Why is this subject such a sore topic, is this what we all have become? We are afraid to admit there was a religious leader in the First Century named "Jesus of Nazareth". When Terrance wrote his little piece on "Papias" did anyone tell him we can't accept anything he wrote because we don't have any of the original parchments written by the Early Church Fathers so why did he bother writing his little speculation on Papias? Seems very convenient to pick and choose what were going to accept as fact and what's fiction. How come nobody told Terrence all the figures in his story line did not exist, instead he did not receive any negative comments but praise. That's not how were suppose to operate unless we are wanting a "Online Fascism" to rule. How many of the writers he mentioned have texts dating back to their timeline? What's the earliest materials from Eusebius writings, are they from his life or re-written as most parchments and texts were?
No, if you had some ignorant person disagreeing with the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse of atheism(people pulling nonfactual statements out of their asses) the party would be picking their mental faculty or attacking their reasoning skills apart! Why the contradiction, to further some agenda when the evidence they use is open for all to see or because of all the pain this subject causes? Why not share the same mindset, nobody on this site is near Dr. Erhman's caliber, the top scholars as Dr. Erhman said, don't disagree Jesus of Nazareth (a religious teacher or guru) existed, the debate was whether he was God, god or the Son of God. Dr. Erhman made sure he qualifies this with "reputable or accepted", using your same reasoning than we can never know if anything written in the past or any historical figures existed. Its factual that there is far more evidence for Jesus than any other historical figure, that's not in debate unless your fringe! The same deniers of the holocaust, also claiming that we have no historical evidence Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great, and "millions more". We need be consistent, not denying what scholars have agreed upon. Why is the need to disprove Jesus so important, if we take him out than we take all other historical figures that don't have a fraction of Jesus's evidence he was here.
The definition of "disingenuous" is someone who uses Dr. Erhman for their own agenda but once they feel he's research is moving against their presuppositions they begin to question his merit like their of his education and scholarly merits. The Radio host was off his rocker, he's trying to argue with Erhman on Bart's home turf, imagine if he was debating Micheal Denton on molecular biology, would you stand on the sidelines saying "Did Dr. Denton adjust his view again, he's whack for doing that!"
If one of the regular writers was showing off his post that Dr. Erhman replied to, how come nobody blasted his post mention Erhman's jumping from side to side. I don't recall Dr. Erhman ever saying someone named "Jesus who was a religious guru or teacher did not exist!" because the historical data would not permit Bart from making such a uneducated statement. Erhman himself along with others are blunt when they state "No rational scholar or anyone the historical community and consensus takes serious doubts "a religious man named Jesus Christ existed", to make such a statement demonstrates either their ignorant or their trying to make lots of money writing sensationalism." Dr. Erhman and Dr. Meier both accept the fact if you deny the historical evidence Jesus existed your going to have to wipe the slate clean of all historical figures existing since there's no evidence written by the scribes proving historical figures existed.
Dr. Meier's video shows even more new evidence recently discovered validating that there was a teacher named Jesus of Nazareth, I find it very odd how selective people are when they choice the same author and deny him on the same topic. Dr. Erhman has not changed his views on Jesus, he's honest enough to go where the he feels the evidence and new discoveries will take him. During his debate with D. Wallace, Wallace dropped a bomb telling him that Baylor University has yet to release a fragment the top paleographer in the world has dated to the First Century, Dr. Wallace appears very certain we now have a piece of Bible fragment from the First Century and if it's proven so, Dr. Erhman will gladly adjust his views, he does not cement his mind on certain topics because of his past religous experience, when others are bringing forward fringe authors to compete against highly respected authors and scholars, ask yourself what's their agenda?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAN3kQHTKWI
The Real Jesus: Paul Maier presents new evidence from history and archeology at Iowa State
to anyone still wanting to learn, watch the video by Paul Meier to see some new and exciting proof from different areas that Jesus did exist and the accuracy of many of the writings and people(Pilate, Caiphus) and others some of the skeptics tried to claim did not exist, very exciting stuff!
