Hi, I'm a Christian. Help Me Disprove My Religion!

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Yes, I watched the Ehrman-vs-InfidelGuy video you linked to. Ehrman speaks of Paul's writings as indicating that Paul's "throwaway" comments about James the brother of Jesus indicates to him that Paul knew the friends and family of Jesus. That may well be the case, but it is nevertheless an inference. Again, and I want to make this plain since you seem to be arguing as though I think Jesus didn't exist: I am convinced by the totality of the circumstantial evidence that Jesus was a real person. [emphasis added]  The place where he says it's "hard" evidence seemed not to be a statement of fact, but exasperation at InfidelGuy's aggressive and repeated claim that Jesus never existed, an emotional retort rather than a statement of historical fact, if you will, which is why Ehrman launched into discussions of things like the existence of Julius Caesar and the Holocaust.

As a believer, I'm often appalled by the things which some Christians say and do thereby causing God's name to be blasphemed among non-believers.

As a non-believer, do you ever cringe upon reading the stupid things that Jesus Mythicists say in this forum and elsewhere which bring the credibility of atheism into question?

Yes, I do sometimes cringe. But that's why we have discussions about these kinds of things. And I don't expect them to change their minds except in the face of solid evidence (or at least, a more-coherent argument to the contrary)... but I do expect them to change their minds, because that's what intellectually honest people do. 

Atheism isn't a coherent group, so it's not really possible to "bring the credibility of atheism into question", as you suggest. If an individual atheist bases his ideas on something that's not solid, as one  of the reasons they reject religion, that's on them. But as we have been pointing out, here, it doesn't particularly matter whether or not one accepts that there probably was (and even then that's as far as I'll go in saying it) an apocalyptic Judean rabbi who went around preaching in/around the first 30 years of the first century. I'd say the reason (as has just been pointed out) the James account dovetails with the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, is that there probably was a Sermon on the Mount, or something very much like it. Accepting the magical claims, like the darkness, the earthquakes, the zombie infestation, and the tearing of the veil... yeah, very unlikely, other than as a series of stories passed among the faithful like a game of Telephone/Rumor, which is also a perfectly valid reason to think any of the gospels or other writings agree.

Even if we accept the earliest date of James, and accept the earliest date of the Gospels, it doesn't follow that because they agree (especially given the "filtering process" of the meetings you describe) it means that it really happened the way the story goes. It wouldn't even take a month, let alone a year, let alone 20 years, for people in their circles-of-believers to tell stories that wound up meshing into something like a cohesive set of tales, and forming an original document (proto-Mark), which spelled out the core of what they came up with, and which formed the basis of all that was written thereafter... until enough time had passed for the variants like John and the "heretical" versions/gospels to emerge.

It's not something that requires proof, as it's just a simple hypothesis which is as explanatory as the usual versions. The point is that, as a thought exercise, it shows that the arguments that "well ____ agrees with ____, therefore Truth™ can be proved!" is a bunk conclusion.

---

No thanks. Have fun in church on Sunday.

And now we come to it...

Backed into a corner and pressed for scholarship proving the claims of Jesus Mythicism, the mythicist takes his ball and bat and goes home...because he has nothing to offer.

No one here (that I can see) is arguing for Jesus Mythicism. Why does this strawman keep popping up?