Not a very "serious" argument.

Every time I post or encounter arguments about the historical Jesus, I get this reply.

"No serious historians reject the historicity of Jesus."

Really? So are you saying that those who reject it are not to be considered as "serious historians" huh? Looking at the argument, I can smell the foul stench of Ad hominem.

Was there a consensus that to be condered a "serious" historian, you should believed that Jesus was a real "historical person?"

So what measurement are we using to be considered as a "serious historians?" Is it an Apologetics-influenced scholarship, a "mainstream scholarship,” or the "what most scholars think?”

Have we forgotten the science philosopher Thomas Kuhn who said that by the formulation of new interpretive paradigms as by the accumulation of new data and discoveries is the reason why science progress? Can we not apply this in the paradigms of history, specially on biblical/religious claims?

When these so-called "serious historians" speak about Jesus, are they talking about the same Jesus that was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, heal the sick, produced fish and bread out of thin air, walked on water and resurrected after being dead for three days?

Now, suppose we asked, "Have you even read the mythicist's arguments?" Have you really made a serious thought about them?

I really don't expect to get any answers from these questions.

As the writer and historian David Fitgerald said, "Apologists love to parrot the old lie that "no serious historians reject the historicity of Christ," but fail to realized (or deliberately neglect to mention) the the "historical Jesus" the majority of historians do accept is at best no more than just another first-century wandering preacher and founder of a fringe cult that eventually became Christianity - in other words, a Jesus that completely debunks their own."