Well I don’t agree. I think I described your motivations fairly well in the opening of the article:
“ It is a very popular argument these days that no evidence exists that Jesus Christ ever existed. I think because of the powerful appeal of a silver bullet, knockdown argument that would destroy Christianity if true. And it’s even better than true from the perspective of a habitual debater; it’s supremely defensible in argument. Those two aren’t always one in the same.”
The quality of the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, which you seem to halfway allow so long as we call him “Jewish reformer” instead, is equivalent to the quality of evidence for a great many other historical figures you probably don’t dispute the existence of.
I am more interested in being objective than right, so although I reject the supernatural claims of Christianity, I am able to accept tentatively that there was a historical person who founded Christianity, most likely who it was named for and who it is designed to attract worship to on the grounds that there’s enough evidence to satisfy an unbiased person.
If you don’t consider that to be the case, that’s fine by me. I attribute it to your bias, and am content that we agree to disagree.