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

[Cephus]

But WHERE is the evidence.  If a historian accepts a fairy tale it makes you feel all warm.

Are you certain you haven't just pissed your pants?

Here you go again --- you do realize that none of what you're saying sounds rational? It sounds incredibly anti-rational and desperate. Historians are ''accepting'' a fairy tale? These people are experts in their field - and it's pretty desperate for you to attempt to dismiss what they do because you personally don't agree with the same claims.

Do you think it's credible to say climate-change is a Liberal conspiracy?

Also, here is the /r/askhistorians page, aside from the Gospels etc (which are analysed in the historical world), there are several non-Biblical sources which historians analyse.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/co...cal_jesus/

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion

It doesn't matter what they accept, it matter what demonstrable, objective evidence they have and they just have nothing.  Historicity requires multiple independently verifiable sources.  The Bible is one.  There are no others.  There are only second, third and worse sources from people who were not eyewitnesses, they were just recording what they heard from others who also were not eyewitnesses.  By this logic, in another 2000 years, Harry Potter will be a historical person because there are a lot of people who have written about him.

It just doesn't stand up to any rigor, sorry.