Your genetic fallacy was specifically in your claim that "It's an interesting article but very much a legacy of 19th century interpretations that failed to gain traction among most scholars."

What was fallacious was your dismissal of the article on the grounds that the Christ myth theory was proposed a lot by racist Germans in the nineteenth century. This is especially fallacious because I rely on not one word of that nineteenth century scholarship.

I don't dismiss Jesus studies because most of the relevant historians are Christians. What I reject is your other stated reason for dismissing the Christ myth theory, which is that the theory failed to "gain traction among most scholars." You appealed to the consensus and to the authority of Jesus scholars. I pointed out that their authority is bogus because history isn't a science and because most of the scholars have a conflict of interest. There's no fallacy in that criticism of what you said.

The strawman is specifically in Ehrman's rejection of the hackneyed litany of parallels, such as the December 25th birthdate. Again, my article doesn't defend that list from the polemicist Kersey Graves.

In short, you have a reading comprehension problem. So I look forward to dissecting the casuistry involved in your handling of the dying and rising god mytheme.