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

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's see if I got this straight:

The HJ camp say there was a preacher called Yeshua who claimed to be the son of God, and was crucified.

The mythicists do not deny this possibility, but in fact say that this isn't enough information to accurately identify one single person; or even if it was, we can't be sure it's the person actually being identified, or that the myth isn't also based on other people. Let's face it, when almost the entirely story is mythical/unverifiable, it's a pretty big assumption that no other real people didn't creep in somewhere.

So really, the differences are pretty minor here, as far as I can see. HJ-ers are confident enough they have found "one person" with this criteria, and mythicists say they probably have not.  But neither claim (I hope) that the "life story" of Jesus that we have is actually accurate, so the "Jesus character" is not a real person.

I see this very basic HJ position as so similar to the mythicist position that I don't feel the need to "identify" as either, and I don't understand the infighting. It's when people get carried away and start supposing we can know much more about Jesus that I start pulling a face.

Some HJ'ers are of the opinion that the claims to godhead are a part of the christ myth.  Those that angle for a jewish jesus, for example, recognize that it's unlikely that a devout jew would claim to be a god, or that other equally devout jews would accept such a claim.  This is a similar criticism as that which is leveled at the passage in josephus.  

Te mythicist position is comfortable with the possibility of a historical jesus,  but finds it difficult to establish that based upon what we have, and simultaneously  much easier to establish the christ of myth (which exists regardless of the existence of any HJ), which is based on no man in particular..so far as we can tell.  The mythicist position goes farthur.  It describes the landscape of christian belief, and a situation in which early christians -did not believe- that jesus was a man, that there was a HJ.  This, in the mythicist position, is a later interpretation.  

There -isn't- much difference between the HJ and mythicist positions.  The mythicist position -agrees- with some HJ's when they are busy -disagreeing- with each other.  The only thing consistently different between any two reps of the two categories is that the HJ'er asserts that there is ample evidence to conclude that there was "some guy" - while the mythicist position does not...and further asks what, exactly, "some guy" is supposed to mean.

Haha! It's not, which is why I can't understand why some people get so worked up about it.

I'm trying to figure out what would cause such friction when the positions are so similar.

Also, it's kind of funny Lame ass Jesus.

In this thread?  It comes from certain posters inability to admit that they don't know the mythicist position, can't argue against it,  can't argue  HJ competently, and have made too much of an ass of themselves to change course now.  In the general, it comes from fairy tale believers who go batshit when you ask them to give you evidence for -anything- in their stories. Professionally? Tradition, rivalry, implications of entrenched incompetence?