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

[robvalue]

(Just for kicks)

I wonder if one of the reasons mythicists aren't taken seriously by some is that all Christian biblical scholars must categorically deny it as even a remote possibility?

Not all biblical scholars deny it as a remote possibility.  Some even affirm it as likely.  But most say that they believe in an historical Jesus.  (Though as Minimalist likes to point out, they disagree with each other on what, exactly, that means.  Some believe more detailed stories than others, and some believe different details than others.)  

The thing is, pretty much everyone entering the matter starts with the idea that there was an historical Jesus.  Before I read anything on the matter, I pretty much assumed that there was.  But in reading about it, I found the evidence less than compelling.  But I have no particular need to believe one way or the other, as it does not matter to me if there was or was not an historical Jesus.

I specified Christian biblical scholars I know not all biblical scholars are Christian, but many are and their opinion still holds weight. (Not so much with me, but in general ) They literally can't conclude anything that would justify the mythicist position in any form, can they? Or rather they won't, regardless of what the evidence is or isn't.

I suppose you could have some whacky Christian who doesn't believe Jesus was real... err...