One question for Christians

[Brakeman]

Whoa there! You over reached quite a bit there! The scholars of Erman's ilk agree only that there was a man that the jesus myth was based on, Not that his name was really jesus, not that he was executed by the romans, not that the Jews held sway with the romans to instigate his execution, and certainly not that any miracles were performed by the man.

No, Ehrman believes all of that. I never said that it is accepted that Jesus did miracles; I said that his followers believed that he did miracles and that is a historically accepted fact.

Let’s let Ehrman speak for himself…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQMJR2BP1w

Liar! I watched the video, It says NOTHING about those attributes. He might yet believe that other stuff, but he certainly doesn't say that in the video.

Ehrman even goes as far as to associate the Jesus myth with denying the Holocaust and denying that Abraham Lincoln existed.
“We have more evidence for Jesus than almost anybody from his time period.”- Ehrman

Yes, he has said that and he got his Scholarly butt burnt for saying it too. His reputation was well shredded by a rebuttal book. He is not acting "scholarly" at all in clinging to the "real jesus" claim. A REAL scholar understands the positions of his detractors and counters them with evidence. Erman can't or won't do this.

Furthermore, for your stance, all of it needs to be historical, even the miracle birth and the associated magical events by stars, rich wise men, baby slayings, and other verifiable events.

Nope, that’s actually false. Marco Polo’s writings are often used as historical references even though he claims he saw dragons in China. Secular historians do not believe in the virgin birth but they still accept the historicity of Jesus.

Marco polo does not have religious followers who think he is god. If he did, then the fact that he claimed he saw dragons would be most pertinent. A person whose brain wasn't irretrievable addled by too much sky daddy imaginations would have understood that.

Unless you can't count the circular reasoning bible as a source to verify the bible..?

I am not verifying the Bible I am verifying the historicity of Christ. It is no different than using Roman scholars to support the idea that gladiators fought in Rome. [/quote]
The bible is the source that we know about christ, We know about gladiators by other sources in addition to Roman scholars. The Galdiator's existence carries no motive to control a population as a religious tome does.

If we have so many sources, name 5 contemporary sources dated 1 to 33AD that we have good original evidence of.

How could a source that details Christ’s death be written during his life? That’s absurd. Not to mention, that’s not what the word contemporary even means. A contemporary source is merely a source from around the same time period. We view all first century sources as being contemporary with Christ. Peter, John, Luke, Paul, Matthew, and Jude all lived at the same time as Christ (Jude being Jesus’ brother).

Yes, it is absurd that you think that's what was meant by contemporary source. All of the bible authors are Pseudepigraphic authors. There is no evidence that any of them are the least bit historical.
That is not unlike saying Starwars was real because Chewbacca, Luke, and Princess Leia were there and they witnessed it.
Give up SW, the whole thing is just a stupid fairytale.