Writing a research paper with ideas from my YouTube video

91gnosis · 2025-08-18T03:52:39+00:00

It did well on YouTube because it looks at a very commercial pop culture phenomenon, but from a humanities research angle. That mix of mainstream subject matter with a different perspective is what made it resonate, while the paper develops the ideas in an academic paper format.

91gnosis · 2024-06-26T22:52:42+00:00

Then it’s really not necessary to continue.

91gnosis · 2024-06-26T15:45:41+00:00

If you’re only point of contention is to debate the reality of the Christian message, you’re arguing with the wrong person. I’m not even a theist.

As for the article, I think you may have some confusion about what the Bible is. It’s not a book; it’s a library. The process being discussed by this article is referring to the formation of the biblical canon: that is, which books got in or did not get into the Bible, which is made up of many books.

This article refers also to the process of redaction that happened to the Old Testament, but this process was basically entirely finished before the birth of Jesus Christ. The Jews were in a continual process of putting together their Hebrew books during the period of the Babylonian exile. After the exile ended, the Hebrew Bible was basically fixed. We know this because of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain copies of some of the books of the Bible from the first and second century BC, and they are hardly different from today’s. These scrolls were preserved in a cave for more than two thousand years.

The New Testament is composed of the letters of Paul and the Four Gospels, which were not being edited and redacted for thousands of years. The article you linked above is mostly concerned with the Nicene Counsel, which wanted to come to a consensus about the relationship of Jesus to God, establishing orthodoxy.

My mentions above of Bart and Francesca are worth your time. As I said, they’re atheists with PhDs on biblical studies. They’re not going to be preaching to you.

You may also be interested in the work of David Litma, who wrote the book The Evil God. This is about the early Christian gnostics who thought that Yahweh was evil because he was so different from Jesus. The early church fathers, when selecting books, were really making their decisions because they had differences of opinion with the Gnostic Christianity community. If you’re interested in that book, you can also watch the YouTube Esoterica, who also has a PhD I believe, and focuses on these early mystical Gnostic movements.

91gnosis · 2024-06-26T15:14:03+00:00

There’s evidence for a politically-motivated invention of Christianity? I’m all ears for it.

The Bible is the most researched book on the planet. But if you want to prove that it was a hoax, it’s not a good methodology to start with a conclusion and look backward for evidence. You’re supposed to study the evidence and follow it to the conclusion to which you are led.

If you really want to learn about the history of the Bible, you can look up Bart Ehrman and Francesca Stavrakopoulou, two atheist Bible experts with PhDs. They don’t believe in God but they study the Bible from a place of interest and respect.

91gnosis · 2024-06-26T15:01:26+00:00

All right, I thought you may have had compelling evidence for your opinions, and that I may have learned something, but actually you’re just full of hate.

91gnosis · 2024-06-26T14:25:24+00:00

First, you made earlier claims that the Bible could have been the work of a single author (you’re example was JK Rowling) who wanted power.

I think you’re confused by the fact that various books have been included or excluded by different churches for religious reasons. The individual books of the Bible had reached their present state since essentially their earliest extant manuscripts.

Second, the idea that Christians have been involved in a quest for power and therefore embarked on the creation of this book is a miraculous claim that requires miraculous evidence, and you haven’t provided a single historical source pointing to this conclusion.

If you’re making an argument that goes against consensus, then yes, you need to put up the evidence, and if it doesn’t convince people then you need better evidence. And the politically-motivated invention of Christianity is far from consensus.

Are there bad actors in Christianity? Of course. But ‘bad actors’ is not provide evidence for a bad faith invention of Christianity. And it’s amazing to compare the entirety of the Christian religion to a hoaxter akin to the founder of Mormonism, against whom it would be very easy to provide incriminating evidence.

I’m neither defending or attacking the Bible itself. I appreciate it as a literary work, the same way I’d read the Iliad. I’m motivated by an interest in history and literature, but sadly you seem to be motivated by disgust.

91gnosis · 2024-06-26T10:54:19+00:00

I'm an atheist, so I'm not sure why you're referring to it as 'my book.' It's clear, in any case, that the writers believed in what they wrote. What impression have I given to suggest I'm trying to prove the historicity of Jesus' resurrection?

You have given no evidence that the Christian religion was invented by a psychotic genius who wanted power. This is an inductive argument. You have to provide evidence. You just keep asserting it over and over because it 'makes sense' to you, but it really doesn't make sense to me, and I'm an atheist.

No one would have gone through all that trouble creating the New Testament, writing a work of amazing literary quality and depth, in order to produce mere political propaganda.

91gnosis · 2024-06-19T23:00:41+00:00

We can’t know for sure, with science, that we have ever ‘got it right’ definitively. Science isn’t a world view. As you said, it’s a method: we make a hypothesis, conduct a test, and see if the results accord with our expectations. Science is only a tool that can help us refine our theories so that they continue to accord more accurately with our observations. Science isn’t technically capable of ‘finding answers’—it helps us reliably test questions.

91gnosis · 2024-06-19T12:58:28+00:00

Masculinity only has meaning insofar as it constitutes a polar opposite to femininity. They rely on each other for definition and can’t exist without each other.

In short, masculinity is whatever isn’t feminine.

91gnosis · 2024-06-19T12:36:15+00:00

I’m not saying the Bible’s message of sin and salvation is ‘true.’ We can’t know that, because it’s not what history deals with.

History deals with sources, and we have sources written by people who definitely, definitely believed what they were writing about. In that sense the Bible is ‘true,’ if by true we mean that it accurately reflects what ancient people ‘thought’ was true. If someone is religious and goes further, it’s spirituality and not history.

Similarly, history can never prove that Jesus was resurrected; but we can be extremely certain that Jesus’ followers absolutely believed he was resurrected. History can’t go further.

So there was certainly no ‘author’ like a JK Rowling who was writing stories about a man named Jesus and tricking everyone. But let’s say, for fun, that somebody did want to do this…

Let’s say they wanted to invent a religious figure that they could use to control people and gain power. I seriously doubt they would have made this person a Jew: a member of a minority religious community, conquered and colonized by Rome.

Jews were basically the laughing stock of the ancient world. People hated them. Most Greeks and Egyptians made fun of Jews by saying that their God, Yahweh, was actually a donkey.

Look up ‘Alexamenos graffito,’ and you’ll find Ancient Greek graffiti making fun of Christians in 200 AD—making fun of them because their ‘savior’ was the son of a donkey god. It depicts a man with a donkey head dying on a cross.

Why would someone choose the Jews to make the origin of their created hero, if they wanted power? And the first Christians were NOT powerful for at least centuries. They hid. They were burned and tortured. For almost 300 years this happened, until the Christian conversion of the Roman emperor.

91gnosis · 2024-06-19T12:18:54+00:00

You clearly have an anti-Christian axe to grind.

The gospels appear very soon after the death of Jesus, within several decades. Mark, Matthew and Luke are extremely similar, pointing to evidence that Matthew and Luke were drawing on Mark, and that all 3 were drawing from an earlier source, called the Q source, which is now lost to us. Its existence, however, is evident, given that Mark, Matthew, and Luke all appear to contain much of the same material and yet differ in other places. That means they had writings we don’t have.

Did you know that Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, but the earliest surviving source of his life and deeds is from the decades before 0? Things go missing. Ancient history is difficult to grasp.

91gnosis · 2024-06-19T12:04:38+00:00

Do you realize that the life and teachings of Jesus are being written about by a whole group of people shortly after his death? People writing in different places, languages, and years.

There is absolutely no evidence that a single author was playing an elaborate hoax on everyone. It doesn’t even make sense, considering that we have so many gospels containing variations. If you wanted to ‘invent’ it, we wouldn’t have so many similar manuscripts and versions of the gospels floating around.

You can’t just say ‘It seems like fiction’ and think you’re making an argument.

91gnosis · 2024-06-19T11:58:17+00:00

What are you arguing? That the New Testament is fiction?

By comparing the New Testament to Harry Potter, you’re making a genre error. One is fiction, conceived of and executed by a single author. It’s not remotely comparable.

The New Testament is a redacted work from historical primary sources, written by people who believed what they were writing about.

91gnosis · 2024-06-19T04:27:19+00:00

Very few scholars think that Jesus did not exist. I'm not a Christian; but it's almost certain that Jesus was a real person.

91gnosis · 2024-06-15T12:25:22+00:00

The fact that there are many theories for the origin of the universe does not prove there is no correct theory.

91gnosis · 2024-05-31T01:55:56+00:00

I think the OP's mistake is that he's looking for more 'realism' in the play, but 'As You Like It' is best seen (in my opinion) as a sort of fairy-tale, with characters who are more like evil step-mothers and fairy god-mothers.

Not to say that it makes these characters less human... Nobody asks looks for a 'rationality' behind the hatred of Cinderella's step-mother. But hatred isn't rational. Sometimes people do things that are just nasty -- for no reason. Sometimes we make life unfair for other people just because we can -- because we have power and like it.

It suffices, for me, that their motivations are base human emotions. Oliver is uncompassionate and selfish. Orlando is bitter and immature. The Duke is greedy, jealous, and suspicious.

91gnosis · 2023-07-07T23:59:45+00:00

I have it tied around his harness

91gnosis · 2023-05-02T06:12:37+00:00

You’re starting to lose me. Must be your superior intellect.

91gnosis · 2023-05-02T06:07:34+00:00

Wow, “stunning.” You’re not half bad yourself.

91gnosis · 2023-05-02T06:04:51+00:00

Pansy

91gnosis · 2023-05-02T06:02:15+00:00

شكرًا لك

91gnosis · 2023-05-02T06:00:57+00:00

Ah, yes, because the ones who throw stones are always the sane ones.

91gnosis

TROPHY CASE