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

[CapnAwesome]

Sure, NP.  Lets just recap.  

The mythicist position is not, directly, a position on the existence of magic or miracles.  Magic and miracles do not make or break the mythicist position.

The mythicist position is not that -there couldn't have been- a man named yeshua.

The mythicist position is simple, the jesus that we have handed to us, the jesus of our cultural and literary inheritance, is mythical, is legendary.  That -no man- need be the kernel of that jesus, and that there is no man which can be extracted from the body of that jesus.

Okay sure. I don't know how someone can say there couldn't have been a man named yeshua. There were probably several. There were probably several street preachers claiming to be the Messiah. Probably one of them attracted followers, traveled, preached, was killed by the romans. If that person existed I don't know how they weren't a historical Jesus. I really don't know what's so outrageous about that story. I guess someone can say that the Gospels have nothing historical in them, but we know that isn't true. We just know that it's inaccurate about many of the historical figures mentioned in it. Why can't Jesus be one of them. I remain unconvinced.