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

[CapnAwesome]

-and yet mythicists and those willing to be it's proponents have to constantly account for why they -haven't- made such an assumption......that their observations are equally mainstream when not combined into a single whole is lost.  Some of the mythicists evidence for their position is the same as the historical crowds evidence for why the "other historical crowd" is wrong.  All of a sudden, though, due to the mention of myth and legend, they're nutters, lol - and that very same evidence isn't serious or credible.

Well for the record I don't think that all mythicists are nutters and this position is taken seriously by many historians who disagree with it. Bart Erham wrote a whole book countering it. That's not a sign that he disrespects the position, but rather one that it's worth taking seriously and critiquing. The historical world isn't like the internet, where you confront every 9/11 truther and nutcase. There wouldn't even be a response to it if it wasn't taken seriously. That being said, on the internet you get a wide variety of beliefs mixed, and for whatever reason some nutcases have attached themselves pretty firmly to this one.