Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

… your inability to reason to the best explanation …

According to Robert Price, reasoning to the best explanation is his whole reason for promoting a Christ myth view. He thinks that his Christ myth view is a better explanation for why we have all the stories that we have about a Jesus called “annointed one” crucified almost 2000 years ago, than saying that there really was such a person.

(edited to add the following)

I found this outline in the Wikipedia article about historical method:

1 Source criticism
1.1 Procedures for contradictory sources
1.2 Core principles for determining reliability
1.3 Eyewitness evidence
1.4 Indirect witnesses
1.5 Oral tradition
1.6 Anonymous sources

2 Synthesis: historical reasoning
2.1 Argument to the best explanation
2.2 Statistical inference
2.3 Argument from analogy

Looking at the details, it all looks like ambiguous, subjective, untestable judgments to me, not even trying or claiming to be objective or testable, and using words that are notoriously ambiguous and wide open for people to define any way they want to, to get the results that they want. Also, some of it looks like logical fallacies to me, including some of the best known ones in discussions about logic. It doesn't look to me like a way of finding out, or even trying to find out, what really happened. It looks more like it's designed for most people to agree with it, or at least not to openly reject it.

In spite of all that, I'm thinking that maybe there isn't any better way, in the world as it is today, to have a common framework and language for most historians to communicate with each other about what they're learning.

Perhaps you're not understanding that correctly. Once you go through steps 1.1 to 1.6, you then have what you need to begin the Synthesis. This is where you basically weigh all the evidence, discard what is heavily disputed by the evidence, keep what is confirmed, and formulate an opinion. 

No matter what you do, it will always come down to your opinion. The difference is whether or not preconceived bias has been permitted to affect your opinion. If you already believe Jesus didn't exist, you may toss evidence that shouldn't be tossed instead of reviewing it with an unbiased eye. Same goes if you are a Christian.

Me? I don't give a fuck if he existed or not. It's just the evidence to support that he did provides the better argument to the best explanation which favors the existence ONLY in the sense that there was a Jesus called Christ by many, who was crucified by Pilate circa CE 33.

After that is established, we see all the rest taking shape. We see the Gospels, letters,, Pliny, Josephus, Tacitus and scores of other documents attesting to this one singular event, indicating that it was this same Jesus who is the focus of all the exaggerated nonsense in the bible.

Some here eventually came to the realization that my arguments are not so much as to establish historicity of this Jesus, but rather to provide evidence that the proclaimed historicity of the Jesus in the gospels is false. That guy did not exist, not as he is portrayed in those books. 

Like I said earlier, he was likely just some short bald guy from out in the boonies who ended up getting his ass handed to him by the Romans.