Mary's Ten Year Pregnancy

[Huggy Bear]

As far as Richard Carrier goes, you'd be naive to believe that a guy who was basically begging for money on his blog, and asking for patreon donations would be completely objective when being funded by special interest groups, when you cannot find an example of that anywhere else, be it Politics or Religion.

You have the same problem Drich has in that you assume that having a motive to do something necessarily undermines a person's arguments and view of the facts and evidence.  It does not.  That's why appeal to motive is a fallacy.  If I paid someone to say that it is 8 o'clock repeatedly for 24 hours, at some point during that 24 hours, their statement would be correct.  It matters not that he was motivated to say it by my payment, nor that at any other time in that 24 hours he might be wrong.  Right is right, and your complaint about Carrier and my naivety means dick and simply shows that you don't logic so well.

Instead of pointing out how your analogy fails, I'll play along and maybe it will become apparent.

Carrier is taking the opposite position of everyone else, so in your analogy it would be more like paying someone to say 8 o'clock never existed repeatedly for 24 hours, which would not be hard to do, you would do it too Jor, given the right amount of money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier

Carrier was initially not interested in the question of the historicity of Jesus. Like many others his first thought was that it was a fringe conspiracy topic not worthy of academic inquiry; however a number of different people requested that he investigate the subject and raised money for him to do so. Since then he has become a leading expert on the Jesus ahistoricity theory.

So even Carrier himself at one point thought the topic of a nonexistent Jesus to be fringe conspiracy theory... I wonder what changed his mind?  

As to your other point, no, Min disagreeing with Ehrman on one thing doesn't forbid him agreeing with him on something else.  Ehrman may be expert on one but not the other.  Or Min might have independent reasons for disagreeing with Ehrman on the one, but accept his conclusions on the other.  This notion that because Min supports Ehrman's conclusions in one thing that he must support his conclusions in all things because Min is appealing to Ehrman as an authority doesn't hold because Ehrman isn't equally an authority on both things.  The subjects in question require different competencies, and even if they didn't, you would simply be assuming that Min's reasons for doubting Ehrman regarding the historicity of Jesus apply equally to Ehrman regarding the reliability of transmission and such, and they plainly don't.

I thought we already established that "Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians"  "find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain"...

Are you going to apply your above argument to all fringe conspiracy theorists?

What about flat earthers or Holocaust deniers?