Jesus commands to kill little children.

Let me address a one of your red herrings since it seems that you are not willing to engage in your original post. "Jesus was a fictional character ..." Atheistmaximus referenced 4 books, three of these belonging to Dr. Ehrman. 1st) Out of the 4 books Atheistmaximus referenced NONE were *peered reviewed, 2nd) Dr. Ehrman agrees that Jesus IS a historical person (Dr. Ehrman is a qualified biblical scholar), 3rd) Dr. Ehrman's main disagreement is that he does not classify the resurrection of Christ as a miracle, even though Dr. Ehrman himself admits that it is a highly plausible answer outside his Naturalistic approach of the subject, and 4th) Dr. Erhman presents things outside the scholarly consensus and that is not supported by actual evidence (but Dr. Ehrman is at least honest with his point off view). The fourth book presented by Atheistmaximus written by David Fitzgerald is built with arguments that have been addressed by scholars and successfully refuted. "The overwhelming majority of scholars, Christian, non-Christian, atheist, agnostic or Jewish, accept there was a Jewish preacher as the point of origin for the Jesus story simply because that makes the most sense of all the evidence. The contorted and contrived lengths that Fitzgerald and his ilk have to resort to shows exactly how hard it is to sustain the idea that no such historical preacher existed. Personally, as an atheist amateur historian myself, I would have no problem at all embracing the idea that no historical Jesus existed if someone could come up with an argument for this that did not depend at every turn on strained readings, ad hoc explanations, imagined textual interpolations and fanciful suppositions. While the Myther thesis is being sustained by junk pulp pseudo scholarship like Fitzgerald's worthless little book, it will remain a curiosity on the fringes of scholarship good for little more than amusement." - Tim O'Neill atheist amateur historian. "The false dichotomy established in the first chapter is continued in the second, entitled "Myth No. 2: Jesus was wildly famous - but there was no reason for contemporary historians to notice him ... " Fitzgerald insists that there are elements in the story of Jesus which should have been noticed by historians of the time and insists that there is no shortage of writers then who should have recorded some mention of them: There were plenty writers, both Roman and Jewish, who had great interest in and much to say about (Jesus') region and its happenings .... We still have many of their writings today: volumes and volumes from scores of writers detailing humdrum events and lesser exploits of much more mundane figures in Roman Palestine, including several failed Messiahs. (Fitzgerald, p. 22) Now, potentially, that is a pretty solid argument. If we did indeed have "scores of writers" from Jesus' time with such an interest in Jesus' region and who wrote about "failed Messiahs" then it would certainly be very strange that we have no contemporary mentions of Jesus. Unfortunately, as we will see, this is one of several places where Fitzgerald lets his overblown rhetoric run well ahead of what he can then actually substantiate." - Tim O'Neill atheist amateur historian. *Peer Review - is a process where a book, journal, etc. is submitted to the editor, and the editor sends the manuscript to one or two scholars who are intimately acquainted with the sub-discipline to which the manuscript belongs. They are the author's peers. They have the power to reject a piece that is flawed in its methods, resources, attitude, format, use of secondary literature, coherence of argumentation, logic, analysis, use of ancient languages, etc.