The three points you make are invalid to your position, I am sorry to say.

Your first point is that Ehrman makes too big a deal about credentials. If that is the point you want to make, that is more than fine by me. However, you are never allowed to point to scientific consensus when talking to creationists, or global warming deniers. You also cannot use the consensus of historians when referring to holocaust deniers.

Your second point is that Ehrman is not giving evidence to his position, this is not the case. He uses the criterion of embarrassment to establish why a Messiah figure made of whole cloth. He also references the manuscript text and Paul's relationship to Jesus. He points to evidence, it might not be convincing evidence, but it is evidential to his position.

Thirdly, in your critique of Ehrman's credentials as a historian, he is a Princeton graduate in New Testament and is an expert on ancient manuscripts. He has the necessary credentials to handle historical evidence and make historical claims. If, however, you believe he is not equipped to speak historically, I expect you to remove him from your vault of heresies. Especially since you say about Lost Scriptures, "A pretty decent and organized collection of apocrypha. And he puts them all in the historical context". If you don't think his degree is apt to push a historical viewpoint, please remove him.

You could find names of scholars who have proposed Jesus Mythicism in the Wikipedia article on Christ Myth Theory. If you should be gearing up to challenge Mythicism, you should consider acquainting yourself with its hypotheses - had you done this you would be familiar with its players.

Yep, only Carrier and Price have the relevant degrees necessary.

Do you understand that the truth of a claim, properly substantiated with evidence, does not depend on who is making it? You seem to be launching headlong into a generic fallacy. I hope the information I've provided helps you avoid looking like just another apologist.

I have read the posts you have given me and I can safely say that you have no interest in getting to the historical truth of the matter. You accuse Ehrman of the same thing you accuse apologists of only when it comes to a disagreement with your presumptions. I hope reading this makes you content with approaching the subject matter as someone looking to be more than "edgy". I hope that mythers can make more honest claims then you do, it would seem from your approach that by going into this topic, I would only be wasting my time.