Which is not actually an argument. But it does reflect the kind of visceral rejection of any authentic interaction with those who speak from a supernaturalist worldview. Methods of chronology are fair game. What's the core argument? Or is a spicy Ad Hominem sufficient reason to avoid discussion with 'those people?' For the record, I'm not committed to either position. I'm just fascinated with how everybody thinks they are the only objective party in the conversation. It is absurdly funny.

There is some evidence of mythicist sects that slipped through medieval church censors and selectors. The New Testament itself mentions a rival sect teaching that the Gospels were fabricated myths (2 Peter 1:16-2:2, commonly agreed to be a forged letter most likely originating in the second century).

Wrong. Sure, most scholars consider the letter to be probably a forgery. However, 2 Peter is not talking about Christ mythers. It's imposing a lot on the text that wouldn't be there. All he's saying is that "we're not following cleverly devised myths". Scholars I've read on that regard it as that they're talking about the pagan myths. We didn't follow those, we're reporting on what we actually saw. We have no evidence of anyone doubting the historical existence of Jesus until the late 17th century.

Quoting AIG is not gonna help your cause. It's like quoting Alex Jones about 9/11.

This person is oblivious to the scholarly consensus on Jesus' historicity.

He says the consensus is wrong. You can’t say that about something of which you are oblivious.

There's plenty of well known ancient historians who wrote about Jesus, one of which being Luke who also wrote a gospel.

To call the author of Luke’s gospel a historian presupposes Christian orthodoxy, which presupposes the conclusion of Jesus’ historicity.

Some historians also mentioned a few of the miracles recorded in the gospels

Name one.

An example is a record from Thallus in the 50's A.D. mentioning the darkness that occurred during Jesus crucifixion

We have nothing written by Thallus suggesting that he was referring to that darkness.

Africanus, who quoted this record about 2 centuries later . . . .

He did not quote it.

Tacitus references in 115 A.D. in his Annals that Christians who were killed for saying Jesus was resurrected.

Tacitus does not say that Christians were killed for that reason.

The only way that many people would believe that Jesus was resurrected was if they actually saw him.

If that were so, then nobody today would believe that he was resurrected.

Even his first disciples doubted him until they saw him.

That’s what the stories say. The issue being debated is whether the stories are true. You’re assuming your conclusion again.

These new testament accounts are consistent with the Roman historical records talking about the teaching of Jesus resurrection.

Please identify one of those Roman records attesting to any teaching about the resurrection.

Hardly any scholar, regardless of background, doubts Jesus was a real historical figure

Nobody disputes that. The issue under dispute is whether those scholars are justified in their belief.

No one who ever wrote about Jesus was ever questioned by anyone about if he actually existed.

How do we know that? Are you basing your assertion on absence of evidence?

We know the new testament was completed before the second century because Clement of Rome quotes it in the late first century.

Clement does not say he is quoting any document.

The church cleansed the record, but that, alone, says nothing, as we don't know what they censored.

Right. We don't know -- and that is the point. It is the reason historicists cannot argue that, because there is no record of anyone denying historicity, nobody ever did deny it.

The methods of Egyptian chronology used in that subject are inaccurate. https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/doesnt-egyptian-chronology-prove-bible-unreliable/

But Jesus met Moses at the Transfiguration?

Someone says he did.

How does a fictional person like Moses get to meet a real person like Jesus?

Obviously, that can't really happen. Since we have a document in which the author says it happened, we then must decide among three possibilities -- or, at least three, if anyone wants to suggest others. 1. The author lied. 2. The author made a mistake. 3. The author was writing fiction.

Another point is that The Ascension of Isaiah dealing with the Lower Heavens can also be overlooked as well. If it "depicted Jesus being killed by Satan and his demons in the lower heavens (and not on earth), exactly as the mythicist thesis proposes" it does not necessarily equivocate to the notion that the authors of that did not maintain that there was no historical Jesus.

I'll have to read Part I to determine if it addresses the references Horn uses to justify his position on Tacitus and Josephus as well.

We do have St. Ignatius from the early second century C.E.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

You make a good point with the brother factor.

"The mainstream view is that Moses did not exist."

Or at least had his life elaborated with other traditions. I'm of the position that...you never know.

Exactly. I'm 60-40 agnostic. But the argument has not been proven conclusively one way or the other. Carriers argument is carrying me more than the historicity side is doing. If the game is a slam dunk, then the religious wouldn't be arguing and the mythicists would be gone.

History is replete with the appeal to authority when it has subsequently been proven completely erroneous. Sheep will be sheep.