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

[Mudhammam]

Einstein answered George Sylvester Viereck when asked, “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”:

“Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”

Having read some of the ancient historians (including Plutarch's account of Theseus---btw, does anyone discredit his Lives simply on the grounds that it includes mythology? Nope.), philosophers, comedians, etc., and giving a fair hearing to the mythicist arguments put forth here, Earl Doherty and the few others, it's pretty obvious which side evidence and rational argumentation supports. Jesus was most assuredly a first-century Jewish teacher, however irrelevant that figure is to the dogmas written on account of his apparently noble life, writings that make no sense when the focus of their energy is removed entirely to the realm of fiction  . . . which serves, apparently, as motive for some, but evidently (and ironically) not the Gospel writers. That much is obvious as borne out of the ad hominems and non-sequitors mythicists seem too often to reply upon . . . does anyone have to explain to smaxypads that belief in a historical Jesus is in no way (logically) connected to a belief in an afterlife? And he (along with those who profess to "like" such illogical remarks) thinks that is anything but stupid?

But I'm somehow expected to take serious and engage with such nonsense? Ha. Children. Bless their little hearts.