Comments by "Evan" (@MrEvanfriend) on "" video.

CE/BCE is ridiculous PC foolishness. It still refers to the exact same thing, a dating system that the entire world has agreed upon, but attempts to remove any reference for it. AD/BC is at least based on a world-changing event (whether or not you're a believing Christian, you must admit that the life of Jesus changed the world in any number of ways), the CE/BCE nonsense attempts to remove that event and then just make the sudden change in dating systems arbitrary.
133
The fact that it doesn't get the dates spot on is unimportant. What is important is that BC/AD refers to an important event which changed the world significantly (which is undeniably true whatever your religious affiliation may be). BCE/CE is entirely arbitrary. What about the "common era" makes it "common"? How is one year in the middle of Augustus' reign somehow different from the year before? There's no reference to it, it's just "hey, we're gonna count starting from this random place in time". This is far worse than a 6th century attempt to place the birth of Christ being off by a few years.
38
ft55555 What possible argument can you make that it wasn't world changing? It shaped the culture of an entire continent, which spread their ways throughout the world. There are literally billions of Christians on earth. You may not believe that Jesus was Son of God, but you can't deny that Jesus had more influence on the world than any other person in history.
35
ft55555 Jesus Christ was an actual person, there's no disputing that. Claiming otherwise is just anti-Christian nonsense for its own sake. Your own religious beliefs or lack thereof don't interest me in the least, but when you deny basic historical fact because of your disdain for a particular religion, you're an idiot and no different than these Holocaust deniers. Christ's story may not have been widespread during his lifetime, but that doesn't mean that the event of his life is somehow unimportant. The fact that a 6th century monk got the date wrong is irrelevant, it's still a more sensible system than just proclaiming a "common era" at an arbitrary date. About a quarter of the world's population is Christian. If you're telling me that's somehow not significant, or that Christianity wasn't elemental in shaping the last 2000 years of history, you're being willfully blind.
34
Air Em Out Virtually all scholars agree that Jesus did exist, and that he was baptised by John the Baptist and then crucified. This is history, not theology. Whether or not you believe that Jesus was the son of God or not, his life happened, and was one of if not the most influential event in human history. This is really indisputable. Jesus changed the world whether you like it or not, therefore BC/AD is a sensible distiction. BCE/CE is not a sensible distiction, it's entirely arbitrary. If not for Jesus Christ, what else happened during the middle of the reign of Augustus to be worth Year One? The BCE/CE thing is nothing more than political correctness for its own sake. The entire world, Christian or not, has agreed upon the BC/AD distinction, and pretending it doesn't exist because you aren't Christian is simply foolish.
33
Air Em Out Literally none of that is true, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for thinking so. First, Jesus and his disciples were Jews. Contemporary historians like Tacitus and Josephus, a Roman and Jew respectively, agree on this. Even the name "Jesus" is a Greek adaptation of the Hebrew Joshua. So no, it wasn't a Roman invention. It was a Jewish invention that spread to Greece and caught on in Rome despite heavy persecution. Try reading some actual history instead of whatever dreck it is you get this nonsense from. By the way, you'll notice I'm not opining on any of the theological ramifications of Jesus' life. Whether or not he was the Son of God isn't particularly relevant to the more or less concrete historical fact that he existed. Just because you have some arbitrary hatred of Christianity is not good enough reason to say there was no Christ. I, for one, virulently hate Islam and all the paynim savages who practice it (unlike you, my hatred is based in experience and reality), but this doesn't mean I deny the existence of Black Mahound. I just don't believe he was anything more than a genocidal pederast with a knack for bad poetry. Claiming that Jesus didn't exist because you don't like Christians is the same as being a Holocaust denier because you don't like Jews. It's willful stupidity.
23
ft55555 The Gospels are the biggest source of knowledge about Jesus, but there are other contemporary records of his existence, and even a footnote about the Crucifixion.
22
I am literally saying that denying agreed upon history for idiotic political reasons is insanely stupid and morally abhorrent.
20
Snowy Kcnomre There is no year zero. 1 BC is followed by AD 1. Yes, it is true that Jesus was likely born in about 6-4 BC, but still. And yes, all Catholics consider themselves Christian. Just like all Baptists or Lutherans or Methodists or whatever consider themselves Christian.
6
Religion is a source of great solace and joy to literally billions of people worldwide. To focus on Islamic atrocities and then expand that to condemn all religion as a source of misery is completely counterfactual and absurd. And whether or not you believe Jesus was the Son of God, denying that he was an actual person who actually existed in history is moronic. This is history, not theology. Jesus existed, was a religious leader, and was crucified for it. This is fact. The Immaculate Conception and Resurrection and such are theology, and whether or not you believe that is irrelevant, but you're going beyond that to deny that arguably the most influential person in human history ever even existed.
6
Joe Horn If you think that's what the history of Christianity is, you're an idiot
6
If you don't believe Jesus was a historical person who actually existed, you are a fool. Both Roman and Jewish sources make it clear that he did. Denying history to justify your religious hatred is immoral.
1
Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is God the Son, and that salvation can only come through Him. I'm not sure what definition of Christian you're using, but any reasonably objective definition of Christian clearly includes the Catholic Church.
1
@shellbellbutterfly Yeah...most of that is nonsense made up by the Ku Klux Klan. None of it has anything to do with reality.
1
@andrew24601 No. The "BCE/CE" nonsense is still based on the birth of Jesus, it just removes the reference and makes it arbitrary.
1
@BigDawgisonyoutube Personally, I want to use the system that everyone on the planet has agreed upon for centuries, instead of the exact same system stripped of all meaning to keep stupid people from being offended. CE/BCE is meaningless. It takes the exact same date - the supposed birth of Christ - as the beginning of the new dating system. Only instead of starting at year one because the birth of Christ ushered in a new era (and I know the date is likely wrong. It doesn't matter, it's been agreed upon for a very long time and changing it now is more trouble than it's worth), it's just arbitrarily stating "hey, we're gonna start over fresh at this random date". CE/BCE uses the same event for starting the new system, only it deprives it of any meaning. If you want to use a new dating system, make a new one. Pick a date, tell us why it changed the world, and start counting from there. CE/BCE piggybacks off of the extant AD/BC system - one which makes sense - but strips it of its meaning because stupid people might be offended that it references a religion that isn't theirs.
1
@BigDawgisonyoutube Right, some regions use additional local methods in addition to the worldwide AD/BC system. The BC/AD system is still the universal one used by everyone though. And I wasn't calling people who aren't Christians stupid, I'm calling people who aren't Christians AND GET OFFENDED by the generally agreed upon system of dating because it references a religion that they don't follow stupid. Christians who get offended by stupid things are also stupid. CE/BCE remains ridiculous.
1
@carlhodsdon6487 While you're correct that Rome did its best to stomp out early Christianity, it would also be correct to say that Rome spread Christianity. After Constantine's conversion, and Rome becoming Christian, the reach of the Roman Empire was what spread Christianity throughout Europe. But for Rome, the life and teachings of a Jew from the Levant wouldn't have made it to places like Britain. Had the Romans not become Christian themselves, Christianity, if it survived at all, would still be a small Jewish sect, and history would be very, very different.
1
@lkhjsdfg Funny how contemporary accounts (besides the Gospels) all seem to agree that Christ existed. There is literally no evidence that He did not exist - debate His divinity all you want, but claiming He did not exist is absurd. The fact that YOU don't like Christianity is no reason to claim that a known historical figure did not exist. I despise Islam for any number of reasons, but I am not fool enough to claim that because I despise Islam, self-styled Islamic "prophet" black Mahound did not exist. Doing so would be stupid. I recognize the existence of Mahound, and dismiss the ludicrous idea that he was a prophet - he was a genocidal pedophile warlord who convinced enough other people that he was a prophet that they still cause all manner of trouble in his name 1400 years later. You're being willfully ignorant of history to justify your religious stance. It's one thing to say "I don't believe in God" or "I don't believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God". That's justifiable, and I won't grudge you your religious beliefs (or lack thereof). It's another thing entirely to say "I don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, therefore Jesus did not exist". That Jesus existed, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was then crucified is generally agreed upon history. Whether or not you believe those events have any divine significance, claiming that they never happened is just stupidity for its own sake.
1
@lkhjsdfg Yeah, you said that before. I don't believe that you've given the matter any reasonable amount of study, because you ignore the fact that all evidence points to His existence (an agreed upon point amongst all mainstream historians, regardless of religious views), and seem to focus on the holes that exist in the evidence. Holes exist, this is true. We don't know a lot about Jesus from a historical standpoint. We know that he existed, we know that He was baptized, and we know that He was crucified, and our knowledge outside of these three facts is pretty threadbare. But every contemporary account points to these three facts. You could well be right that the stories about the Virgin Birth and the Miracles and whatnot are exaggerated. That is a reasonable position to take. However, saying that because these stories may not be true, Christ never existed, is akin to saying "Because George Washington never chopped down his father's cherry tree than admitted to it rather than lying, George Washington didn't exist". Legendary exploits are attributed to actual historical figures all the time. Also, Christianity did not spring up out of nowhere. Yes, it was a couple centuries after the death of Christ that it really caught on, but it was there the whole time. If there was no Christ, how do you explain that? Do you believe that a random group of Jews just made some guy up and started following him? What argument do you have to make that Christ did not exist? Why do you go against the widely accepted historical version?
1
@lkhjsdfg Again, you fail to make a reasonable argument. You don't believe in Christianity. That's fine, your religious beliefs don't matter to me. But you take your disbelief to extreme and absurd levels - you don't believe in a religion, therefore its founder, who is generally agreed to be a historical figure and whose existence is pointed to by the historical record, must not exist. Paul, Tacitus, Josephus - all contemporary accounts point to Jesus' existence. Paul claimed never to have met Jesus in person, but he had met with people who did know Jesus personally. Or did Paul also not exist? For Jesus not to exist, you have to ignore virtually all of the evidence in favor of personal bias.
1
@lkhjsdfg It is virtually universally held that Christ existed. There is no mainstream historical theory to the contrary. That Christ existed, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate are accepted historical fact. Neither the Romans nor the Jews denied these facts - and both would have had political and religious reasons to deny them. I get it, you don't buy the miracles, you don't buy that the Gospels are good history. That's fine. What isn't fine is taking the absurd step that "since the Gospels aren't good history, Jesus didn't exist at all". Your statement that if he did exist he would have been a "tiny afroed deranged rabbi" really says all that I need to hear - your alleged belief that Jesus didn't exist is based solely on anti-Christian prejudice. If you look at middle-eastern Jews, they generally don't have afros. That's African blacks. As for the "mentally deranged" bit....well, that just tells us what you think. I don't think that a preacher going around saying things like "love thy neighbor" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is mentally deranged, I think that whether or not you believe Jesus was God incarnate, you have to admit that he was at bare minimum a good person. All of the historical evidence points to Jesus' existence. The contemporary historians, Jews and Romans alike, agree on this point. Modern historians unanimously agree on this point. You shouldn't let your own religious biases warp your view of history.
1
@lkhjsdfg Paul claims to have met Jesus' brother James. That doesn't sound ethereal to me. If the historical Jesus was given a Bible, he may well laugh at gross exaggerations - as many historical figures hearing accounts of their lives would. Saint George was undeniably a historical figure, and undeniably did not actually slay a dragon. Theoderic the Great was undeniably a historical figure who would have likely laughed about some of the Germanic tales of his exploits and magic sword and whatnot. It is a massive leap from saying "the Gospels are not good history" to "Jesus did not exist". If you don't accept the Gospels, that's fine, they're meant to be accepted on faith, and I don't care about your religious ideas or lack thereof. I have a problem with you saying that a man who we are essentially certain existed did not exist. It's gross historical revisionism to make a point, and that's stupid.
1
@lkhjsdfg Speaking of intellectual honesty, comparing basing a comic book character's looks on an actor who played a hockey player in a movie to exaggerating the deeds of a historical figure does not meet that bar. Whether or not the Gospels are an accurate depiction of Jesus' life is not relevant. What is relevant is that in the early 1st Century, there was a Jew from Galilee named Jesus (or actually the Aramaic Yeshua), who preached, had disciples, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was then executed on orders of Pontius Pilate. The theology behind his existence is irrelevant and unnecessary to the fact that He actually existed, which is at the level of historical certainty. It is true that we know little of Jesus' actual life. This is not particularly remarkable. During His life, Jesus was not particularly noteworthy. He was not an influential political figure, He was a (then) minor preacher whose teachings apparently annoyed the Jewish authorities enough to cause the Roman authorities to notice, and to crucify Him as a means of keeping the peace. When you consider how the overwhelming majority of people from that time have completely faded from all memory, it's amazing that we know anything at all. What we do know of Jesus, however, is compelling evidence that He actually did exist. The baptism and crucifixion are the key facts of Jesus' life that are agreed upon by everyone - Roman, Jew, and Christian. If, as you claim, Jesus was a mythical character, it makes no sense for these events to exist. The idea of baptism, then as now, is the washing away of sin. An imaginary Jesus would not have any sin to wash away, and the fact that the historical one did creates theological problems for Christians, it does nothing to help the story. Likewise, crucifixion was a horrible, slow, painful, and humiliating death. "Our Lord and Savior was humiliated, broken, and tortured to death" is decidedly NOT a selling point for a new religion. Basically, the two facts of Jesus' life that historians are most certain of are the facts that it would be least likely that anyone would make up. The analogy I used before was a good one. George Washington undisputedly existed. He also certainly did not chop down his father's cherry tree and then confess rather than lie. Richard the Lionheart undisputedly existed as well. He did not ever demonstrate personal displays of strength to Saladin (who he never met in person) or do anything with Robin Hood (who almost certainly did not exist). Great and influential men throughout history have their deeds exaggerated, and have wholely apocryphal deeds attributed to them, this happens all the time. Your claim that Jesus did not exist because you don't believe in the Gospels is akin to saying "George Washington did not chop down his father's cherry tree, therefore he did not exist" or "Richard the Lionheart never was involved with Robin Hood, therefore Richard did not exist". There is no logic to your argument. You are saying that because you do not believe popular stories about a historical figure, that figure did not exist.
1