That article is full of the same old, poorly thought out, bad history that "some" critics have been using for years. Allow me go through just a few of their "arguments".
It may surprise Christians to learn that there are no contemporary historical documents for 'Jesus, the Christ'
==This point, is pointless. The fact is that in the field of ancient history not having "contemporary" accounts of a historical figure is not unusual at all. In fact, it is very common. There are several reasons for that. So whether we are talking about Alexander the Great, Jesus Christ, or any other ancient figure, it is not uncommon for us to have little to no "contemporary" writings about them. With a historical figure such as Jesus this is even more true. Why? He was not a earthly king or president. Jesus was, from a purely human standpoint, a traveling preacher who attracted large crowds. It is not surprising that no contemporary writings, about Him, have survived. Notice I said "survived".
The Gospels come much later (as evidenced by the fact that Paul never cites them) and there is good reason that all four of the surviving, accepted Gospels are based on Mark, which in turn is likely to be midrash, not historical documentation
==Markian priority is a theory based on various grammatical assumptions and not on actual historical fact. While I accept Markian priority I would never claim it as a fact. As for Paul not citing the Gospels, well there is a very good reason for that. Most of Paul's writings predate the Gospels. However historical information Paul gives about Jesus matches, perfectly, the historical information the Gospels give us about Jesus (ex 1Cor 11:23-26). As for the Gospel of Mark being "midrash" and not "historical", that is an opinion and not a fact. The fact is the Gospels, including Mark, claim to be historical works and they read as historical works (Lk 1:1-4, Jn 20:31-30, 21:25, Mk 1:9, etc).
I could keep going but it would take too much time to go through all of his points. What I am seeking to show is that his arguments are the same arguments that have been used for hundreds of years. Christians, and nonChristians alike, have refuted many of these arguments time and time again.
Beyond that, who wrote that article? I see no name attached to the article (only a handle) nor do I see anything about the author's background. Does this person hold a degree in history (ancient, anything?), theology, religion? If not, why should they be considered an authority on historical/theological matters? If this person, who looks very young, does have such a background why is it not listed?
