Me. Disagreeing With Mormon Bible-Scholar Dan McLellan's Rebuke of Jesus-Mythicism.

 "In principal", I agree with all of that.

HOWEVER, if a "God" wanted other and later peoples to conclude some "Jesus" existed and plans to judge us for our response to that claim (along with every detail that supposedly matters), then: it becomes his JOB (ethical duty) to make sure that evidence exists and is common knowledge. So if we're talking about Magic-Jesus, "absence of evidence actually IS evidence of absence". Whereas, if we're talking about a fallible, mortal, muggle-Jesus, the entire issue becomes trivial at best. Meanwhile, if I hear a story about some guy in the iron age who did a series of totally believable ordinary things, then sure. I'll just accept it as a historical account. And why? Because the story of human history is built from such accounts. It is (unfortunately) "the best we can do" to piece together the distant past. HOWEVER, ... if the only versions OF stories ABOUT some (any) man who did ordinary things is presented to readers as the ordinary things that filled in a MAGIC-MAN story, then: the WHOLE of those stories become non-credible. I will believe you about a man who went fishing. But I'll stop believing the entire story as soon as you tell me: he walked on water, controlled the weather, and raised thousands of dead ex-Jew-cultists from the dead so they could tell everyone how great his Dad is. Additionally, there are even more layers of justifications for disregarding all of it. Consider: It was written by people who were "structuring power". Worse yet, it was organized crime. It was a racketeering scheme where a mysterious BOSS owns this town and everyone in it. And he promises to come hurt and KILL everyone who hasn't (before then) surrendered to his "authorized agents". You just took someone's word for it that there is a "Hank" and that we're supposed to kiss his ass. #AnotherTestimonyOfJesus "H" Christ from Latter Day "saints". At least now we know what the "H" stands for.

But I don't believe you "know" about ANY man who warned us about the right way to eat wieners.

Writers had great reasons to invent that figure, as a means to an end. If that was the only FORM the stories took about ANY other historical figure, every reader would then fully justified to not believe any of it. You can't have a 1950s Superman flying to save Lois Lane without reference to real-life tech, real-life types of streets and buildings, real-life types of work-places, etc.. But The Super-Power parts of those stories is what makes references to Clark Kent noncredible. We can't really justify being a Clark-Kent-Historicist by telling people they should ignore the parts where he was secretly Superman. -- Now, as it happens, I DO think "there was a guy". But my reasons for thinking so are a whole lot better than (for example) Bart Ehrman's reasons for thinking so. My reasons just aren't obvious reasons. So while I agree with the general principal Dan is promoting here, I don't think he being entirely fair about people who reject the claim that some specific muggle-Jesus, Jewish cult-leader existed. ---
@tylerskye923138 minutes ago asked

"I’m interested in what your reasons for believing “there was a guy” are, if you don’t mind sharing.
--
Hi Tyler The short version is this: The writers were not great at writing. Nor did they demonstrate some keen understanding of human nature, apart from their ability to manipulate the downtrodden. Nor did anyone back then understand mental illness. And yet, they managed to capture and convey a vividly true-to-life picture of a profoundly unwell man who struggled to make sense of himself and the world around him. For this reason, I believe that real person's real life "bleeds through" their otherwise poorly written stories. ---
Additionally, I think mysticism vs historicism is "a difference without a distinction" I'm a mythicist about Wonder Woman. But she was based on two really-existing women. I'm not a "historicist" about Santa Clause or Dracula. But they too were based on real people. The same is true of every fictional character ever written. Writers draw from what they themselves have seen and heard in the real world. They must. Because humans are entirely incapable of creating a composite fiction without relying entirely on things they've seen. This is why every scary monster in sci fi media is assembled from pieces of real bugs, animals, and people. Currently, scientists are hoping that advances in A.i. will allow A.i to break through that limit; giving us new imagery and concepts to build new composite ideas with. Inevitably, that's what happened with the stories about Jesus. --
 Additional food for thought:

One person made this comment, under Dan's video:

@KaiHenningsen

wrote: 
"I've personally arrived at the suspicion that the real, historical Jesus' connection to the NT, and even more so to the church traditions later, is much like the connection of the real historical Nicholas of Myra to the modern US conception of Santa Claus living at the North Pole. (In fact, there are more than a few parallels in the myth developing.) Yes, you can trace a line from the historical person to the current myth (in the first case, a bit fuzzier in the beginning), but no, the person wouldn't even recognize the mythical figure, which is almost 100% invention, grown in small increments over a large time."

--