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

[Mudhammam]

---

Gee, I dunno, maybe their claims that he had a human father and mother? (The former whom they said practiced carpentry). That he had brothers and sisters? (one mentioned by Josephus). That he was baptized by John, a character also confirmed by Josephus to be historical, a point all the Gospel writers go through pains to explain in the context of their theology? That he died by crucifixion... a claim so central to the Christian ethos that it turns up on almost every page? (Hint: celestial beings don't usually die a common criminal's death by known historical executioners).

I'm not sure why you think that any of those narratives require that there be an actual person Nestor. I could rattle off a handful of stories (dracula included) that probably won;t garner the same conclusions.  

 
Need I say, "derp"?

probably...yeah, after your last response.

When the mythicist is not creating a story out of thin air, he relies on the same texts that historists do to construct his narrative. So which part should I oblige? The texts about Jesus' divinity and post-mortem celestial existence, the texts about Jesus' humanity that mythicists dismiss ad hoc, or their silly and groundless explanations for why the texts say what they do?

What other texts -would- a mythicist rely on when discussing the christ myth?  You understand that the christ myth and the historical christ are such different entities that what is suitable as evidence for the one may not be suitable as evidence for the other, right?  The particulars of christ myth only requires that a story exist, the historical jesus needs more.  The story exists, no assumptions required....agreed?

---