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.

Hmm... I think spawning a culture that boasts of more adherents and has had more influence in the world than any other figure or movement in history makes him somewhat relevant...

No more so than any other myth that has been brought to life. All the planets, long before the Jesus myth, were once believed to be gods. And, unlike Jesus, the planets existence could be verified. 

And yet we now know that they aren't gods, but rather the perception of them being such is an invention of the human mind. Just like Jesus. 

Likewise, the days of the week are named after those same gods (or planets). These gods (or days of the week), better known now by their Norse cultivated roots, make up our current calendar associations. 

Shall we now validate the beliefs of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Norse religions, simply because their myths are now part of our culture? Or, would we be better suited to accept that myths are, as I said before, most often and most likely the invention of the human mind?

The only Jesus that would be worth considering would be one that:

Walked on water
Turned water into wine
Fed 5000 people with 2 fish
Raised Lazurus from the dead
Defeated death himself and walked among us

Something tells me a guy like that, however, doesn't need obviously unreliable and contradictory religious accounts to verify him as an historical figure. 

The very nature of religion is to make shit up, that's a mathematical certainty no matter which crap you are buying. Therefore, religious accounts are useless to anyone sincerely in search of truth.