On "Scholarly Consensus"

[DeistPaladin]

Ehrman is therefore an appropriate authority to appeal to.

Even experts are required to provide evidence to support what they believe. "Because I'm the expert and I say so" is not a valid argument. Ehrman needs to do more than assert The Historical Jesus existed. He needs to prove it.

Except when it comes to the existence of Jesus, then you simply have doubts for no good reason.

"There is no proof" is a perfectly good reason to doubt a claim about a miracle working godman with popular and controversial ministry that nobody paid any attention to.

I wonder how he did that when science doesn’t deal with proof.

That may be a new signature quote.

So you began with the assumption that Jesus was not who he claimed to be. Figured as much.

Yes. When presented with claims of woo, I don't believe them. I assume claims of woo to be untrue until presented with evidence.

Little in comparison to what?

Just for instance, little in comparison to John the Baptist, who had a much smaller ministry with a smaller following and still got a mention in Josephus.

In order to discredit Tacitus you’d have to prove there were other supposed Messiah’s sentenced to death by Pontius Pilot [sic] whose followers were known as Christians and who were blamed for the fire in Rome by Nero.

Why does being executed by Pilate or persecuted by Nero make a reference in Tacitus more plausible?

Which historians?

Ehrman, most notably.

And they have.

When? What? Show me.

Why? Do you reject what Roman historians say about ancient Rome? More special pleading.

Invalid comparison. Even the most biased of political propaganda is about real events, however much the propaganda may distort them.

Religious propaganda (aka sacred texts), by contrast, is about fantasy and woo. It's about supernatural agents that there's no evidence for doing magical things that there's no evidence ever actually happens, all written about to suit the agenda of a church. In a rational world, all religious texts should be assumed to be mythology unless secular sources or evidence can provide corroboration.