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

[smax]

When people say, "there was definitely a man named Jesus" it's one of the most pathetic attempts often used to validate him as a historical figure. Of course there was a man named Jesus, many of them in fact. And there have also been many people named Hercules and Buddha. Does that validate them as historical figures of note?

Not at all.

The only thing that makes Jesus a relevant historical figure is some kind of credible substantiation of the bible's claims about him. Nothing like that, to my knowledge, exists.

Even the accounts of Jesus in the gospel are in clear contradiction of one another, which further discredits him as a historical figure.