Telling me I have to watch 72 hours versus 1 hours is the same thing. Sure thing, jackass.
Well you specified no rules, so your prosecution rested at 1 comment with a 1 hour long video and my defense could have thrown hours long video links that were "easily digestible", but I still only jokingly remarked so.
So lets get back on topic.
Without the use of anyone else's words, why dont you think Jesus or God are real?
It can be short, but it should be your words.
Because even agnostics can imagine "a galanctic machine core which manages energy and mass" as part of some existential quatum theory.
Well you specified no rules
I don't have to specify rules that are common sense. It's not unreasonable to ask somebody interested in a topic that people have spent entire careers on to watch a 1 hour video summarizing a position. It IS unreasonable to question my open-mindedness while refusing to watch said video, and instead first handwaving, and then coming back with a 72-hour jackass retort.
Without the use of anyone else's words, why dont you think Jesus or God are real?
We've been over this and you have no counterargument. Given that neither of us our experts in the history of Jesus, our starting position has to be the information conveyed by experts. I can put it in my own words, but I'm only summarizing what's in the video. If you want the full argument, you have to watch the video.
In short, Jesus Christ is just one more dying and rising personal savior god that was in vogue for the region at the time. I could instead ask you why you don't believe Osiris was a real, historical figure. The Christian gospels are mythology written centuries after the fact., and so are not reliable evidence. The references in historical documents like Josephus are either fraudulent or rely on the beliefs of Christians. And the earliest documents like the letters of Paul relate his visions of Jesus -- that is, revelations, not the teachings of an actual preacher.
I'm not trying hard to insult you. I'm accurately describing your failures that lead to incomprehension of reasonable statements.
Sir, you dont have reasonable statements, you have a youtube video.
Let's continue:
The video you posted is of a man who paid to have "a study done", and is presenting the study under the pretense that "we had to go back from the beginning of history and determine what was factual" (~2:06) - essentially selectively building his case cherry picking his facts as his nearly guaranteed predetermination of this subject leads him through the course of history as pleases, but lets continue.
Around 6 minutes in - he supposes nearly every point he tries to make. And its riding on a sense of smarm and false comfidence moreso than concrete. Hes bringing up old religions and inferring that "creating gods wasnt new during the time of Jesus, therfore, he was *probably just a story"
~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.
The idea of people saying they are "Jewish" or "Christian" when they actually are assholes is also in there and warned about.
So do sometimes greedy, horrible, power hungry people parade around as christians rnjoying a tax-free status as they do bad things??? Lots and lots of times - but it wasnt Jesus who did it nor would he condone of it.
And once again this isnt evem the guys "main point" he just snarkily throws these vague inferences in to solidify the loose collection of pre-arranged facts hes carefully revealed so far.
Its not off to a hot start.
~14:30 - Im hanging im there, but as I thought near the 6 minute mark, its still a chunk of factual and rational thinking bolstered by the opinion - he makes his case against the timeline of the formation of the bible using his series of facts, but then goes on to conclude with "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.
And you are using that ability right now. You decided you didnt believe in something and wanted to do something else potentially for your own benefit - and thats literally what he wanted for you.
Now saying that Jesus warned against these things doesnt prove in your mind that he was 100% real, I know, but it absolutely takes a chunk of his arguments off the table that rely on "people who posed as Christians but did bad things" because it is directly against what the man himself fought against - and he directly spoke against it
And I wonder at this point, does he consider Catholics to be Christians?
And earlier around 13:00 he asks, as reads the slideshow, "Why believe this?" in regards to Jesus being a fictitious trope
"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.
And while the stories of "the" one were plenty, everyone's got their choice to believe (as granted by God) or not - but if there were a one to ever be "the one" eg., a messenger or expression / extension of some grand cosmic processing core that came by just to check things out/shake things up - then Jesus is my choice.
He had criticisms of churches in his own time nearly inline with modern atheist arguments against modern Christianity... That they were hollow and greedy and liars. How leading people astray with false religion is a horrible, shitty thing to do.
This Is silly.
~15 mins in, will watch rest tom and hopefully give a more cohesive response.
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, :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.
(post is archived)