Friday, October 22, 2010

How will this end? - A discussion with an Asst. Professor

Dr. Clay Jones is an Assistant Professor at Biola University. (A school that boasts faculty members Dr. William Craig, Dr. J.P. Moreland and Dr. Gary Habermas.) Dr. Jones holds a Doctorate in Ministry from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He teaches post-graduate level courses on Apologetics Research and Defense of the Resurrection. And he has a personal blog.

I happened to notice he wrote an entry, giving a defense of the Resurrection in 200 words or less. This is a fellow who teaches on apologetics and the Resurrection (arguably the lynchpin of Christianity) at a post-graduate level. This is no internet hack! (like me.)

And he is going to summarize his defense in just 200 words. One would think it to be a powerful punch; a veritable knock-out delivery of condensed apologetic argument. And he goes with……..”Not willing to die for a lie.”

Really? Well…O.K. As both of my regular readers will know, I have done a bit of study and dialoguing on this particular claim. So I join in and somehow we end up on the subject of Peter’s death. I point out how Peter was condemned to die because he pissed off the local constabulary by convincing their wives and concubines to abstain from sex.

At this point, Dr. Jones asks what my best evidence is for this claim.

I’ll admit some concern over this question. Look, I don’t expect the average layperson to know Second Century Christian writings…but Dr. Jones holds a doctorate. Dr. Jones teaches on two (2) primary topics: Apologetic Research and Defense of the Resurrection. I believe I am somewhat justified in expecting him to know some of the various sects of Christianity during this time—particularly those holding to ascetic lifestyles, decrying sex.

This is prevalent through a number of works.

More importantly, if his defense of the Resurrection--THE defense to use when one is limited to 200 words--involves the death of alleged eyewitnesses…I would be justified in believing he knew the source of those claims. Not to mention, this is a pretty big name; I’m not asking for the source of Thaddeus’ death.

This is Peter. Arguably the biggest name of them all.

And Dr. Jones doesn’t know Acts of Peter?

Perhaps you can understand my consternation.

But I press on, quoting the relevant passage from Acts of Peter.

At this point Dr. Jones asks, why should we rely upon the Gnostic Acts of Peter as compared to “other works.” Having looked, I am uncertain as to what “other works” he could mean; more importantly, what earlier works he could mean.

I want to point out triumphantly, in Perry Mason style, “Precisely, Sir! Why would we trust this claim about Peter being martyred upside down? The defense rests.” Harumph.

This is why the entire field of Christian apologetics is suspect to me. The very teachers themselves, teaching at post-graduate level, appear unfamiliar with the counter-arguments to their own position. Why would a lay person ever know any better?


  1. You sir are no internet hack.

  2. I will look forward to seeing more responses on that thread. And I also see the spark for you "Sir Ramsey" post...

    It is very surprising to see how well-educated Christians, or anyone particularly committed to providing unwavering support to a presupposition, can pick and choose from their sources so selectively.

    "As both of my regular readers will know"
    Well here's two so far, and I would still expect a couple more... :^)

  3. Make it three.

    What gets me is the utter lack of intellectual curiosity.

  4. Make it four.

    I'll be following the thread with interest. I must say I am uneducated about the evidence that the apostles were martyred. For which apostles, if any, is there evidence that they "died for a lie"?

  5. Five...

    To me, basing such a seemingly important belief on evidence almost two millennia old is the height of absurdity.

  6. I'm sure he's got a response that'll blow you away and he's just taking the weekend off.


    Or maybe not.

  7. This may seem a minor point, but I would like to ask Dr Jones what makes him think The Acts of Peter is a “Gnostic work?

    At first glance, that question may seem to be an irrelevant red herring, but when I consider the over-arching Christian apologetic mindset, I think it is not.

    When the apologist thinks of non-canonical writings, particularly any Acts, they tend to think that they are “Gnostic” by default. I am not sure if they understand quite what that means, except that it usually means that it is … somewhat kooky. Something that is easily laughed off and immediately discounted as being without merit. A belief in Jesus that nobody has taken seriously in centuries. To the Christian apologist, Non-Canonical Acts = Gnostic, and Gnostic = Nuts.

    In other words, to the Christian Apologist, if the Acts of Peter is Gnostic, it can be immediately discarded as Kooky Fringe material. Where did Augustine get his source material when he discussed details of Peter’s life not found in Canonical writings? We don’t know, but certainly NOT The Acts of Peter – they were GNOSTIC!

    Not so fast. As I read The Acts of Peter, the text seems fixated on Peter’s struggles against Simon Magus, a supposed Gnostic sage. The exact details are not off the top of my head, but from my memory, Peter is constantly chasing the Gnostic sage around Rome as a Heretic of God. Peter even performs the miracles of the talking baby and talking dog so that they can both give sermons of warning and chastisement to the Heretic. Eventually Peter and his followers execute Simon Magus, if memory serves, by stoning. If Acts of Peter is a Gnostic text, why is it fixated on denouncing one of the Gnosticism’s (supposed) chief practitioners as a Heretic? In addition, Acts of Peter does not bear any of the marks of the more classic Gnostic texts or their teachings. Acts of Peter contains plenty of action and plot, instead of endless discourses from the revealer of Gnosis. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the text about secret or revealed knowledge, transcending the Aeons to gain perfection, a teaching that all Flesh and material is corrupt, cosmological dualism, the belief in a Primal-Man falling into the clutches of evil forces, or any of the other classic signs of Classic Gnosticism.

    Dare I say, the genre that Acts of Peter belongs in seems to be more in common with our canonical Acts of the Apostles, than any Gnostic writing that I am aware of.

    And this brings me to my point. When Dr Jones asks, “Why would we take a Gnostic work (Acts of Peter) over other works that we have access to?” Dr Jones is implying that the “other works that we have access to” could not have possibly drawn their information from the earliest account we have of Peter’s death, the Acts of Peter, because the Acts of Peter was **shudder** Gnostic! And everybody knows Gnosticism is nuts. I contend that it is not that I take Acts of Peter over any other work, rather, if a Christian is going to claim source material for martyrdom, they have no justification in discounting Acts of Peter as Gnostic. If the earliest source of Peter’s martyrdom does not have a depiction that fits into the “Die for a Lie” mold, they have no reason to discard it as Gnostic nonsense when it so closely fits the genre of the canonical “historical” works.

    I am sorry if the Christian Apologist finds their source material a little nuts. I agree with them in that. But that is the material they inevitably must draw from if they are going to try and defend “Die for a Lie”. Deal with it.

  8. YIKES! I apologize for the multiple postings.

  9. Excellent point HS. It always amuses me that regardless of the goofy stuff found in early writings, the apologist will insist that the author must have had sound historical evidence for whatever point it is that the apologist needs to establish. One of my favorites is Irenaeous. His reason for rejecting all gospels other than the ones he recognizes is that cherubim don't have enough faces for there to be more than four gospels. Nevertheless, we can trust that his reason for accepting the ones he did recognize must have been logical and supported by evidence.

  10. DoOrDoNot,

    Good question about evidence. A coupla things to keep in mind.

    First—“evidence” is a bit tricky; it is any fact that tends to make the prospect more or less likely. All evidence must be interpreted—standing alone it tells us nothing. It can be a bullet casing, a witness’ statement or a document. But unless we know what the claim is, the evidence itself cannot explain why it is important. It merely is.

    For example, if you ever look at 9/11 truther’s claims, they pick certain photos and certain statements to claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. Are those photos real? Yes, they technically depict an actual moment in time. Are the statements accurate? Yes, they are what the person actually said.

    But does that prove the 9/11 truther’s claims? Of course not—the photos are interpreted as depicting a controlled explosion; the statements are interpreted as meaning pre-knowledge of the event. In light of other evidences (and other interpretations of the photos & statements), we see how the evidence—while existing in the form claimed by 9/11 truthers—does not support the claims being made.

    Here, there is “evidence” for “won’t die for a lie”—but that, in and of itself, does not make it fact. Nor does it necessarily support the claim.

    Second, I will be giving some dates for documents. As with all things biblical, these dates are not universally accepted—some will claim earlier, some later. I am going with the dates I usually use.

    Finally, be aware there are rabbit trails upon rabbit trails. I could spend the next two years saying, “This…but keep in mind that….however it could be other….and we need to remember some other….”

    I will give the simplest, basic evidence that must be dealt with when addressing this claim.

    James, son of Zebedee. Source: Acts of Apostles, written 80 – 120 CE. Claimed death: Beheading by King Agrippa. Claimed date of death: 41 – 44 CE. Reason for death: Persecution of Christians. Second mention: Hippolytus written 180 – 230 CE.*

    *This is one of those rabbit trails, but an important one, since we come across Hippolytus so much. This is a disputed document; we don’t know whether he wrote this or not. If not, this document is of unknown origin and unknown date.

  11. James, brother of Christ. Source: Josephus (94-105), then, 2nd Apocalypse of James
    (120-180), then Hegesippus (165-175). Claimed death: Stoning (Josephus); thrown down from temple and then stoning (2nd Apocalypse); thrown down, then stoning, then hit with a club (Hegesippus) Claimed date of death: 62 CE. Reason for death: Political machinations by the High Priest. Nothing to do with Christianity.

    Two things to note here. A great example of myth development. Notice how his death, and the circumstances surrounding it grow from source to source. Second, this is also a great example of what He Is Sailing talks about. If you read apologists about James’ death, they will mention Josephus and Hegesippus, but curiously skip the 2nd Apocalypse. Why? It clearly is an important development in the story.

    Because the 2nd Apocalypse is Gnostic—and they want to avoid any taint of “bad religion” by skipping it entirely. Odd, eh?

    Peter. Source: 1 Clement (64 – 120), John 21 (date unknown) and 2 Peter (100 – 125) all know Peter is dead, but don’t provide any information about it. Not until Acts of Peter (150 – 200) do we get the account of his death. Claimed death: Crucifixion upside down. Claimed date of death: 64 – 68 CE. Reason for death: Convinced government official’s wives to stop having sex with the government officials. Bad tactical move. If you want a fuller explanation, see my post-Why Peter had to die.

    And….that’s it really.

    Many mention Paul, but the problem here is that this is a proof for a physical resurrection, and according to Christian dogma, Paul saw a vision, not a physically resurrected Jesus. (Think of it this way—all those people who claim to see Mary in a vision aren’t claiming Mary came back to life and appeared to them with a physical body. They get Mary is in heaven and is traversing the supernatural planes to appear. In the same way, Paul is claiming to see Jesus in heaven, the same way Stephen is claimed to have seen Jesus in heaven, or the author of Apocalypse of John.)

    Since they go through Paul, we may as well do it as well.

    Paul. Source: Acts & 1 Clement know he is dead. (1 Clement implies but does not necessitate stoning.) (150-200) Acts of Paul gives an account of his death. Claimed death: beheading. Claimed date of death: 64 – 68 CE. Reason for death: Leader of Christians in Rome; attempted to convert Nero.

    However…Tertullian (see chapter 17) indicated this was a forgery, leaving the Christian apologist with a difficulty.

    All the other disciple deaths comes from Hippolytus.

    If you want any more, (or any of the rabbit trails *grin*) feel free to ask.

  12. He is Sailing.

    Hey—how are you?! Nice to see your comment.

    I did, actually, have a passing thought about whether Acts of Peter is Gnostic. Thanks for fleshing it out.

    I wouldn’t ask this fellow, because he likes to focus on one point at a time, and we are technically on a tangent about Peter, let alone to start talking about whether Acts of Peter is Gnostic. I’m trying to keep on-point as much as possible.

    Here’s a tough one—what IS the “Gnostic” belief, and can it really be simply define?

  13. DagoodS:
    "Many mention Paul, but the problem here is that this is a proof for a physical resurrection, and according to Christian dogma, Paul saw a vision, not a physically resurrected Jesus."

    I was a bit confused by the fact that Dr. Clay mentioned Paul in his 200 word "witness". It seemed completely out of place since he mentioned the disciples in both the introduction and conclusion and mentioned those who "walked, talked, and ate" with Jesus.

    The mention of Paul is casually thrown in. I can only imagine he does that to obfuscate the fact that he doesn't really have any compelling historical evidence of those who saw the resurrected Jesus walking around and were later martyred (and maybe to pad out his "200 word" bit, which is a bit short of 200 words).

    I have not read anything else by him, but this post does not speak very highly of the PhD program at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

  14. DagoodS,
    Thanks for the summary. It helped to get me started reading on the subject. By the way, I perused the DC archive, and happened to find a post of yours "Die for a Lie Does Not Fly" from 2006. I knew just from the title that John hadn't written it. I didn't realize you ever wrote posts there. I didn't start reading it until 2009.

    It seems that this "die for a lie" argument is presented with such confidence and flourish. It makes me wonder why and if I'm missing something. Just this week at church, I sat musing on the difficulty I was having accepting a religion that is based on events so distant as to be virtually unverifiable. It seems that God left scant evidence of an event that is suppose to be the salvation of mankind. I don't want to reject Christianity out of hand because I disagree with God's method. This is partially why this process of evaluating my beliefs is taking so long. I want to have a clear rationale for my faith based on evidence. With this "die for a lie" argument, my reaction is that I have trouble basing my belief on inferred motivations of ancient men who practiced a religion that ultimately led to their demise.

  15. DoOrDoNot,

    Yeah, I once posted on Debunking Christianity. Here is a List of my posts there. (For some odd reason a few shortcuts have double-links. You may have to copy the shortcut, and cut off the double part.)

    On of the shocking discoveries during deconversion, was how weak the evidence was for many claims in Christianity. We had heard, so many times with so much certainty, how Matthew ABSOLUTELY was the author of the Gospel (as well as Mark, Luke and John) and only this far, far left, radical, fringe of skeptical atheist Satanists question it. It was pointed out how even liberal scholars and non-Christians accepted this dating or that authorship or some particular fact.

    So once I entered the discussion, as a Christian, I intended to prove those heretics how founded our beliefs were, and went traipsing off to find sources. Only to discover (to my horror) that the sources were not nearly as clear as I once thought. I discovered many Christians merely quote other Christian apologists, assuming those other apologists have done the work, and the same platitude gets repeated over and over, until everyone accepts it as “fact” because we have heard it so much.

    Why is it that biblical determinations are made so difficult? Think of the simple problem surrounding authorship of Gospels. It was common at that time, for authors to identify their works. (Think of the introduction to the epistles.) Yet when we come to the Gospels we have…nothing. Not even Luke, the supposed historian, identifies himself by name!

    Even common practice could have eliminated some issues. Or have Paul make some identifying dates, other than Aretas (2 Cor. 11:312) and, of course, even THAT has difficulties.

    I do think “Won’t die for a lie” is a very demonstrative example. It shows how people are so certain of claims (“Peter was crucified upside down”), yet have no knowledge where the claim originated. Or how legends could develop surrounding these deaths. Or how few people we are talking about. Really three (or four, as some people try to squeeze in Stephen)

  16. DagoodS (and Vinny),

    I think you two stumbled into the choir to whom Dr. Clay was preaching. I.e., his blog isn't written for skeptics but for Christians... so, just how good does it have to be?

    Doctors Jones, Craig and Moreland all hale from Bible Institute of Los Angeles (Biola), a decidedly fundamentalist school from it's inception. It's not like these guys have peer review, like in other schools, where other scholars use things like critical thinking to pick apart the assertions of 'works' like a "200 word or less defense."

    What Dr. Jones wrote is not a "defense," it's just another song for the choir.

  17. He's weaseling out, protesting that there's too much on his plate to deal with the issue right now. Perhaps he hopes that if he delays long enough we'll forget the whole thing? Don't let him wiggle off the hook.

  18. Paul,

    I understand that he is preaching to the choir, but he wouldn't be doing it if he didn't know that some of the singers had doubts.

  19. What concerns me is Clay Jones’ statement about building a case “one point at a time” and never moving on until “the other person agrees or shows me that I am wrong.” This demonstrates dichotomous and limited thinking. Life—especially historical study—does not fall easily into linear points, or such stark results as “This DID happen” and “This did NOT happen.”

    Many factors can impact a particular position: what source we have, the possible dates of its writing, the author, the bias and intent of the author (if we can even determine that!), what sources that author had available (let alone whether s/he used them) and so on.

    I fear this will provide an out, when Clay Jones can say, “You haven’t convinced me I am wrong, so I will end the discussion here.”

  20. Maybe Dr. Jones just doesn't want to exceed 200 words.

  21. An Update!

    The Good News: Dr. Jones is back on blogger!
    The Bad News: I don’t think he is going to respond to us.

    I gave him a nudge on his newest post. I am sure he will appreciate it! *grin*

  22. It can be difficult to reenter a discussion after a prolonged absence particularly if your attention has been focused on other matters during the intervening period. It has happened to me often enough that I try to be sympathetic when it happens to others and I don't claim victory by virtue of their silence. On the other hand, when people with theological training like Patton and Clay make what strike me as rather grandiose claims about the apostles' willingness to "die for a lie," I am inclined to be less charitable when they don't want to discuss the evidence for their claims.

  23. Vinny,

    You are correct; I should be more charitable. I very rarely do this…mention a person’s failure to respond after a long hiatus.

    What bothers me is what I said in my blog entry. This isn’t some internet blogger; this isn’t some minor archaic nuance. This is a graduate professor who teaches on the resurrection, making his “best” argument for it! This is his job.

    I would think the responses would flow and we would be forced to stem the tide rather than drag each clause out almost by force of will. (And I confess, I am still utterly shocked he was unfamiliar with Acts of Peter.)

    I will let it go.

  24. Dagoods,

    Perhaps you should be more charitable, but not to this guy. I'm with you on that. It is one thing to give the benefit of the doubt to some blogger who trusts what the guys with the PhD's write because they have the PhD's, but when the guys with the PhD's can't be bothered to check their sources, they barely deserve civility, much less charity.

  25. I am enjoying an extended Christmas holiday out of the country, but I could not resist. I had to butt in. I hope you will forgive the intrusion, DaGoodS, and I hope everyone here had a lovely Christmas.

  26. Never mind. Dr Jones deleted my comment. Sadly I did not save it. Basically, I explained my frustration with apologists who continually make unsubstantiated claims regarding the deaths of the first Apostles.

    I asked Dr Jones to do what I assume he asks each of his students to do on a term paper. Cite his sources. I told him that since all the ancient material is now online, we could readily read for ourselves his citations, if he just tells us where we can find out "for sure" the circumstances of the apostles's deaths. Hoping to get a response, I challenged him by saying his 200 word defense of the resurrection fails for the same reason a term paper would fail without source citation. I asked him again, if he wanted to be an apologist we skeptics could take seriously instead of merely a cheerleader for his students, to please cite his sources.

    Comment deleted. In its place, a comment by Dr Jones saying that I am writing off-topic, and that he will continue that conversation again... someday.

    Sorry for butting into the conversation, DaGoodS - I may have ruined any hope you had of conversing with the guy.

  27. HeIsSailing,

    I found it interesting how quickly he removed your comment (it was upon only a matter of hours) AND that he had time to type out yet another comment stating how little time he has. I would prefer he spend the time responding.

  28. Thanks for the reply, DaGoodS. But really, what else could he do when I challenged him, not to a debate, but merely to cite his sources. You and I both know there are no sources to cite that are not saturated in obviously legendary material. I have to assume Dr Jones knows very well there is nothing out there either.

    Admit there are no ancient sources supporting 'Die for a Lie'? Not if he wants to remain a cheerleader for his willing apologists-in-training. No - just delete the comment. Problem solved.

    I have grown less patient with this type of obvious deception. I just attended Dawn Mass at a Catholic Church for the 9 consecutive days before Christmas (plus midnight mass, then mass on Christmas morning - I went for the full marathon this year), and I could not believe the garbage spewed from the priest during the homily. Rosemary (my wife) told me the people really don't care about the readings or the homily - to which I replied, THEY SHOULD CARE! If they bothered to fact check what came out of this guy's mouth, they would have to know they are being lied to! But no... just sit through it...year after year.. is soo frustrating.

    So yeah, when backed up against a wall, just shut up the critic. Or in this case, delete comment. What other option does the cornered apologist have?

  29. I've encountered this with more than one Christian friend. They simply stop in the middle of the discussion and you never hear anything else from them on that topic. They don't say "maybe you're right" they don't say "you're wrong" they just disappear.

  30. I don't know if you noticed, but Dr. Jones says that he is going to address the issues in a couple of blog posts in the near future. I can't wait.

  31. Dr. Jones says that he is going to address the issues... Uh huh. I've seen how Christians "address the issues." Ain't pretty.

  32. I noticed. Did you notice he closed comments on the blog entry? He he he. If I could have responded, I would have said the following:

    Clay Jones,

    The retreat from the original 200 word witness is captivating. The original language:

    “…[T]he disciples started testifying that they again walked with Jesus, talked with Jesus, and ate with Jesus. And what’s really amazing is that many testified to his resurrection even to their own torture and death.

    “So here’s my question: if Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead, then why would the first disciples die for what they knew was a lie?”

    You now indicate a future blog entry giving evidence “some of the apostles gave their lives…”

    We’re reduced from “many disciples” and “the first disciples” to “some apostles.”

    Believe it or not, we already know the evidence (in fact, if I may say so, apparently we know the evidence more thoroughly than you. Especially if you weren’t aware of Acts of Peter and worse, upon learning of it, considered it a Gnostic work!)

    For James, son of Zebedee, the evidence is Acts then Hippolytus. For James, brother of Jesus, the evidence is Josephus, then 2nd Apocalypse of James (which you may skip, it being Gnostic) then Hegesippus. For Peter it is John 21, 2 Peter, 1 Clement, Acts of Peter (which you may skip), Dionysius, Tertullian, Hippolytus. For Paul it is Acts, 1 Clement, Acts of Paul (which you may skip), Dionysius, and Tertullian. (I personally would argue Martyrdom of Polycarp and Lucian have influences and are evidence, albeit not directly of these apostles.)

    The rest are anecdotal, and would begin in Hippolytus—at best after 200 CE. You may also refer to Eusebius, but he takes his information from these works, and by circa 300 CE is really far too late. We should review the earlier texts.

    It’s not the evidence we are looking for—it is compelling argument. Look, there is evidence 9/11 was a conspiracy—just ask the 9/11 truthers and they will drag out photos (evidence) and statements (evidence) all claiming 9/11 was a governmental cover-up. There IS evidence for it—but the claim does not deal with ALL the evidence, and does not persuade.

    There is evidence the holocaust didn’t happen, evidence the moon landing was a fake, evidence Elvis is still alive, evidence Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t act alone, evidence Aliens exist, and evidence the government is monitoring us through filings in our teeth.

    Anyone can make a claim—like “Vaccines cause autism”—and then proclaim evidence in favor of it—“Child X had a vaccine and Child X has autism.” That is evidence. It does (tacitly) support the claim. But does it produce a compelling argument?

    I hope my point is clear. Evidence is not enough. We all agree there are documents referring to the martyrdom of the disciples. The documents exist. The question (and I can’t help but note it remains the same question as the first statement in the first comment made by Vinny) is how reliable those documents are? How will you support the claim, for example, 1 Clement refers to a martyrdom of Peter and Paul without specifics in the document itself? How do you address the arguments both for and against your position? Why should we consider Hippolytus (if it even was written by him) reliable when it is 150 years later?

    Why is Tertullian reliable, but the documents he utilizes to make his claim not? If there is legendary development in what we have (Josephus --> 2nd Apocalypse --> Hegesippus), how do we know there is no legendary development in the silence we DON’T have? If there is anecdotal evidence (Hippolytus, Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul), why shouldn’t 1 Clement and Martyrdom of Polycarp be considered anecdotal as well?

    Addressing both pro and con positions is far, FAR more interesting than simply listing the evidence. I wonder if you will…

  33. I noticed in another blogger's review of Licona's new book that he raises the "die for a lie argument." Does he discuss the sources of the martyrdom stories?

  34. I will get a blog entry up in the next few days on that question, Vinny. Short answer...1 Clement, Eusebius & Dionysius if I recall correctly.

  35. For those who have followed this, Dr. Clay Jones has put up a new blog entry: Peter and Paul Killed for Proclaiming Jesus.

    I filed a response, waiting for moderation. If it doesn’t make the cut, I will post it here.

  36. My comments seem to be getting posted without moderation. I think I'm insulted.

  37. Vinny, it may be my comment has too many links. We will see if it goes up in the next 24 hours. The odd thing is that I believe he obtained his information from Licona’s book. I may not have noticed it, if I hadn’t prepared that blog entry at your request. Too many coincidences in content, order and lack of content.

    Humorously, I just had a similar problem over at this Wintery Knight’s blog.

    Foxfier: Comment
    Me: Response (without links)
    Foxfier: Why should I listen to you? You don’t provide links or quotes.

    Me: [attempted comment] I don’t because normally such comments are swallowed up by spam filter. But here it goes…*numerous links*

    No comment appears.

    Me: Ha ha. Like I suspected. My comment with links was filtered out.
    Foxfier: I think you are lying. MY comments get through fine.

    Wintery Knight: Yep, his comment was caught in spam filter. Here it is.

    Foxfier: Nothing will persuade you. I won’t respond further.

    I couldn’t win. *grin*