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

[Pat Mustard]

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?

What larger position?  My position is simple.  Theres nothing in the story, and no valid means of implication..that would establish that any part of it were true..not the miracles, not the relatively mundane shit.  Nada.  There s..however, a massive and compelling set of arguments and evidence to the contrary.

"Inconclusive" is just where people retreat to.  I;m not having any trouble at all reaching a conclusion.  There's nothing about any jesus the man, in the NT, that's reliable...much of what is considered plausible..when you really look at it, is no less miraculous than raising the fucking dead.  Tell me jesus so much as tipped some tables and castigated the jews..and I'll remind you that aint nobody gonna let some loon run through the mall knocking over stands...even that is a thematic story meant to support the fable.  So is the carpenter bullshit.  He was building his fathers house, you see.  The claimed virgin birth..not an adulterous looking to cover her ass...a way to keep a god from being born of a man.  The crucifixion by rome..lol, tell me more about the great beast that will swallow the earth and fling stars out of the heavens in a massive war.

The born of a virgin idiocy was a retcon to get around the fact that the christians' godboy fulfilled exactly none of the prophesies of the jewish messiah he was supposed to be.

Pity, then they adopted a mistranslation of a prophesy already fulfilled (if you believe Isiah wasn't post hoc mythologising) by the time of Jesus' alleged birth.