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

[Cephus]

I am uncertain why I should be concerned IF a historical figure named Jesus actually existed as a normal man.  What does that have to do with worshipping him as the son of god, for either way, divine or merely human, he is unworthy of worship.

The historical consensus on Jesus is not debating whether he's worthy of worship - it's simply showing who he was, which was an obscure preacher in 1st century Judea.

But that's not what's described in the Bible.  The Jesus that is described in the Bible, the guy born of a virgin who does miracles and rose from the dead, that guy never existed and nobody credible seriously thinks he did.  What people think might be real is some guy who is tangentially related to the Biblical Jesus myth.  That's not Jesus though.  That's someone else.  Christians are desperate to ignore that difference however.