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

[TheMessiah]

That Jesus, who is beardless actually based the image of Christ on pagan representations of Hermes.

You see, Mess, that is the beauty of fictional characters.  They are infinitely malleable into whatever form the imagination of the person doing the imagining.  So your boy was not some smelly jewish hippie to early xtians.  So what?  He could have been portrayed as a hairy goth or an arab.  It is completely in the mind of the artists.

Real people have an actual context to their lives.  Something that you jesus freaks clearly can't grasp.

Fictional concepts, such as the son of god are malleable; actual people however, are not. That is why Christianity took off - because the concept of a savior was appealing, the historical Jesus, not so much.

You can keep agreeing with comments which assert ''Historians get paid therefore they don't reveal the truth'' - it only pushes you further towards religious think.

P.S, why do you keep saying ''your boy''? I am not religious, nor do I entertain the idea of a god. The historicity of Jesus is accepted among Atheist scholars/historians - the barrier isn't ''Atheist vs Christian'' - it's more along the lines of ''Historian vs non-Historian''