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

[Mudhammam]

The problem with that is that the Bible was written and compiled by his followers. I don't think it's a coincidence that they never mention Jesus farting, or how irritated Mary got with having to change his diapers after eating figs, or whatnot.  The followers of any hero tend to be biased towards presenting the good side and obscuring the not-so-good.

The Gospels have been doctored for centuries by people with an agenda. Regarding them as evidence of a human Jesus would be like regarding For Whom the Bell Tolls as evidence of Robert Jordan.  Everything sounds in place, but none of it is proven real, because we have no other evidence of either protagonist.

It's circular argumentation.

Fabrications intended to create a picture about a man, a picture that actually does includes mundane biographical details, doesn't negate the likelihood of that person's historical existence when those fabrications and mundane details ONLY make sense in the context of that person having really existed. I don't know about your comparison, but if it is anything like the irrational garbage that other mythicists here espouse, you might want to re-consider how similar the two are. It's a circular argument to say, "Jesus probably didn't exist because the texts about him are corrupt and include embellishment; therefore Jesus probably didn't exist."

Keep in mind that we have sources about Jesus' life and influence that are not written by his followers, and the multiple attestations by disciples that we do have exist in such abundance that the argument that a lot of the texts were changed is a non-sequitur---we know, for the most part, what and where those changes occurred.