The opposite of a jumbo small.

I think “without rambling” is more than just a stretch. Dude was all over place, but he was able to ramble clearly.

Politics should have been sorted out way before the ring.

They are. I’ve seen phones being on magnet mounts or held on the steering wheel with videos playing.

mIRC/IRC is still going, right? Haven’t used that in probably a decade.

My favorite is the fan mounted to the boat blowing the sail causing the boat to move. I mean there are a shitload more experiments in fun episodes that are far better and more entertaining, but this one is my favorite because it flies in the face of logic. It shouldn’t work. My brain rejects the possibility. But physics and fluid flow work otherwise and I found it pointlessly infuriating only because I’d been unassailable in my confidence that it couldn’t possibly work. Yet there it is with a perfectly logical explanation. I still find it irritating even if I accept the reality of it. (Episode 165 if anyone’s wondering)

That said, I still follow Adam on various platforms. That enthusiasm and joy of discovery is all still there, along with some maturity and some life observations. Literally the only celebrity figure I follow.

You bleed rainbows when cut.

Every religion apart from Christianity dies without lies

Quoted for posterity.

There it is. Your true colors.

I guess religion and atheism are on equal footing, then.

“Me when I lie”?

Go talk to the wiki I got that from if you want to argue with someone else about whether something is true or not.

That’s not what I said.

However, like Arthurian Legend, it doesn’t mean some guy like Jesus didn’t exist, or an aggregate of characters weren’t assembled to be him on story.

That’s what I said.

I used Arthur as a fellow mythology, along with a conditional “or” he could be an aggregate character.

The moment of resurrection itself is not described in any of the gospels, but all four contain passages in which Jesus is portrayed as predicting his death and resurrection, or contain allusions that “the reader will understand”. The New Testament writings do not contain any descriptions of a resurrection but rather accounts of an empty tomb.

So therefore I stand by the premise that changes have been made, and what existed in 100 is not what we have today.

You’ll have to forgive me if I bow out. I do not share your beliefs, nor am I willing to continue to argue over religious texts that are self-referencing to constitute proof.

See, now you’re moving the goalposts. You made a sweeping statement that Christianity is as-is compared to the first century CE. Yet here you are breaking it down and excluding things.

Let’s just face it, you don’t mean Christianity as a whole is same as 2kyr ago. It isn’t. They held on to some facets of it, got rid of others, but kept the main themes like resurrection and the like. Heck, there are even some that suggest the resurrection story was added centuries later.

Nonetheless they are different. And you skipped past the whole “little is known” part, not to mention all the parts that got tossed out along the way.

Once the hive mind takes over and the downvote train starts it’s all but impossible to turn your post positive regardless of contrition. It’s unfortunate because it removes some incentive to publicly self-correct.

I offered my informal CV. Lemmy and the Fediverse the largest group I’ve ever offered any service to. My largest group is just over 1,800, but it’s a relatively homogeneous group needing little mod activity. The commuinity is free to comment on my history, stupidity (lol) and bias. I figure it’s fair considering he job app. I’ll offer that I respect and enjoy (even if it’s verbal sparring) the prospect of opposing reasonable views on Lemmy vs the bots, tropes, reposts, and crabs-in-a-bucket karma-whores on Reddit.

So copying everyone else’s work and rehashing it as your own is what makes a PhD level intelligence? (Sarcastic comments about post-grad work forthcoming, I’m sure)

Unless AI is able to come up with original, testable, verifiable, repeatable previously unknown associations, facts, theories, etc. of sufficient complexity it’s not PhD level…using big words doesn’t count either.

You said:

An interesting thing about what we have now in Christianity though is that it basically spawned as-is in the first century

The article says:

Little is fully known of Christianity in its first 150 years; sources are few.

So you’re making a huge, sweeping statement that Christianity as we know it today is based on something…we don’t know much about? There are 6 major Christian denominations, not to mention hundreds of smaller ones. Which one is the “as-is” one? The one that is exactly “as-is” from CE 100?

You mean besides a couple dudes running around telling us to be cool to each other?

You didn’t even read the wiki entry, did you.

I think “as-is” is a bit of a stretch.

No.

There’s lots of ambiguous information. There is no firsthand, historically agreed upon data that supports his existence in the form we know him today. In other words, there was no magical guy doing magical things.

There is no Roman record of “nailed 3 prisoners to the posts today; Bill, Roger, and Jesus the magic guy who was a pain in the ass.”

However, like Arthurian Legend, it doesn’t mean some guy like Jesus didn’t exist, or an aggregate of characters weren’t assembled to be him on story. Arthur was possibly just a chieftain of a group who fought a couple of hefty battles and made a name for himself, but he ended up being an almost magical figure with wizards and witches in the story and - guess what, he will “rise again” from the dead when needed. And no, rising from the dead isn’t owned by Christian religious figures, Osiris of Egypt did it, Dionysius of the Greek Pantheon among many others. So maybe some dude, who probably wasn’t named Jesus, caused a stir and got a few people to take note. That grew over hundreds and even thousands of years to what we have now.

Want to know why King Arthur isn’t a competitor to Jesus? He a) doesn’t offer the opportunity to control people in this life for the hope of an afterlife, b) he isn’t profitable.