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

[robvalue]

What I mean to say is that detailed conclusions tend to overreach the evidence. People can support it so far, then just go on to extend the story and that's why the phrase "historical Jesus" means next to nothing because it means something different to so many people.

Obviously there is some evidence, but not enough for what people want to tell me actually happened, in the detail they generally go into.

I still have to be convinced by their arguments, and generally I am not, if they go beyond a few bullet points of "facts" about Jesus.