0 Overview

Ur Statement reveals Ur Lack of understanding.

Crudely put, the I AM is the name of God that reveals that God's ultimate characteristic is existence. And though it is beyond the scope of this u-tube commen section to go into detail, suffice it to say that I am not speaking of a first order predicate when speaking of existence for Im refering to necessary existence.
Cont:

Wow. Way to say a lot without actually saying anything at all.

Looks like the Coles Notes version is "God doesn't play by our rules, so any conclusion that we draw about God is flawed from the start."

You're gonna have to do better than that.

But these issues were all resolved when you understand the quintessential nature of God. Your problem was that you had a conception of God that was not the conception of God that serious theological inquiry reveals nor that of philosophical inquiry reveals. That quintessential nature is in exodus 3:14. The "I AM THAT I AM".
Continue:

For instance. For a long time, I too had an issue with God and the problem of evil. With his hardening of pharoah's heart, free will issues, and a whole plethora of other philosophical complexities.
Continues:

@evid: wassup man. I saw everything you put on YouTube up till 2.4 on ur deconversion. I suppose at this point in time you have not yet aired ur life now as an atheist. That aside, in ur vids, u admitted to making assumptions on what the bible contained. However, ur assumptions, it seemed, were based on your expectations, expectations that that you assumed to be the case but never bothered to check I your expectations were also God's expectations.
Continues:

your stuff and paulharrison1976(?) is really good!

Makes you as an atheist get a glimpse of all positive feedback through coincidences and how that reinforces the belief.

It's hard to remember the christians world view when debating, these vids really help me understand and increases my patience and tolerance.

At this point I am sure you have seen all the episodes of this series that have been uploaded.

Any thoughts?

What you read is wrong. Paul is the only one who comes close to that, and he writings are decades after Jesus supposedly died. Paul did not claim that Mary was a virgin, though others *after* him did. And that's the level of supposed "evidence" there is.

Its either a ridiculously atypical bad accounting of such an important figure (it would be like the press ignoring the existence of Obama today) or an obvious lie told by very bad con artists.

It is rare that an atheist just accepts the existence of the character of Jesus outright. More likely, they don't dispute the point, because there real argument is about what he was.

Nevertheless, there is no good evidence that Jesus ever existed. Its total here say by non-credible witnesses.