The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem

[Minimalist]

Lol good point, my apologies!

Before Randy disappeared into a puff of smoke, he never answered why Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill are still atheists even after having a profound understanding of the evidence that we all lack. Unless I missed his answer.

The "most historians think Jesus existed" claim apologists like him make is misleading, since they don't ask for the details and qualifications of each historians views on the historicity of Jesus problem. I'd bet you most would say we can't tell the man from the myth. I remember in high school we had a world history textbook that said historians don't know if Jesus Christ existed or not. Make of that what you may.

Indeed, it is even worse than that.  Habermas has never released the list of supposed 'scholars' he claims give him 75% support for his minimal facts bullshit.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...urrection/

Habermas admitted in 2012, “Most of this material is unpublished.” With his data secret, his conclusions are uncheckable. Carrier says that Habermas has denied repeated requests to review his data.

Habermas is happy to reject the conclusion of 99% of the experts who understand evolution (see his attitude toward evolution here, here, and here). Ditto for William Lane Craig. Neither is in a position to object to anyone rejecting the 75% conclusion about the resurrection.

There is no grounds by which a layman like Habermas can reject a consensus in science.

Habermas is, in short, a bullshit artist...but anyone with a brain knows that as soon as they see Liberty University.