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

[smax]

Nestor:
Everyone basically agrees.....

Ah yes, the old "everyone is doing it" argument. Case closed! 

Can you answer any of the questions you posed concerning other first century Jewish rabbis? What about famous philosophers and scholars, such as Aristippus of Cyrene, Diogenes of Sinope, Philo of Alexandria, or Pliny the Elder? Can you show us the trial records of Socrates or Gaius Verres? How about the tombs of Plato, Aristotle, or Epicurus? Zeno of Elea or Zeno of Citium? Birth certificates? Do you think unless someone left writings it's more likely that others who attest to their existence are lying? That's a pretty incredible---and ignorant---standard to require.

None of the verifications I called for are even remotely close to be "incredible". And, I'll be quite frank in saying that I don't care about any of the figures you mentioned or the validity of their historical existence. In other words, it's irrelevant whether they can be verified or not because it's basically inconsequential. It falls in the category of "who cares?". Given the cultural and social significance of an alleged Jesus Christ, however, I see great significance and relevance in the need to verify his existence as an actual historical figure.  And, to that end, I find the evidence to be overwhelmingly lacking, as you have unwittingly acknowledged by meeting not one single burden of proof. 

It sounds to me like you may have some emotional investment in denying the probability that Christian dogmas originally developed from a early first-century crucified preacher, as all of the sources claim. You claim that Jesus was an invented figure to take advantage of “the masses” through “lies, deception, greed, envy, or simply the need to control.” 

Not at all. But I will note yet another completely baseless conclusion reached on your part. Not that it was needed, but your assessment does serve as reinforcement to my position.