Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[TheMessiah]

Did you read the post or not? I'll take the relevant information, but this was clearly addressed.

There are two major historical references to Jesus from the greco-Roman world.



The name 'Yeshua' is just a translation of Jesus.

Did you read my post?

One of the foremost authorities on the Greco-Roman world, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, has no entry for Jesus, nor to they reference any book of the NT as a historical source. 

I've read Tim O'Neil before. He makes a strong case.

All I posted is a reputable historical source that does not consider the case for a historical Jesus to have an entry for him in a scholarly historical reference book. 

I believe you reversed your last statement. Jesus is the translation of Yeshua.

I read your post - I then highlighted a specific part of the one I quoted.

What Christians claim Jesus is isn't what Historians claim he is - the historical Jesus, and the version of Jesus that Tim (and many other Historians) refer to is simply a human Jewish preacher who had a grassroots following and died a disgraceful death. And despite his relative insignificance, we have at-east 2 historical references to him/that figure. The ones I cited, are of two of the most reputable scholars of the time.

The reality is that he doesn't really deserve a place on the list, because historically, he isn't significant. The fame surrounding Jesus is based on the concept of Christ, as a saviour.