Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Aractus]

I'm quite familiar with many of Ehrman's books, and I have no problem accepting that Jesus was a real historical person as he contends. That means (as others have already pointed out) that there was a peripatetic Rabbi Yeshua in that era, who was probably crucified by the Romans. So what?

I doubt that you would agree with many of Ehrman's other positions.

Correct, because you're quoting ONE person with far out there ideas.

He says that before the NT was written down, specifically the stories of Jesus, the stories were told and retold orally through many links in the transmission, and like the children's game of telephone what emerged at the end was very different from the beginning.

As I've already addressed this, numerous times, I get tired of repeating myself. But the facts remain that all of Paul's epistles can be reliably dated to prior 67 AD, the book of Acts dates to c. 60-61 AD, the synoptic gospels to before the book of Acts. Now, personally, I'm reasonably certain that James can be reliably dated to before any of Paul's epistles, and that Matthew and Mark were both written in the 40's AD. However, I scarcely bring this up since there's such a wide scholarly viewpoint on it, and it's much safer to talk about Luke's writings and Paul's writings since they are the ones we have the firmest reasons for dating. Acts can't have been written later than AD 62 because it ends in the present and doesn't talk about anything that happens after AD 62 - including the deaths of James and of Paul. It couldn't have been written earlier than AD 60 since it has events in it that take place then. There are two separate early accounts of Paul's death, placing it around 64-67 AD, so he obviously couldn't have written epistles after this time.

So what we have, is writings that can be traced as far back as AD 40, and that contain beliefs, ideas, and testaments that go right back to the crucifixion itself.

In the same vein he points out that for the written accounts what we have are copies of copies of copies through many stages and with each scribe, wittingly or unwittingly, introducing changes.

But that's all we have of any writings from that period. We actually have much earlier copies, and thousands more copies than for just about any other antiquity writings. Josephus' writings, for instance, only exist as later contemporary copies.

No, I don't agree with the second part. In the three synoptic gospels Jesus uses the title Son of Man (taken from the Book of Daniel) to refer to the apocalyptic figure who is supposed to bring in the end of history. He usually speaks of this Son of Man in the third person, so I am not even convinced that he identifies himself with the Son of Man.

Daniel 7:13 "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him."

Jesus' use of the title is unique, although it occurs dozens of times in the gospels, no other person in greek antiquity uses the phrase to describe themselves.

I think you meant to say something like "the epistle to the Corinthians was written soon after Jesus' death [i.e., 2 or 3 decades] and that was too soon for a legend to have developed.

Even secular historians would agree that Paul personally knew the family of Jesus and some of his disciples.