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

[Brakeman]

I expect historicists will appeal to the same arguments in the future as well---so long as  the pseudoskeptics proclaiming opposition appeal to the same lousy illogic, obfuscate issues such as theism/atheism with questions of historical fact, repeat their pathetic analogies, ignore the data, and reassert their grandiose alternative explanations without any sound or valid reason whatsoever.

I haven't seen any of these examples of illogic, issue obfuscation, or data ignorings, what I've seen is theistic bluster and repeated appeals to authority without regards to the bias of the claimed authorities as a group..

The ease of research of today will destroy your precious "consensus" of dishonest christians masquerading as "historians." The percentage of superstitious nonsense believers is dropping but is still the majority. When the enlightenment continues and the social pear pressure of the christians is broken, then the freedom to read the evidence will decide what we do and do not have sufficient reason to claim as historical.