Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[robvalue]

What else can he do (aside from being honest about the nature of his source material)? If he were to stop conflating the two, he'd have little choice but to recognize that there is no sensible foundation to his religion. Christianity depends on this conflation and True Believers like Randy will fight tooth and nail to avoid facing up to that. The Gospels must depict history; it can't be otherwise for them.  It's not a conclusion he arrived at rationally, despite his smokescreen of alleged "facts".  It's his starting point.

"[The gospel writers] were historical persons giving reports of things they had heard, using historically situated modes of rhetoric and presentation. The fact that their books later became documents of faith has no bearing on the question of whether the books can still be used for historical purposes. To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly." (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 73)

So you respond to the accusation that you're conflating historical and magic Jesus by doing the exact same thing again and adding an appeal to authority fallacy. Historians are not an authority on supernatural events. No one is. That is the problem.

You just don't care about integrity at all, do you?

You know damn well Ehrman does not believe in the ressurection for one second, so even your intended fallacy is dishonest. Do you have any idea what you are doing?