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

[TheMessiah]

Always with the references to other historical people. It's irrelevant. Just because however many historians accepted similar or worse evidence for other people, it doesn't make the evidence any stronger here.

Can we really be sure of why he was executed, if that did indeed happen? Isn't that a bit of a stretch? Sure, we can take an educated guess, but what kind of confidence level are we talking?

That evidence accepting was used an example to illustrate the ridiculously high standard Jesus is held to in contrast to other historical figures.

I mean let's be honest here, if Jesus wasn't famous, but we still had evidence for such a figure, I doubt many people would even deny his existence. But because Christianity is so controversial and famous, people are more compelled to deny Jesus's existence, for ideological reasons.

And I can't say I'm surprised, because despite Jesus ''myth'' arguments getting continuously debunked, they still persist.

And his execution is probably the best attested event - enough to land 2 historical references which is quite extraordinary for an obscure figure. As to why he was executed, it's more-so logical reasoning and looking at why people were executed.

Execution via cross was the worst possible punishment and you had to have been a threat to land such a death; thus, through logical reasoning, Jesus was vaguely some kind of threat.