>That is the academic definition of apologetics.
ROFL.
Okay let's play this game: Please show an institute of higher learning that defines apologetics as "presumes its conclusion and then defends it regardless of what the evidence shows" and teaches it in this way.
Waiting..........
>And you were wrong, or rather the piece that you ~~plagiarized~~ forgot to quote the source for was wrong. [FIFY]
But you haven't shown it, you just assert it.
Here WLC critiques Erhamn: Ehrman's frames the criterion of dissimilarity as, "Any tradition of Jesus that does not coincide with or works against the vested interests of the Christians who preserved it is likely to be historically reliable."
However, Craig said that criterion is better stated: "If an event or saying about Jesus is dissimilar to antecedent Judaism and to the Christianity to be subsequent then it is more likely to be historical."
Craig argued that these criteria were incorrectly applied by Ehrman to events such as the virgin birth.
The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria
The main point is that the Criteria of Dissimilarity has major weaknesses. Its inherent biases contradict today’s understanding of how historical Jesus research should be pursued. In short, the Criteria of Dissimilarity tends to separate Jesus from history, i.e., from his own context and from the history of effects of his activity.
They argue that the Criteria of Dissimilarity is so faulty that it should be replaced by the new criterion of historical plausibility, just as Bird, Evans, Gathercole, Hill, and Tilling argued in How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature---A Response to Bart Ehrman
All you have against these scholars are ad hominem attacks.
Or you name a few scholars who you say still use the Criteria of Dissimilarity but you never prove this as well.
Educate thyself.