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

[Brakeman]

At one time alchemy was unanimously real and several writers purported great advances in turning cheap metals to gold. But as time progressed, people slowly gave less credence to eyewitness testimony and anecdotal evidence. When this occurred, the original "evidence" and consensus died away.

We expect better quality evidence than the christian "historian's of yesteryear. We are OK with the answers "We're not sure" and "We don't know." We are especially happy to accept that our fathers and grandfathers were biased and dishonest snots when it comes to assessing the actual evidence of history.