Christmas isn't about Jesus, because a holiday about a fictional character is silly. Everyone knows that Christmas is about Santa!

Scholarly reception
A number of writers have stated that the theory has limited acceptance in the relevant scholarly circles. Richard Burridge and Graham Gould (2004: References below) state that the questioning of Jesus' existence is not accepted by mainstream critical scholarship.[8] Michael Grant believes that the Christ myth theory fails to satisfy modern critical methodology, and is rejected by all but a few modern scholars,[12] stating,

...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned...To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory."[162]

Likewise Graham N. Stanton writes,

Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."[10]

James Charlesworth writes that "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ..."[11] a conclusion shared by Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright.[163]

Robert E. Van Voorst has stated that biblical scholars and historians regard the Jesus never existed thesis as "effectively refuted",[9] with contemporary New Testament scholars typically viewing the Jesus-mythers arguments "as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely..."

Jesus myth proponent Earl Doherty responds to Van Voorst's claim, stating "after a survey of the history of research into the historical Jesus, Van Voorst tackles 'the noisy side current' of Jesus mythicism. He notes that over one hundred books and essays during the last two centuries have denied the existence of Jesus. Their arguments, he says, are dismissed as 'weak and bizarre' by contemporary New Testament scholars. Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant.' Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt." However, he insists that the "contempt" in which the theory is held "is not to be mistaken for refutation," arguing that mainstream scholars have failed to keep up with the details of the modern Jesus myth.[13]