Why Bart Ehrman Pisses Me Off..... sometimes

[Anomalocaris]

A carpenter was born to a self proclaimed virgin - such events probably occurs several times a day somewhere in the world.   So no need to dismiss it as not based on actual occurrence.

Members of a malcontented, turmoil afflicted and ill-educated society with a messiahic tradition attributing messiahic status to some charismatic charalatan - frequently observed, no need to dismiss it as not based on actual occurance.

So..no math, then...you're just rattling off a few pieces of a story that has already been found to be unreliable?  That is -exactly- the problem.

Why a carpenter?  What about a virgin mary..that's not even in the oldest versions.  Some malcontent named jesus crucified by the romans...says who?  Not the romans.  They don't seem to have noticed, despite being up to their testicles in judea.

Straw man about the math.

Why would you stake your larger position on asserting something to have not happened that is plausible, and who actual occurrence can not be verified one way or another because evidence that can conceivably gathered would be inconclusive one way or another?

---

He has a track record of commenting, favorably, on the harsh treatment the Romans delivered on similar troublemakers, but he ignores jesus.  Now there are two likely reasons for this.

A) He considered "jesus" too unimportant to waste ink on, even though he discussed Theudas and The Egyptian and Judas the Galilean and his sons, or,

B) He never heard of any fucking jesus.  ( It should be noted that Archbishop Photius read the work of Josephus' contemporary, Justus of Tiberias and dismissed it because he never heard of fucking jesus, either).

B seems more likely to me.

Maybe jesus didn’t make as much trouble as his followers would credit him with then and later?

Why is it necessary for jesus to be significant in any manner to anyone but his own groupies for his existence to have not been completely made up?