> Sir, you dont have reasonable statements, you have a youtube video. You're continuing to act like a jackass. That something is in the format of a YouTube video or not isn't what makes it reasonable. Furthermore, you're mixing up what you're replying to. I was referring to my statement that left room for doubt in poorly documented historical events from over 2,000 years ago. > Hes bringing up old religions and inferring that "creating gods wasnt new during the time of Jesus, therfore, he was *probably just a story" Don't use false quotes when you're analyzing a presentation. Regardless, if you're willing to dismiss Zeus or any number of gods that were euhemerized at the time as not being historical figures, we must ask the same question of Jesus. But that's NOT his sole argument. He also looks at the historical evidence for Jesus (both for and against) and draws a conclusion on what is most likely. > ~7:00 - still just a bunch of inferences. Hes saying the churches were engaging in bad behaviors and manipulating as a support for his overarching theory - which is a notion that was literally in the bible and also warned against by Jesus which is just hilarious. I don't even know what you're talking about here. You're being very vague. Around 7 minutes in he's talking about the move away from visions to a canonical Jesus rooted in Earthly life, where "visions don't count anymore" (that's a direct quote, @6:57. See, its not so hard to be accurate.) Are you denying the earliest Christian documents we have, Paul's letters, didn't refer to visions? And that at some point visions of Jesus were no longer acceptable, but instead were replaced by written gospels? > "christians were known to lie and make things up" when these are the very things Jesus warned against - he even instructs "take heed no man decieve you" - WARNING you against deceitful people who use religion or guilt to enslave you. Gee, people might make stuff up, even when preaching otherwise. SHOCKING. You're not a Mormon, a Muslim, or any number of other religions. You have to conclude that the founders of those religions were making stuff up, while pretending to uphold divine truth. So what's special about Christianity that you don't accept claims of fabrication, when *even the Christian church* dismissed a wide swath of gospels as inauthentic, and instead only chose to canonize a handful, which all look to be based on Mark? > "Because it was typical of the time for people to make up deities." Essentially. Thats his big segue. "It was typical." Its too bad we're talking about a statistical outlier here. Not just any statistical outlier - THE ONE. You're assuming the truth of what is under question. The whole point is we're looking at the evidence through a historical lens, trying to separate myth from reality. You're suffering greatly from survivor bias. If some other version of Jesus or religion had won out, then you'd be arguing for that version as "THE ONE" instead; more of their texts would have been preserved and spread, while others suppressed. You can't just ignore the entire history of people making shit up and calling it divine truth, while claiming the version handed down to you is the one, divine truth.