which version of christianity is correct?

[Drich]

the dude has nothing to go on. he speaks or gives explanation based on what he identifies as a lack of information. it's all speculation based on speculatory work of others.

This is laughable, considering you base your theistic belief off texts, written decades or more after the alleged events, by anonymous authors, that were not eyewitnesses. Your beliefs don't quite even rise to the level of speculation. Ehrman's research, is based on the same texts as you believe, plus much more.

For people who pretend to demand proof for everything, you seeming overly willing to drop this requirement if and when someone is telling you what you want to hear. Not one of his 'facts' can stand up to any serious academic scrutiny. in fact if you consider the books he dismisses/the gospel and any other writtings on christ the church retains, there is more in the way of written academic proof for christ, than supports his various speculations.

The dude is a snake oil sales man he simply knows how to package bullshit in a way you 'smart people' love to gobble down information.

That is not what is going on here, at all.

I do not demand 'proof' for any claim, just evidence, that provides warrant to support the claim. And there is no amount of textual evidence alone, that is enough (for critical and rational thinking, and correct application of skepticism) to support any supernatural claims. Including: zombies rising from their graves and entering Jerusalem, people living in fish for several days, talking serpents, demons living in pigs, etc, etc,

The fact that you are convinced that texts that have stories about these, are relating true events, doesn't say anything about Ehrman being a snake oil salesman, it speaks to your gullibility. Your standards of evidence is lower for your chosen theology, than it is for other supernatural claims.

The existence of an itinerant, messianic rabbi named Yeshua, existing in 1st century Palestine, is a perfectly acceptable position, and one that Ehrman supports. He agrees with all the scholarship with regards to this position. He is not outside the mainstream scholarship on this at all. It's the supernatural claims where he happens not to be as credulous and gullible as you are.

glob...

proof
/pro͞of/
[/url]Learn to pronounce
[url=https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS743US744&sxsrf=ALeKk00AdZMMJsr6k_DoDz4bpmh5VRlt4w:1583869079330&q=how+to+pronounce+proof&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRozi3w8sc9YSm9SWtOXmPU4OINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLkYglJLcoV4pRi52ItKMrPT7NiUWJKzeNZxCqWkV-uUJKvABTNywfqSFUAywMAitty_FUAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjghuCO1JDoAhWlmuAKHTASC6kQ3eEDMAB6BAgEEAQ]
noun

1. 1.
   evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
   
   
   Similar:
   evidence
   
   
   verification
   
   
   corroboration
   
   
   authentication
   
   
   asking for proof IS IN FACT ASKING FOR EVIDENCE!!!
   

---

Even christians recognize that the jesus of historicity is not the jesus of the bible.  The faithful christian complaint...and it's a valid complaint, is that historicity attempts to rehabilitate and sanitize the character the stories actually describe.

the only recognition Christians give tot he separation of the historical jesus and the biblical version is the one that modern historians make when they come to terms that Jesus can not be denied, so in turn they make him out to be something else.

Funny to how the tide of secular historians went to no such person, to now admitting they can not deny it but Jesus was not who the bible says.

Ironic those texts they now quote the one's that over turn Jesus personality established by 10,000s biblical manuscripts could not be found justa few short years ago.. but now that they have been found these secular historical writing all now confer that Yes jesus is real, just not how most of you think/the bible says.

In fact a year a two ago did I have to beat old stimbo over the head with secular evidence he pretended for years did not exist?