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

[Pyrrho]

LOL...I missed this before but...Nestor....the thing you thought that mythicists didn't have a good explanation for, that was an example of their laziness in describing things as fiction turned out to be what?

Fiction?

I'm pretty sure historians know that almost all ancient texts contain fiction in their accounts.

Fiction in text =/= text is fiction.

All you have to do to see an example of the laziness I'm referring to is scroll up to the post above yours:

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

The stupidity in that remark would be shocking if it wasn't so typical.

It depends on how you interpret that remark.  To "discredit" something is to "Cause (an idea or account) to seem false or unreliable."  There is, in that, two different ideas, as "false" and "unreliable" are two different things.  When a story is contradictory, it is automatically unreliable.  That, of course, does not make everything in it necessarily false.


Edited to add:

Furthermore, there is that pesky word "seem" in the definition, showing that to say that something has been discredited is not the same as saying that something has been proven to be completely false.