Hearsay. Unsupported claim.
Define “sin” then show evidence that it does what you say.
Demonstrate with evidence that the ramblings of a psychotic visionary carry any weight at all in reality.
It seems to me that you are now realising that you and your youtube scholarship are way out of your depth and you realise that you have nothing of substance to offer.
Evidenced by your offering a strawman in the shape of
As I did not do that at all.
They repeat stories about an unevidenced itenerant preacher and use Greaco-Roman motifs to establish the semi divinity of the object of their devotion. They then liberally lard the stories with supernatural, unevidenced happenings to convince a largely illiterate audience.
That those stories have stuck a chord with you is only evidence of your lack of rigorous thought process and, not to be too unkind, the propensity for gullibilty found so often in the less sceptical.
That you even bothered to Google some information (that you didn’t cross check) is a step more than most who venture here with your kind of argument. Keep it up, but try honest history not the evangelist theological websites you are favoring at the moment.
The historical method should guide you in your journey:
“Depending on the degree of importance of knowing the truth of something we make sure we are being told the truth by checking such things as:
Who is telling us this?
-
How do I know if I can trust them?
-
Can their claims be confirmed somehow?”
-
How do I know if this document is genuine?
If you honestly apply this rigor to your gospels you will come to a very different conclusion. You may still be a believer, but you will be honest in debate about your sources and their shortcomings. Try it.