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

[Minimalist]

Randy, I suggest you read Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus....specifically Chapter 10, from whence cometh:

So the entire narrative of Mark is a fictional, symbolic construct, from

beginning to end. He adapted many other literary motifs and techniques to
flesh it out, of course. Some we've seen here. Others we've noted before for
example, Mark borrows a framework from the Socratic-Aesopic mythotype
(Element 46) and many elements from traditional pagan heroic translation
fables (Element 47); and he has already co-opted more than half
the features of the Rank-Raglan hero-type (counting fourteen hits out of
twenty-two; or fifteen, i f Jesus' metaphorical marriage to the heiress of
h is predecessor is counted, per Mk 2.1 8-22; the remaining features might
already have been part of the core Jesus mythology and Mark simply omitted
them-unless those features were added by Matthew: see Element 48).

So, you'll look less foolish with your head out of your ass.