said this multiple times, even when challenged. So you had full intent. This was not an accident.

And your comments continue to indicate you do not know the content of either the debate or the followup discussion.

That proves you did not read or watch them, beyond cursorily.

You can continue lying all you want to. That’s on you. But it doesn’t change reality.

The reality is: You lied here in an attempt to defend your faith. And when you got caught, you lied again to try and hide your previous lie.

And when you lie to defend your faith, you disprove the truth of your faith. The opposite of what you intend. This is an own goal.

And everyone here now sees this.

I’m not sure if you’re on medication or just need medication, perhaps it’s just the obvious anger in you.

I did not lie…
To lie needs intent on deception, none of which was there.
As I stated and included what I read, the link you provided and the reason I thought what I watched was indeed the same debate.
You said the same thing that you continually repeat ad nauseum “they didn’t care”.

That was my whole focus and the reason for my comments, even the one you deleted and lost, on purpose, or by accident, who am I to say (just like a lie).

Regardless, bottom line again, I don’t believe you’re being intellectually honest, even that is not necessarily a lie.
I don’t think you can say they did not care to any degree, thus they didn’t investigate it just because you don’t see a report, comments in history or other yet.

You simply don’t know that, there is no evidence for that found yet, to say such a thing about events over 2000 years ago
The Christians, perhaps even more than the Jews were a thorn in their behinds, they did care to some degree, whatever degree.
And no, I’m not just talking about the religions, I’m talking about the specific topic the debate was about, the one I read and the one I watched.
The persecutions, the troubles Indicted on them would give some degree of care about the main focus if their faith and claims, the resurrection.

But, it’s okay, you’ve repeatedly displayed that you’re convinced you know every Romans mindset.
You know every thing they did, didn’t do and why.
You know in absolute terms that I intentionally lied, that I was being intentionally deceptive…

I mean, how could I possibly compete with your all knowing abilities?
Bottom line, I disagree with your omniscience, but wish you luck in this life and the next

I apologize, Scott. My new system crashed your third and latest comment. I did see it before I lost the data, and I did notice that in it you apologized for confusing an aftershow for the debate.

Which only illustrates my point.

You didn’t know. Even the show explains this. So that you didn’t know this, demonstrates you did not even watch that aftershow.

But you claimed you did. Twice.

That’s lying.

And again, you clearly didn’t know what our debate was about, either. It was about the resurrection belief and the Roman state.

Your second comment (above) indicated you thought it was about any aspect of the religion at all, and any Romans at all. Only someone who did not even listen to the aftershow (much less did not read the actual debate) could make that mistake. Yet you made that mistake. Because you lied when you claimed you watched or read any of this.

Then your first comment likewise betrayed no knowledge of any of that debate’s content, such as all the things I said about why the Roman state had no interest in the resurrection, and all the evidence I presented proving that it didn’t. You didn’t know any of that. Which proves to me again that you lied when you claimed you watched or read any of this.

Lying is only discrediting your faith, not defending it.

You’ve done grave damage to your own cause here.

And that’s now the story of you.

But there is hope. You can think on why you have done this. And maybe fix what’s gone wrong with you.

Watched it? There is no video of this debate. Are you really this dedicated to lying? What has happened to you as a person that this is what you do now?

This debate has only existed in writing. And your comments betray the fact that you don’t even know what the arguments are in it. You lied. And you lied again. Ten Commandments be damned. Your own God be damned. Shame on you.

Notice what you are doing to yourself. You are evading the truth by resorting to rhetorical deceptions (for example, changing the debate subject from only resurrection belief and the Roman authorities to “ANY DEGREE, all of Rome from highest to lowest” is a lie; that is not what the debate you are commenting was about; this is a fallacy of self-deception called Moving the Goalposts), rather than admitting you literally did not know I already argued the things I just told you, in the debate you are commenting on. You lied. To me. To your God. To the world.

Why?

You need to take a hard look at yourself and what has become of you. Your moral character has been shattered, forcing you to become this lying, self-deceiving denigrator of the truth. Your religion has ruined you. Maybe someday you will realize what it has done to you, and realize in turn that it is therefore not a true religion at all, but a corruptor of souls.

You might want to stop Worshipping the Antichrist. For only the Anti-Christ, whom you have mistaken for the Christ, would be whispering into your soul to convince you to tell lies to yourself and us all, as if that was going to help your cause, when in fact it just proves to us all how damned you and your false faith are.

I sympathize. I experience that same sentiment many times.

I don’t keep up well enough with video media to know what’s best for that purpose. There could be all kinds of things that are great, I don’t know; although the documentary Marketing the Messiah might serve well at least for an opener.

But on the books front, I always recommend Bart Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted as the best starting point.

That summarizes the state of mainstream New Testament scholarship reasonably well (it has all the basics). It is written from the perspective of a recent de-convert (so he sympathizes with the “apologetical” POV even as he relates how he was shocked to discover it was false). And if a Christian won’t read that because he thinks even Ehrman is too radical and biased to consult, then they are probably beyond all hope of return to rationality anyway and you should move on.

Scott’s response reflects a frustration I often have talking (or rather commenting back and forth online — does “talking” now encompass what we’re doing now? I suspect “talking” itself is an evolving verb, but I digress) to Christians whereas their history and/or understanding is so twisted and off base, it’s hard to have a reasonable discussion/debate that lands at any conclusion (other than the Christian thinks you’re possessed by demons of confusion).

The usual hangup is “But Luke was there! He’s talking to eyewitnesses!” or similar bromides parroted from apologists.

Do you have a favorite place to send someone (for willing open minds, i.e. the occasional inquisitive Christian who is perhaps having doubts, but at the very least is open-minded) that is a good starting point? I mean by this a “laypersons” level book or perhaps one of your blogs that addresses such basics it’s easy to read (and hard to ignore)?

Maybe a specific video series (or one specific amazing interview)?

I always want to start with “let’s pretend we’re unbiased and want to know what’s true,” but alas, that’s hard with people who already “know” everything and think you’re the idiot.

I not only read it, I then watched it, but I’ll accept your response.

I stand by what I stated.

To say they didn’t care as you repeatedly stated show your intellectual dishonesty with such an absolute.

To say, they didn’t care to ANY DEGREE, all of Rome from highest to lowest is simply the ultimate condemnation of your own words.

I realize you’re convinced of your stand, which is why it will cause your fall to all the more harder.

Respectfully