The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem

[Randy Carson]

Since you vest Sooo much value in the opinion of so called "scholars" that miraculously keep out their employer's bias from their studies, perhaps you can explain just what is soo complex and difficult about evaluating direct evidence for the truthfulness of the claim of jebus' existence so much so that you would be need "scholars" to digest it for you.

What bias does the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have regarding the New Testament?

Speaking for myself, I have no need for scholars to digest it for me, but I benefit from the fact that professionals who are fluent in multiple languages and trained to evaluate the evidence carefully and objectively have spent the better part of their adult lives with their noses in dusty books and their eyes upon fragments of parchment that I could never hope to understand or access. And, of course, it is sooooo sweet that even scholars who share your non-beliefs about God can honestly admit that there is far more supporting the historical Jesus than you are willing to concede.

Bart Ehrman has seriouly tarnished his reputation as an honest and competent scholar by his historic jesus writings because he couldn't stick to the facts.

Books and several blogs have torn his "scholarship" to shreds.

Here's a good blog to read that discuses his poor attempt to defend the historocity,

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

Have you bothered to read Ehrman's scathing response to Carrier?

http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

Ehrman addressed the very passages you quoted at length, and you should have known that a response to Carrier would have been available. But no, you thought you had a winning lottery ticket and raced to the liquor store to cash in only to learn that you misread the number. Sorry. Better luck next time.

Seriously, why don't you read more before you post such tripe?