What is Reddit's opinion of Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? (Biblical Studies)?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

> Can you name two atheist historians that claim this?

I'll do you three.

Bart Ehrman.
Maurice Casey.
Michael Grant.

You completely ignored every other point I addressed, offered no evidence to support any of your claims, and now you're attempting to move the goal posts.

>What "arguments" are you rejecting when we aren't making any?

The fact that you don't know the arguments in your own pseudo-scholarship echo chamber isn't my fault, it's yours. Murdock believes (among many other fantastical and ridiculous things) that the entire Jesus story was borrowed from previous religions. Carrier--and his amateur sycophant Fitzgerald--believes Jesus was an amalgamation. I could go on down the line (while ignoring the fact that people like Doherty and Goddfrey change their claims about every other year), but if you're honestly ignorant enough to believe mythicists aren't making any claims, then you're nowhere near as educated on this topic as you think you are. What's funny is that you don't even know why mythicists have to make claims, and that's because you don't understand how history works.

>All I am saying is that there is no contemporaneous evidence of Jesus in the historical record...at all. You cannot provide any. No one so far ever has. As such it is my opinion that we must assume Jesus is a FICTIONAL mythological character

I addressed the issue of a lack of contemporaries above and even cited an example. You claim that has been debunked, then failed to demonstrate it. Sosylus was Hannibal's only contemporary. Even if we didn't have that contemporary, there's still enough secondary evidence to prove he existed. Secondly, your personal opinion about the historicity of Jesus is just as irrelevant as your personal opinion about every other historical figure. I have no idea why nonexperts believe their personal feelings on an academic matter are relevant; perhaps it works this way in your own mind, but that's the only place.

>So, I'm not making ANY claim. I'm asking someone, anyone to back up THEIR claim that Jesus was ever a real human being.

You did make a claim. In fact, you made multiple claims, none of which you have bothered to support.

>• As such it is my opinion that we must assume Jesus is a FICTIONAL mythological character just like all of the ones to come before him and after him in the oral tradition fairy tales of the human race.

>• I was going to reply to your post until I saw you pull on the thoroughly debunked amateur-hour Hannibal gimmick from the religious apologist talking points.

>• Even a cursory examination of the claim of consensus amongst historians regarding the historicity of Jesus immediately comes across bias (e.g. religious apologists paid to validate claims, academics that don't want to concede the possibility that they've spent their lives studying a fictional character, etc.), historians citing only other historians without peer reviewing (non-existent) evidence, and a complete lack of contemporaneous evidence to support the contention that Jesus is not just another of thousands of fictional, mythological characters.

I'd strongly suggest picking up this book for starters. Not only does it explain your arguments for you, it also explains why they're wrong.