>>96411417> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tracuMHpzmQHe is just outright lying about someone else's work. Here is the man's work.
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04768-3_2It doesn't mention what he said. Also, it clearly shows the Abrahamic narrative as a myth and debunks several key aspects of the story.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4skBUb_dIThis doesn't even present evidence or arguments. It is just trying to come up with excuses for the lack of evidence the Exodus was real.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ncZQmpZfbEHere he points out evidence that contradicts the Exodus story, and dishonestly presents that fact as evidence for the story. If the Israelites who committed genocide against the other Canaanites lived in Avaris decades before, then the whole "exodus" part of the Exodus is false.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDFKGFHTPKIHere he is just admitting that the story is false.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW-VB9HNnzgFirst he tries to make excuses for the lack of evidence that the story is true. Then he just spouts bullshit about how the story fits into Egyptian culture (when in fact the biblical story misses several key aspects of Egyptian culture, such as the way slavery worked in Egypt at the time; also there is no archaeological continuity between the people who supposedly came from Egypt and the people living in Israel) and other mental gymnastics to claim that the evidence "indirectly" supports the story.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDeJQEOO2n4Again, he isn't providing any evidence or argument for his claims; he is just trying to come up with flimsy excuses for the lack of evidence, with reasoning which is often just plainly absurd (such as pointing out that Philo didn't mention an event which occurred after he died, to try to argue that historians at the time were just sloppy), or circular (citing the Bible itself; it also defeats its own argument by pointing out that people who wrote the Bible had access to historical records written by Romans, meaning that the supposed "coincidences" could have been perfectly manufactured).
> Jesse? from the get-go it was about the Christian God when I said to read the book of revelation, you then brought up how the "Christian narrative" is just as believable as the narrative of a malicious god that got a kick out of making people fall for Christianity painting it as the truth while it did nothing for them.Yes, pointing out that you are baselessly assuming things about god(s) if they exist is a valid counterargument to Pascal's Wager fallacy ("Can't prove that, can you? Better safe than sorry, innit").
> What about Micah 5:2? Is that not a clear prophecy? And was it not fulfilled in Jesus? It seems to me like you have no actual argumentsThis is an example of a failed prophecy. Jesus didn't get to rule Israel, he just died pathetically.
> Jesse, this is completely unhistorical, please provide evidencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patristics (the article cites plenty of evidence).
> Again, evidence?? You make a lot of bold claimsThe books chosen to create the Bible itself. The book, which supposedly tells the truth, tells many things that are demonstrably false, many of which are crucial to the story it is trying to tell. There's a reason that it was forbidden for most people to read the Bible for over 1000 years; it turned out that they overestimated people's intelligence in thinking that plebeians and other people who didn't personally benefit from being part high-ranking members of the church would destroy religion and the church if they actually read the book.
> Some of this refers to Jerusalem’s destruction, and some to the end of the world. The disciples asked about both, and Christ, in His wisdom, answered both together.The destruction of Jerusalem meant nothing in itself, and predicting it is not at all impressive (everything falls apart eventually, and the Temple of Jerusalem was already in a precarious situation at the time); what matters is what was supposed to happen when the Temple fell, which didn't happen.
