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

[TheMessiah]

The only people to whom HJ is really important are biblical scholars, because they must be able to make the case or else their beliefs are clearly hogwash. But therein lies the problem, they have already concluded not just HJ but magic J exists so I tend not to trust them to be objective. They literally cannot conclude anything else.

I just find it interesting to see what we can learn with any reliability, and what these myths are based on in reality. Even I was surprised at the lack of evidence, until I'd looked into it I had assumed a lot more about Jesus could be verified.

Haha, magic J! Magic Johnson. He probably did have a magic Johnson.

I don't know why you make the assumption that scholars of Ancient History are Christian; yes many are, but many are also Atheist and Agnostic. Regardless, if being a Christian Historian would bias someone towards accepting his historicity, do you not see feasibility in Anti-Theists/Atheists feeling more compelled to reject his historicity because they want to undermine religion? Of course Atheism isn't a belief system, but being opposed to a particular belief system, by that logic would not entail that they feel more compelled to target it?

Furthermore, HJ has no relevance on Christian beliefs --- the historical Jesus, that most historians have accepted does not paint Christianity into a positive light; the HJ that they accept is that of a Jew that died a disgraceful death. That is an embarrassing death for a messiah - which is why so many Christians want to believe he is all-powerful.