There's a lot of conflating of beliefs here.
Well, I think you can back into the Scriptures from the other direction.
Starting with the Kalam and the argument from fine tuning, we can safely posit the universe as a result of a creator god which exists outside of the universe (because a cause can't cause itself, ergo the cause must exist outside of the caused)
Because the universe is ordered, we can surmise that this god behaves rationally.
Because relational consciousness exists, and consciousness appears to be non-material, we can surmise that the creator has a relational purpose for us.
If the creator has a relational purpose for us, it stands to reason that it would act in such a way as to guide us to this purpose.
So then we need to examine the material world for things which fit these criteria.
To fit premise 1 we are restricted to Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and general theism. I am not aware of any other religion which fronts a creator god that is uncaused and exists outside of its creation.
General theism is ruled out by premise 3
Zoroastrianism is ruled outI believe by virtue of the fact that it is almost dead and much of its scripture has been lost. It stands to reason that a god congruent with premise four would be motivated and capable of protecting its instructions.
Islam is ruled out by virtue of the fact that it is badly inconsistent, both internally and inconsistent with history and the natural world. Therefore it violates premise 2. There's also some cutting edge research to show that Mohammed may have never existed and that Islam is the product of Arabian Empires 200 years after the supposed Sunna of Mohammed. If true, this violates the heck out of 4.
So we're left with Judaism and Christianity. It's my opinion that the destruction of the priesthood in AD 70 causes Judaism to violate premise 4 in that it is now and forever impossible for Jews to practice the Law as prescribed. The tribe of Levi is lost and all surviving Hebrews are ceremonial unclean with no path to regaining cleanliness. This prevents priestly duties up to and including sin offerings, which closes to door of forgiveness before God to practicing jews.
Ehrman aside, early Christianity is remarkably internally consistent,, well preserved and our worship system is intact. It's the only religion intact that doesn't obviously violate one or more of the premises. So accepting the premises, we have to conclude that there is a true religion and Christianity fits the criteria far better than any other. So we can assume we have a correct account to such a level as to be sufficient to accomplish God's purposes. Which is the entire point.
Jesus never existed
This would get you laughed out of the room in any scholarly situation. Virtually no scholar, atheist or otherwise, agrees with this. Not even Ehrman.
broken telephone
More ignorance. Textual criticism is nothing like the telephone game. The synoptics in particular are dated to the same generation in which Jesus lived. Mark in particular is virtually certainly not written later than thirty years after Jesus. Probably much, much sooner. There's actually a good case for seven years.
We have more textual references to the New Testiment than to any other ancient work and it's not even remotely close. Something like 500k+ textual artifacts. And that's not counting references included in early church letters. You'd be more likely to be correct saying Alexander the Great never existed. The first textual reference we have for him is Quintus Curtius Rufus 400 years after Alexander died.
At least make an effort to be informed.
Well, at first blush they seem to be lying about the elevation differences between origination point and collection point.
That may be sufficient enough to invalidate the experiment but I don't care to sit down and do the math. I've done these types of experiments myself in school and can verify that the footage is either doctored or there are unaccounted for variables skewing their results.
Doing it across water with "I can see teh light!1" being the only criteria for success is shitty science because of refraction. Spectrometry isn't my field, but I know someone well versed in it.
Also, they have no link to a document with their findings that I saw. Maybe I overlooked it. But they don't seem to want anyone to really sit down and analyze their data. The hard figures are constantly moving on screen.
This is almost certainly junk science.
If by NASA, you mean Pythagoras then sure.
In March I had strep. Like, you could SEE the big white stripes and pustules on my throat and tonsils- the latter of which were so swollen I could barely breath through my mouth.
I did a telehealth session thinking it was a slam dunk for antibiotics and then I wouldn't have to go in.
Fucker made me go get tested for covid anyway. Fortunately they didn't false poz me.
Mockery isn't a rebuttal
France saved western civilization before. She can do so again
Parents, doctors and nurses involved all need to go to jail
That dude is one of the worst posters here. I'm pretty sure he's ShariaBlue or some other type of shill.
Whipping husbands with her snatch.
I can hear the shrill New England accents through the phone
Always fun to see Children of Men coming true
Investigate Zuck's connections with Chyna.
But we know they won't.
Rock on brother
Buy emergency supplies. Have a replenishment plan. Leave urban centers
Boris may be the most disappointing person of my entire lifetime.
Why would this be done in public?
I wonder what happens if you're first generation Bosnian?
Formatting, my brother.
If you want people to read stuff like this, you gotta employ it.
Nothing about that analogy makes sense.
Stop using analogies and make your case plainly.