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

[The Grand Nudger]

So there is a lot to respond to in that (I have read that wiki page before however), and I'm not sure exactly what you are expecting. I mean much of it is the same. Saying that there are no non-Christian sources in the 1st century just isn't a good argument. This is consistent with what we would expect. Jesus wasn't an important historical figure in his time.

-oh?  Your historical jesus may not been, but others disagree.  Others see the historical jesus as an immensely important and galvanizing figure even in his own time - this is a contributing factor necessitating that those stories be told about him, you see.

 I'm not sure that there are any non-Roman sources for Julius Ceasar and he's a vastly more important historical figure. I mean one of those guys says that we have to remain agnostic about the existence of Jesus unless we find a skeleton or Diary (because of the unreliability of the gospels ). 

sure...lets not start the quote there though, eh?  He says "there might have been - but- " - he is comfortable with the notion.  This single quote does not convey the entirety of his position on the matter, of course.  

If we applied that standard to other historical figures we have to start doubting them all. 

 
We often have good reason to either doubt them, or the stories told about them, or the stories they tell about themselves.  This is well known and not at all controversial.

What we have is four (actually 5 because there was some other early gospel also) sources about a minor figure at the time that come relatively quickly after his death. Some contradict each other, there are some references to places and people that we know to be historical, there is a lot of nonsense and inaccuracies. That is about par for the course in the ancient world. I mean we can use gospel inaccuracies to say that it obviously wasn't divinely inspired, but not to say it has no historical value.

Mythicists do not claim that they have no historical value -in the general-.  You could learn alot about literary tradition of the time they were written, from them, for example.  The mythicist position is a position on the nature of the christ narrative, and the claim to a historical person -within- that narrative. Not..a position on the availability of different types of inks used by scribes in this or that century. Whatever historical value those texts have it is completely unconnected with and independent of any historical jesus.