Perhaps that is because you are strawmaning my argument?



Please point out where I said "all scholars agree with my position."  I never made that claim, and had you done your research on me you would know I never would claim that.



I agree.



You're overstating your case.  You don't know all of scholarship, I know you can't name them all, how can you claim that we are in the "overwhelming" minority?  

I would say we're a minority, but that isn't because the information isn't there, it's because most of scholarship is unfortunately not secular enough.  Many of the scholarly journals like the JBL (which I am a member of) have become synonymous with Bible College - the doors were opened an d a streamline of theologians and bible scholars flooded the building.

I'm not the only Historian who feels this way either.  I can tell you that many scholars are agnostic on the existence of Jesus, not because they feel the evidence is compelling, but rather because in our line of work, people lose their jobs when they dissent against the historicity of Jesus because board members at universities are generally not secular, nor open minded.  Instead there tends to be a large amount of religious oppression.  There are great articles on 'minimalism' which is exactly what this is.  Dissent against the church and you can be banned from teaching.

Don't act like you understand the situation, you don't.  



Metzger, meet Dennis R. McDonald and Charles H. Talbert who have refuted your position ad nauseum.



Yamauchi wrote a fallacious book on early Christian gnosticism which is horrendous.  As with most Christian scholars he uses many outdated sources like John A.T. Robinson or William Albright, among whom have been refuted by modern scholars.  (Note, don't strawman me here too)



Bart Ehrman is agnostic on Jesus' existence.  He has not swayed either way.  I converse quite frequently with him.



What do you base this claim on?



Please, don't strawman me, by creating new arguments instead of dealing with the main argument.



You're not using this term correctly.



That is a false claim, and I expect an apology for you putting words in my mouth.  Are you honest enough to apologize for your mistake?



Oh really?  Prove it.



Passing?  Tacitus is a whole section.



[snip the examples]

This is correct.  For those who understand anything about history this statement is accurate.  This is also far from speculation.  Peter Kirby, a Christian scholar, gives six reasons to support this

(1) Tacitus does not identify his source explicitly.
(2) Tacitus anachronistically identifies Pilate as a procurator, when the proper title would have been prefect.
(3) Tacitus refers to the founder of the name as 'Christus', while written records would presumably have used the name Jesus.
(4) As meticulous as the Romans were, crucifixion records hardly went back nearly a century in time (the Annals being written c. 115 CE).
(5) There is insufficient motive for Tacitus to research about this Christus in any detail, as the reference appears in Tacitus merely as an explanation of the origin of the name Christian, which in turn is being described only as an example of Nero's cruelty.
(6) Finally, there would be no reason for Tacitus not to take the basic Christian story at face value, especially since the idea that they were of recent origin would correctly classify Christianity as a superstitio.

A full discussion of this can be found at Kirby's website: www.earlychristianwritings.com



Did you read them?



Strawman.  Thanks again for making up a completely different argument then the one I posted.



There are other scholars who agree that there is a possibility that it has been interpolated.  Van Voorst and Jeffery Jay Lowder are a few scholars who agree with me.



Can you engage in any more hyperbole?  Just curious.



I never said that.  Do you like making up new arguments because you deal with the present ones?  Or do you simply have a problem with reading comprehension?  This is your fourth strawman.



If you'd read the actual argument and not infer things from them, perhaps you'd be more than sophomoric in your response.



Classical case of projection.



You can't prove a negative, you can only show how it is less then probable for it to have been.  Perhaps if you knew more concerning the methodologies of History you may understand that.



That would be something to prove.  Can you do that without adding to my text and taking it out of context and creating strawmans?



So aside from strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks, is this the best you can do?  Why not come onto my message board and refute the claims?  Perhaps you'll bring more than logical fallacies?  We'll see.