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

[Thumpalumpacus]

The jesus myth must be sponsored as the only truth until is can be resolved by inarguable hard evidence. Or, we can be blinded by some claimed atheist who needs to think in the theistic sense, aka espousing answers without satisfying evidential criteria in hard fact.

If no hard facts are extant, neither was jesus. Deal with it.

I think it's entirely possible that an itinerant preacher named Jesus, fathered by a man named Joseph, lived in the asserted time frame. Such a claim is not extraordinary and doesn't really need evidence of an extraordinary quality or quantity.

Now, when we get into curing the ill, raising the dead, walking on water, and all the other magic stuff that makes our guy Jesus meaning in the context of historical Christianity, I think your point is absolutely valid.