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

[smax]

Like I said, it's a really a debate between rationale and conformity, or fact vs speculation.

The fact is, there is no solid evidence that Jesus ever existed. Therefore, the belief that he did is purely one of choice. Obviously historians have an invested motivation in choosing/speculating in favor of a historical Jesus because the alternative is to be ostracized. This dilemma is nothing new in human history. At one point you could be ostracized or worse for saying the earth was round or that the earth revolved around the sun. Undoubtedly the knowledge of the truth was known by many long before it was acceptable to profess that truth.

I have no doubt that many of today's historians that accept an historical Jesus either do so because they are lazy, weak minded, and prone to unquestioned conformity, or because they don't consider the cause worth the potential price of being ostracized.

Either way, historical Jesus advocates cannot offer solid proof of his existence. Many of these historians are Christians, but even the ones that aren't are exercising faith in Jesus Christ.