Mind blowing facts about Jesus - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Mind blowing facts about Jesus? 🔗 **Source:** [Mind blowing facts about Jesus?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqBmKGPC1_A) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [historical-criticism, apologetics, historiography] > author: Digital Hammurabi > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqBmKGPC1_A > date created: 2024-12-19 16:45 > > # 🏷️ Title: Mind blowing facts about Jesus? >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Research Alexander the Great sources — verify claims about documentation quality #historiography - [H2] Examine apostolic martyrdom traditions — trace sources and reliability #early-christianity - [H3] Compare historical methodologies — ancient vs biblical figures #methodology ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Alexander the Great Historical Sources](URL) - [Early Christian Martyrdom Accounts](URL) ## 📝 Summary - A Christian apologetics video makes claims about historical evidence for Jesus compared to Alexander the Great, followed by detailed scholarly rebuttal - Digital Hammurabi challenges the methodology, source quality claims, and historical accuracy of the apologetic arguments - Key dispute centers on what constitutes reliable historical evidence and proper historiographical methods - The rebuttal argues the original video performs confidence without actual scholarly competence - Bottom line: Complex historical claims require rigorous source criticism rather than confident assertions ## 📖 Main Content The video presents a common apologetic argument comparing historical evidence for Jesus and Alexander the Great. The original speaker claims there are only five documents about Alexander written 300+ years after his death, while Jesus has 35+ extra-biblical sources. Digital Hammurabi systematically dismantles this comparison, explaining that Alexander's biographical sources draw from contemporary accounts by people who knew him personally, including official historians like Callisthenes. Additionally, we have material evidence for Alexander including coins, inscriptions, and archaeological remains from documented battlefields. For Jesus, the scholar notes that while existence and crucifixion are likely historical, we lack firsthand accounts or sources confidently based on eyewitness testimony. The earliest non-Christian references come 60+ years after Jesus' death. Regarding apostolic martyrdom traditions, these rely on much later church traditions rather than contemporary documentation. The critique highlights a methodological inconsistency: initially performing concern for source quality when discussing Alexander, then abandoning such scrutiny when asserting Christian dogmas about Jesus and the apostles. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/VqBmKGPC1_A?t=0) — [H1] Opening apologetic claim about Alexander vs Jesus - Key idea: Original video claims only 5 documents exist for Alexander the Great - Evidence: "The earliest of those was written over 300 years after he died" #### ⏱️ [00:15](https://youtu.be/VqBmKGPC1_A?t=15) — [H2] Scholar's rebuttal on Alexander sources - Key idea: Alexander's biographies draw from contemporary eyewitness accounts - Evidence: "Based on writings from people who knew Alexander the Great while he was alive and traveled with him" #### ⏱️ [01:20](https://youtu.be/VqBmKGPC1_A?t=80) — [H2] Material evidence for Alexander - Key idea: Multiple types of physical evidence supplement textual sources - Evidence: "Tablets written in Akkadian...Greek monumental inscriptions...coins minted during his lifetime" #### ⏱️ [02:00](https://youtu.be/VqBmKGPC1_A?t=120) — [H1] Claims about Jesus documentation - Key idea: Original video asserts 35+ extra-biblical sources for Jesus - Evidence: "Ancient historians like Tacitus and Josephus...mention this guy who was followed by his disciples" #### ⏱️ [03:30](https://youtu.be/VqBmKGPC1_A?t=210) — [H2] Quality of Jesus sources challenged - Key idea: No firsthand accounts exist for Jesus' life and exploits - Evidence: "The very earliest of them comes from 60 plus years after the death of Jesus" #### ⏱️ [04:45](https://youtu.be/VqBmKGPC1_A?t=285) — [H1] Apostolic martyrdom claims - Key idea: Original video claims all disciples except John were martyred for refusing to recant - Evidence: "They were killed specifically because they refused to recant the claim that Jesus came back from the dead" #### ⏱️ [05:30](https://youtu.be/VqBmKGPC1_A?t=330) — [H2] Martyrdom sources critiqued - Key idea: Martyrdom accounts lack contemporary documentation - Evidence: "We have no firsthand accounts of their deaths...we're just blindly accepting tradition" #### ⏱️ [07:00](https://youtu.be/VqBmKGPC1_A?t=420) — [H3] Methodological inconsistency identified - Key idea: Apologetic switches from source criticism to dogmatic assertion - Evidence: "We've already gotten past the need to perform concern for historical integrity" #### ⏱️ [08:15](https://youtu.be/VqBmKGPC1_A?t=495) — [H2] John's martyrdom account examined - Key idea: Claims about John being boiled in oil lack historical foundation - Evidence: "Comes from Tertullian who just asserts it around 200 CE...absolutely no firsthand account" #### ⏱️ [09:30](https://youtu.be/VqBmKGPC1_A?t=570) — [H1] "Historical fact" claims disputed - Key idea: Original video declares apostolic martyrdom as undeniable historical fact - Evidence: "Throughout all of the torture...none of them ever recanted" #### ⏱️ [10:45](https://youtu.be/VqBmKGPC1_A?t=645) — [H2] Scholarly consensus on Jesus presented - Key idea: Most defensible historical claims are limited and probabilistic - Evidence: "Most likely existed...most likely crucified by Rome...followers began to claim that he came back to life" #### ⏱️ [11:30](https://youtu.be/VqBmKGPC1_A?t=690) — [H1] Final apologetic appeal - Key idea: Original video encourages Bible reading as historical source - Evidence: "The Bible is the first source evidences of Jesus's life...trust it" #### ⏱️ [12:00](https://youtu.be/VqBmKGPC1_A?t=720) — [H2] Concluding critique of apologetic method - Key idea: Video performs competence to validate pre-existing beliefs - Evidence: "Performing confidence and conviction and competence so that audience...can be filled with confidence" ## 📚 References - [Mind blowing facts about Jesus?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqBmKGPC1_A) - [Digital Hammurabi Channel](https://www.youtube.com/@DigitalHammurabi) - [Historical Jesus Scholarship](URL) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - The original apologetic argument makes unfounded comparisons between historical evidence for Alexander the Great and Jesus, misrepresenting the quality and nature of available sources - Professional historians maintain much higher evidentiary standards than popular apologetics, requiring careful source criticism rather than confident assertions - Claims about apostolic martyrdom rely on later church traditions rather than contemporary historical documentation, making them historically questionable rather than factual ## 📰 Newsletter A recent viral video claiming superior historical evidence for Jesus compared to Alexander the Great has sparked important discussions about historical methodology and source criticism. While the comparison initially appears compelling, scholarly analysis reveals significant methodological flaws. The key learning: Historical claims require rigorous evaluation of source quality, contemporary documentation, and material evidence. Popular apologetics often performs confidence without meeting academic standards for historical reconstruction. For developers and content creators, this highlights the importance of fact-checking, citing primary sources, and maintaining intellectual honesty when making claims about evidence or methodology. Resources: [Learn WordPress](https://learn.wordpress.org/), [Developer Docs](https://developer.wordpress.org/), [WP-CLI](https://wp-cli.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Create content distinguishing evidence-based claims from marketing assertions - Education: Develop workshops on source criticism for technical documentation - Developer experience: Implement citation standards for developer resources - Community management: Moderate discussions requiring evidence-based discourse #### Community - Maintainers: Establish evidence standards for project claims and roadmaps - Contributors: Train in fact-checking methodologies for documentation - Ecosystem: Coordinate standards for verifiable technical assertions #### WordPress - Documentation: Implement source citation requirements for HelpHub articles - Training: Develop lessons on evaluating technical claims and sources - Community: Create guidelines for evidence-based presentations at WordCamps ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Popular apologetics videos prioritize audience validation over historical accuracy - Methodological inconsistency indicates motivated reasoning rather than genuine inquiry - Confidence performance can substitute for actual expertise in audience perception - Historical claims require different evidential standards than theological beliefs ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative source analysis between Alexander the Great and Jesus documentation - Content analysis of apologetic argumentation patterns and rhetorical strategies - Survey of professional historians' assessments of popular historical claims ### ❓ Questions - How can educational institutions better teach historical methodology to general audiences? - What role should content platforms play in fact-checking historical claims? - How do audiences distinguish between confident presentation and actual expertise? ### 🔮 Future Research - Analysis of apologetic methodology across different religious traditions - Study of audience reception and belief change from scholarly rebuttals - Investigation of historiographical training in seminary education ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Content creators must distinguish between confidence and competence when making historical claims - Policy: Educational standards should emphasize source criticism and evidential reasoning - Education: Historical methodology training needs improvement in religious education contexts - Security: Misinformation spreads through performed expertise rather than actual knowledge ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 12th grade #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Video format with speaker presentations - Improve: Timeline graphics comparing source dates, evidence quality matrices #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Audio discussion and debate format available - Improve: Podcast-style summary highlighting key methodological points #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear definitions of historiographical terms and concepts - Improve: Glossary of technical terms, analogies for source criticism methods #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step breakdown of argument analysis - Improve: Interactive checklist for evaluating historical claims #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic comparison of evidence types and quality - Improve: Decision trees for historical source evaluation #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Debate format between different perspectives - Improve: Discussion guides for examining historical methodology #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Detailed analysis suitable for individual reflection - Improve: Self-assessment questions about source criticism skills #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Archaeological evidence connections to natural world - Improve: Environmental context for ancient historical preservation ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear headings and logical content structure - Improve: Alt text for any visual elements, proper heading hierarchy #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video player controls - Improve: Transcript navigation by timestamps #### Contrast and readability - Present: Standard video format - Improve: High-contrast transcript options, larger text sizing #### Media and captions - Present: Audio content available - Improve: Professional captions, downloadable transcripts with speaker identification ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Discussion of ancient Mediterranean cultures - Improve: Acknowledge diverse approaches to historical methodology globally #### Inclusive language - Present: Academic terminology clearly defined - Improve: Avoid assumptions about audience religious background #### Representation - Present: Scholarly perspective centered - Improve: Include diverse voices in historical methodology discussion #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful disagreement with apologetic claims - Improve: Content warnings about religious content, multiple valid perspectives ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Systematic comparison of evidence standards applied consistently - Inductive strength: Pattern recognition in apologetic argumentation methods - Causal reasoning: Connection between methodological flaws and unreliable conclusions - Analogical strength: Appropriate comparison between different types of historical evidence #### Fallacies - Appeal to authority: Original video cites "ancient historians" without proper context - False equivalence: Comparing different types and qualities of historical sources - Confirmation bias: Performing evidence evaluation only when convenient #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Scholarly, critical but respectful, educationally focused ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: Original video denies need for rigorous source criticism - Attack: Implies critics are simply biased against religious claims - Reverse victim/offender: Positions skeptics as closed-minded rather than methodologically careful - Emotional cues: Appeals to audience's existing beliefs rather than evidence ## 🎯 Conclusion This exchange illustrates the critical importance of maintaining rigorous evidential standards when making historical claims. While popular apologetics may perform confidence and competence, genuine historical inquiry requires careful source criticism, acknowledgment of limitations, and methodological consistency. The key takeaway is that confident presentation should not be confused with actual scholarly rigor, and audiences benefit from learning to distinguish between these approaches. Educational institutions and content creators have a responsibility to model proper historical methodology rather than simply validating pre-existing beliefs. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Historical methodology requires consistent source criticism standards > [!quote] [Mind blowing facts about Jesus?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqBmKGPC1_A) by [[Digital Hammurabi]] via [[YouTube]]. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-19. > "We are asserting dogmatic claims without argument that are based on presuppositions." Demonstrates importance of maintaining evidentiary standards throughout analysis rather than abandoning them when conclusions align with desired beliefs. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqBmKGPC1_A#H1) #xref #articleseed ID:rw_001 ### [H2] Alexander the Great sources include contemporary eyewitness accounts > [!quote] [Mind blowing facts about Jesus?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqBmKGPC1_A) > "Those biographies are overwhelmingly based on writings from people who knew Alexander." Corrects common apologetic mischaracterization of ancient historical documentation quality and availability. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqBmKGPC1_A#H2) #xref ID:rw_002 --- ### 🔖 Atomic Split Pad (Zettel Candidates) Purpose: Promote reusable claims into Atomic notes. Split level: H4 #### [Z1] Confidence performance substitutes for actual expertise - Applies to online content creation and educational contexts - Pointer to 12:00 timestamp analysis - Links: [[Dunning-Kruger-Effect]] [[Educational-Authority]] #### [Z2] Historical claims require contemporary source documentation - Condition: When reconstructing ancient lives and events - Pointer to 3:30 source quality discussion - Links: [[Historiography]] [[Source-Criticism]] --- ### ✏️ --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] Here's a few mind-blowing historical [00:02] facts about Jesus. All right, let's see [00:04] it. Nobody denies that Alexander the [00:07] Great existed. And yet, the only [00:09] documents that we have about him from [00:11] the ancient world are five. And the [00:14] earliest of those was written over 300 [00:17] years after he died. So, this is [00:20] entirely false and just wildly [00:22] uninformed. There are five biographies [00:26] about Alexander the Great, the earliest [00:28] of which was written almost 300 years [00:31] after his death. But those biographies [00:33] are overwhelmingly based on writings [00:37] from people who knew Alexander the Great [00:39] while he was alive and traveled with [00:41] him, including an official historian. So [00:45] we have folks like Kalistanes and Tommy [00:48] and Naarchus and Aristobulus and [00:50] Onusiticus who knew Alexander the Great [00:53] and wrote about his life and his [00:56] exploits from firthand experience as [00:59] well as collecting the different [01:01] accounts from other contemporaries. And [01:04] some of those works still survive in [01:06] fragments or in quotations that are [01:09] found in the five later main [01:12] biographies. But we also have other [01:14] texts. We have tablets written in Aadian [01:18] that are about Alexander the Great and [01:21] his decrees and his activities. We have [01:24] Greek monumental inscriptions with [01:26] decrees from and about Alexander the [01:29] Great. And we have coins that were [01:31] minted during his lifetime that show his [01:33] face and have his name on them. We have [01:37] many such coins and they continued to be [01:40] minted for a decade after his death. We [01:42] have archaeological remains from the [01:44] battlefields that are discussed by his [01:48] historian, by others, by his [01:50] biographers. We can correlate a lot of [01:54] different types of sources to [01:56] reconstruct with a high degree of [01:57] confidence an awful lot of the details [01:59] of Alexander the Great's life and [02:02] exploits. The notion that there are just [02:05] five total documents about Alexander the [02:08] Great that witness to his life is just [02:11] laughably misinformed. Yet, we take that [02:14] to be enough evidence that Alexander the [02:16] Great was in fact a real person. With [02:18] Jesus, on the other hand, there are over [02:21] 35 extra biblical documentations talking [02:25] about him. A large amount of those were [02:27] actually talking about Jesus in a [02:29] negative light. You have writings from [02:32] ancient historians like Tacitus and [02:34] Josephus, things that mention this guy [02:36] who was followed by his disciples who [02:38] claimed that he rose from the dead. [02:41] Documentation talking about him being [02:43] crucified by the Romans. And keeping in [02:46] mind this is all outside of the Bible. [02:48] If you wanted to include the 27 letters [02:51] that composed the New Testament, then [02:52] that is going to be around 62 different [02:56] documents that are from the ancient [02:59] world giving credibility and evidence to [03:01] the fact that Jesus was in fact a real [03:03] historical figure. And these give [03:05] evidence that Jesus was definitely [03:08] actually crucified and that his [03:10] disciples, his followers actually [03:12] believed that he rose from the dead. The [03:15] notion that the evidence that exists for [03:18] the life and the exploits of Jesus of [03:20] Nazareth does anything other than [03:24] timidly pale in comparison to the [03:26] evidence that exists for the life and [03:28] exploits of Alexander the Great is just [03:32] bafflingly uninformed. [03:35] There exist no firsthand accounts of the [03:38] life and exploits of Jesus of Nazareth. [03:40] There exist no accounts that we can [03:44] confidently say are based on any [03:47] firsthand accounts of the life and [03:49] exploits of Jesus of Nazareth. Even if [03:51] we accept as genuine all 35 of these [03:55] extra biblical documents, 33 of which [03:58] are not named, the very earliest of them [04:01] comes from 60 plus years after the death [04:05] of Jesus. and again is not a firsthand [04:08] account or even based on a firsthand [04:10] account. The three parts of Jesus's life [04:13] that are mentioned as being discussed in [04:15] these documents are the fact that he [04:17] existed, the fact that he was crucified [04:20] by the Romans, and the fact that his [04:21] followers claimed that he came back to [04:25] life. Again, we don't have any data that [04:29] can allow us to confidently conclude [04:32] that any of that is based on actual [04:34] firthand accounts. So when we compare [04:38] the kinds of sources that we have to [04:42] reconstruct the life and the exploits of [04:44] Alexander the Great and Jesus of [04:46] Nazareth, the evidence for Alexander the [04:49] Great absolutely overwhelmingly [04:53] eclipses the evidence for Jesus of [04:55] Nazareth. Now aside from John, all of [04:57] his disciples were martyed, which means [05:00] that they were killed for their faith. [05:01] And to be more specific, they were [05:03] killed specifically because they refused [05:06] to recant the claim that Jesus came back [05:10] from the dead. Or at least that's what [05:12] tradition tells us. Because we have no [05:15] firsthand accounts of their deaths or [05:18] the rest of their lives after what we [05:20] have in the New Testament. We don't have [05:22] any accounts that we can confidently [05:24] conclude were based on firsthand [05:27] accounts either. So while we were taking [05:30] care to examine and interrogate the [05:33] quality of the sources and the types of [05:35] sources that we have for reconstructing [05:37] the life and exploits of Alexander the [05:39] Great and to a far lesser degree the [05:41] life and exploits of Jesus of Nazareth [05:43] when it comes to what happened to his [05:45] disciples, we're just blindly accepting [05:48] tradition without asking at all where [05:51] that tradition comes from. But guess [05:53] what? That has to be based on historical [05:55] sources as well. What historical sources [05:59] can you name for all of the different [06:01] disciples that are mentioned in the New [06:03] Testament? None. All you can name is [06:06] later church tradition. These people who [06:09] lived with him for three and a half [06:11] years every single day watched him die [06:15] and watched him come back to life 3 days [06:18] later. So the argument continues to [06:20] devolve as we continue to assert [06:23] dogmatic claims without argument that [06:25] are based on presuppositions of [06:27] univocality of inspiration of inherency [06:30] of historicity. Only now we're asserting [06:33] specific reconstructions of the length [06:35] of Jesus's ministry. And we have long [06:38] ago abandoned the notion that we are [06:40] actually concerned for interrogating the [06:43] number and the nature and the quality of [06:46] the sources of these historical [06:47] reconstructions. That was just a [06:49] performance for the introduction to the [06:52] video. Now we're just asserting as [06:54] evidence dogmas without argument and [06:57] without evidence because the audience [07:00] for this video is a group of people who [07:01] already agree with this content creator. [07:04] And all this content creator is doing is [07:06] performing a grasp of the data and the [07:10] methods and the theories and the [07:12] scholarship to make that audience that [07:15] already agrees feel like this is someone [07:17] who can be trusted. And when they assert [07:19] with confidence that we can know that [07:21] these things happened, the people who [07:23] already agree are made to feel comforted [07:27] that hey, this person who knows what [07:29] they're talking about speaks with such [07:31] conviction and so I can be confident [07:35] that they're right and therefore the [07:37] dogmas that we share are right and are [07:40] defensible and they're not. This content [07:42] creator doesn't begin to have the first [07:44] clue what they're talking about when it [07:46] comes to historioggraphy, when it comes [07:48] to the type and the quality and the [07:52] number of the sources that we have and [07:54] that we use to reconstruct the life and [07:57] the exploits of folks like Alexander the [07:59] Great and Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus's [08:02] disciples and the texts of the New [08:05] Testament and their change and [08:07] transmission through time. He doesn't [08:09] really have a grasp of much of that at [08:11] all. He's just performing confidence and [08:14] competence for an audience that already [08:17] agrees and just needs to be made to feel [08:20] validated in that agreement. They were [08:22] so sure about this that they literally [08:25] were tortured and put to death in the [08:28] most gruesome possible ways, including [08:30] being crucified upside down, having [08:32] their skin filleted off of their body. [08:35] John, who was not martyed, he was boiled [08:37] in oil and somehow did not die prior to [08:41] him being sent off into exile onto the [08:43] island of Patmos where he wrote [08:44] Revelation. The author of the Gospel of [08:46] John was very unlikely to be the beloved [08:50] disciple and someone named John and they [08:53] are definitely not the author of the [08:54] book of Revelation as even the majority [08:56] of Christians agreed up until Justin [09:00] Martyr in the middle of the 2 century CE [09:02] decided to make that connection. But all [09:05] kinds of analyses including the witness [09:08] of early Christians make clear that the [09:10] author of the book of revelation was not [09:12] the author of the gospel of John. So [09:15] again we are asserting dogmas that are [09:18] not only not supported by any data but [09:20] are pretty flatly precluded by the data. [09:23] And where does the notion that John got [09:25] boiled in oil and suffered no harm come [09:27] from? that comes from Tertullan who just [09:30] asserts it around 200 CE has absolutely [09:33] no firsthand account to offer. His claim [09:36] is not based on any firsthand accounts. [09:38] It's just something that he asserts. So [09:41] obviously this content creator is not [09:44] going to interrogate the nature or the [09:46] quality or the number of the sources for [09:48] that particular claim because we've [09:50] already gotten past the need to perform [09:53] concern for historical integrity. Now [09:56] it's off to the races of just asserting [09:58] a bunch of dogmas that we know the [10:00] audience will already agree with. And so [10:03] we don't even have to care about whether [10:05] or not any of it is historically [10:07] defensible. And it's not. Throughout all [10:11] of the torture, the beatings, and even [10:13] literally having your life taken from [10:15] you in gruesome, painful ways, none of [10:17] them ever recanted the claim that Jesus [10:20] did in fact rise from the dead. That is [10:24] historical fact. And that is [10:25] mind-blowing. [10:26] >> No, those are historical claims. They [10:28] are not remotely historical fact. And [10:31] you provided absolutely zero evidence [10:34] for those historical claims. And the [10:37] overwhelming majority of them are not [10:38] supported by any historical data. Again, [10:43] what we can retreat to as most [10:45] historically defensible when it comes to [10:47] the life and exploits of Jesus of [10:49] Nazareth is that he most likely existed. [10:52] He was most likely a Jewish itinerant [10:55] apocalyptic preacher who was most likely [10:58] crucified by Rome probably for starting [11:01] a riot in the temple around Passover and [11:03] then his followers began to claim that [11:06] he came back to life shortly thereafter. [11:08] That's about the best we can reconstruct [11:11] regarding the life and exploits of Jesus [11:13] of Nazareth. That I would say comes the [11:15] closest to being historical fact. [11:17] Everything else mentioned so far in this [11:19] video is just a tradition, a historical [11:23] claim. So 100% undeniable facts about [11:27] Jesus is that Jesus of Nazareth was a [11:30] real person. He was in fact crucified by [11:34] the Romans and died. And then his [11:36] disciples went to their death because [11:38] they claimed that Jesus came back from [11:41] the dead. That's not myth. That's not [11:43] fairy tale. Those are undeniable [11:46] historical facts. Uh, no, this is the [11:50] performance of a lot more certainty than [11:52] is actually merited regarding these [11:55] events. These are likely historical [11:58] events, but we don't really know for [12:01] sure how Jesus's disciples actually died [12:05] or who they were precisely. Uh, I [12:08] already described what we can most [12:11] likely confidently reconstruct regarding [12:13] the life and exploits of Jesus. Again, [12:16] anything beyond that and particularly [12:18] the claims that have been made so far in [12:20] this video that are being asserted as [12:22] 100% undeniable historical fact uh are [12:26] not that. So, if you're of the mindset [12:28] that the Bible isn't real and that Jesus [12:31] is not God and you think that all of [12:34] this is just mythology, I would [12:36] challenge you to actually genuinely look [12:39] into it because you will have your mind [12:42] changed by the history alone. But more [12:45] than that, you will have your heart [12:47] changed by the Bible alone. The Bible is [12:50] the first source evidences of Jesus's [12:53] life. go read that, learn from it, trust [12:56] it. So, I think it would be a wonderful [12:58] idea for people out there to go get [13:00] better informed about these things, but [13:03] not because of the performance in this [13:05] video, because this content creator is [13:07] not remotely adequately informed about [13:10] the related history, about the sources [13:12] that we use, about the methods and the [13:15] theories, how we interrogate the quality [13:18] of these sources, how we reconstruct the [13:20] lives and exploits of historical [13:22] figures. uh they very quickly abandoned [13:25] the pretense of concern for the number [13:28] and the nature and the quality of [13:31] documentation regarding the lives of [13:33] ancient figures and very quickly just [13:35] started rattling off dogmatic claims [13:38] without any concern for where those [13:40] claims come from. So this is another [13:42] example of performing confidence and [13:46] conviction and competence [13:49] so that that audience that already [13:51] agrees with you can be filled with [13:53] confidence and conviction regarding [13:55] these dogmas that you share. And the [13:58] greater you can perform competence, [14:02] the more effective the performance of [14:04] confidence and conviction will be in [14:07] allowing them to siphon off some of that [14:10] confidence and conviction and feel like [14:12] these things are so obvious. And anyone [14:14] who's educated about these things will [14:16] obviously agree. That's simply not the [14:18] case. And this content creator doesn't [14:20] really know much about how actual [14:22] scholars talk about these things. [14:24] They're just regurgitating a rather [14:26] pedestrian brand of online apologetics [14:29] that managed to dupe them and now [14:31] they're turning around and trying to use [14:33] it to dupe others. Do better. Repent and [14:37] trust in Jesus Christ alone that he was [14:39] the sufficient sac. [14:40] >> Now I'm good. But the fit for this video [14:42] has been Lobo.