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

[Cephus]

Seems to me , a layman, after reading much of this thread and doing a little wiki searching to fill in the gaps what My take away was this.

Historians are in disagreement. Any testimony of Jesus the man or the myth is suspect and in doubt. There is no consensus. Which sounds a lot like hands in the air and nothing like concrete evidence.

Historians disagree as to what particulars we can know about Jesus' life beyond things like his baptism by John and his death by crucifixion under Pilate. The number of historians who disagree that this Jesus really existed is, according to mythicist demigod Richard Carrier, about seven.

Seven

There are thousands of historians. To say that is not a consensus would be tantamount to viewing the number of scientists who are creationists and proclaiming that there is no agreement as to whether or not macroevolution really took place.

But you can't know any of those things.  Those are, at  best, stories in a book that has been shown to be historically unreliable at best, complete mythology at worst. All anyone is doing here is pulling the argument from authority.  It doesn't matter if 5 billion historians believe something, it only matters what the existing and demonstrable evidence actually says.  Their opinion means jack squat.  Unfortunately, we have a lot of people whose religious beliefs depend on this single individual being real, but it's also a cultural icon that lots of people, religious or not, simply assume to be real because they've spent their lives thinking that it's got to be so.  What we really need to do is evaluate the evidence and only the evidence and leave the cultural and religious nonsense behind.  All that ought to matter is the evidence.  If the evidence doesn't directly indicate that Jesus existed as a real person, then we need to reject that idea, pending further evidence in the future.