I would start with Bart’s interview and a quotation since it would become handy later.

“My view is that it is impossible to reason with irrationality. And it is impossible to convince people who believe absurd things. No matter what you say, they will believe it. So when somebody has a really extreme view, there is no way to talk them out of it.” (1)

Jacques Lacan says the true scandal of the Freudian discovery of “unconscious” is not that it is “irrational”, that our rational conscious mind is at the mercy of wild blind passions, but that even the unconscious is in a specific way fully rational, linear. It is “structured like a language“.

So, I’m going to devote the next part to show that (in the same Lacanian paradigm) since A does not imply B then A implies B.

To proceed, I will take in context one video and one article and two videos, the first two of Bart Ehrman, and the last two of Bruce Lee.

Bart Ehrman

Question: “In short, isn’t a prior philosophical determination that there is no God and miracles do not occur what is really driving your skepticism (and that of other authors taking a position similar to yours), not any particularities regarding the admittedly difficult historical record?” 

Bart Ehrman: “The view is that even if miracles did happen in the past — let’s simply grant that they happened — there is no way to establish that they happened using the historical disciplines (i.e., to show they are, using your term from earlier, “objective historical truth”). Again, that’s not a result of atheist, anti-supernaturalist presuppositions. It is the result of the historical method. Historians simply have no access to supernatural activities involving the actions of God. Only theologians (among the scholars) have access to God. Theologians can certainly affirm that God has done miracles, but they are affirming this on theological grounds, not historical grounds.” (1)

From Bart Erhman’s debate with William Lane Craig: “[…] But even if these stories were the best sources in the world, there would still be a major obstacle that we simply cannot overcome if we want to approach the question of the resurrection historically rather than theologically.

 I’m fine that Bill wants to argue that theologically God raised Jesus from the dead or even if he wants to argue theologically that Jesus was raised from the dead, but this cannot be a historical claim! And not for the reason that he imputed to me […]. The problem with historians is they can’t repeat the experiment today if we want proof for something. But we can’t repeat the experiments coming because once history happens it’s over. What are miracles? […] I’m just going to say that miracles are so highly improbable that the least possible occurrence in any given instance violates the way nature naturally works. They are so highly improbable, their probability is infinitesimally remote. […]” (1.1)

Bruce Lee

In this video, Bruce Lee is asked where he is born. But first, I’ll give you some “objective data” on his birth. Bruce Lee was born in the Chinatown area of San Francisco, California, on November 27, 1940, to parents from Hong Kong, and he was raised with his family in Kowloon, Hong Kong. Lee moved to the United States at the age of 18 to receive his higher education at the University of Washington in Seattle. (2.1)

“You are originally from San Francisco, right?” asks the interviewer.

And Bruce Lee says: “Not really! Originally I’m from Hong Kong! At ’59 came over here.” (3)

But in another interview, he says: “My last name is Lee. Bruce Lee. I was born in San Francisco in 1940. I’m 24 right now.”

The interviewer: “And you worked in, uh, motion pictures in Hong Kong?”

“Yes, since I was around six years old.”

“And, when did you leave Hong Kong?”

“1959. When I was 18.” (3.1)

Bruce Lee reinvents the reality since reality is just an actualization of the desire to live. He is incoherent since his other-one has not yet been born, the one who would be forced to be himself.

Bart Erhman, when the conversation touches arguments he has been facing again, reacts to his interlocutors in the same insanely coherent way. But being consistent in time, he betrays Bart Erhman himself.

He imitates his own copy, or, more precisely, the rightful idea of ​​himself. 

If Bruce Lee impersonates nobody, Erhman is a ‘self-icon’, like in Lewis Carroll’s story about the Englishmen using increasingly larger maps, until they ultimately agree to employ England as a map of itself.

(1) ** you do not have permission to see this link ** – April 13, 2020

(1.1) (Ehrman vs Craig: Evidence for Resurrection)

** you do not have permission to see this link **

(2) ** you do not have permission to see this link **

(2.1) ** you do not have permission to see this link **

(3) (secs 0:23) Bruce Lee rare Harry Martin interview 

** you do not have permission to see this link **

(3.1) 1965 – Bruce Lee Screen Test For The Series Green Hornet 

** you do not have permission to see this link **