Posted: Dec 26, 2022 5:26 am
by dejuror
Leucius Charinus wrote:It may mean that Ehrman and the Church Industry reconsider their business model.

Why would those who make money from claiming Jesus existed without evidence change their business model?

Ehrman's argument for an historical Jesus is extremely weak since he cannot present a shred of historical evidence.
The use of the so-called Pauline Epistles by Ehrman to argue for the historicity of Jesus is just bizarre.
1. The supposed Pauline writer claimed he persecuted the faith in Judea.
2. The writer claimed he met Peter and the Lord's brother.
3. The so-called Pauline writings imply that the governor under Aretas wanted to have him arrested.
4. In the Epistles it is claimed Paul was in Jerusalem.
5. The Epistles mention Jesus over one hundred times.

The so-called Pauline writer appears to be one who should have at least seen Jesus of Nazareth but like all the NT writers there is not one mention by the so-called Paul that he met, saw or stayed with Jesus anywhere at anytime.