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

[robvalue]

OK, well the title here says they're not taken seriously, when both positions overlap by about 99% in my reckoning. I mean really, even a mythicist will say you could find some guy back then and just base it on him. It wouldn't make a lot of difference. There were bound to be many "potentials" of which any could be built upon in the same way.

For a bigger difference in the cases requires believing a bit more in the gospels, when referring to the writings of people who were clearly either mentally ill or making stuff up.

Anyway, I've said my piece I'd love us all to get along. I don't feel the need to identify as either because I see them as essentially the same thing.