The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader

Crossan's series of 180s to model Christian originsCon disagrees with me that the celibacy is an indication of asceticism, claiming that "most historians attribute the idea of celibacy to the later Christian Church."Con also disagrees with my claim that the theory of his championed author (JD Crossan) would require that the religious tradition of Jesus requires two 180 degree turns, with both the predecessor and successors of Jesus being apocalyptic asceticist but not Jesus himself, because, Con claims, the follower of Jesus were not ascetics.Con's preferred historian, JD Crossan, would disagree with Con on both points. Crossan believes that the primary follower and successor of Jesus, Paul, was both ascetic and apocalypticist.On page 48 of the book by MJ Borg and JD Crossan, The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon, the authors arrirm that Paul was ascetic, stating:"Paul himself was an ascetic celibate and may indeed have already been one in his pre-Christian practice of Judaism--at least he never mentions Jesus as a model for abnegation of that portion of the world's normal social relations."On page 176 of the book by JD Crossan and JL Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus's Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom, the authors affirm that Paul was apocalypticist, stating:"Paul was wrong, just as every other hope, expectation, proclamation, or prophecy of imminent apocalyptic consummation has been consistently wrong throughout all of human history--at least so far."And Crossan is right on both points. The asceticism of Paul is seen in 1 Corinthians 7:7, which is the only passage within Paul's authentic letters that would indicate the continuation of Paul's tradition of celibacy and asceticism, but Crossan takes this passage as evidence enough that Paul was ascetic. The apocalypticism of Paul is seen in 1 Corinthians 7:26-31.Unfortunately for Crossan, these affirmations underlie the implausibility of his own theory. Crossan believes that John the Baptist and Paul were both apocalyptic ascetics, but he also believes that Jesus, the only link between John and Paul, was entirely different.King Arthur the red herring?If the point about King Arthur is a red herring, then Con is the one who put the red herring in the pond. But, such self-deprecation is not deserved. King Arthur is relevant to this debate.In Round 1, Con suggested that Jesus was an amalgamation of different stories. In Round 2, I rebutted that this would be implausible given that seemingly no other mythical characters in antiquity were an amalgamation of many other different characters. Con rebutted with the claim that King Arthur was such an amalgamation, and he cited sources. In Rounds 3 and 4, I questioned these sources. In Round 4, Con now calls the point about King Arthur a red herring, and he now shifts his argument and claims that King Arthur, like Jesus, has diversified.On this last point, I agree. But, remember, Con was the one who suggested that Jesus was an amalgamation of mythical characters, and he claimed King Arthur as evidence. If he were right, then it would provide plausibility to the proposition that Jesus was an amalgamation. Since Con has failed to substantiate his claims, the proposition is shown to be implausible. More copycat-Jesus claimsCon is a talented debater, which explains his explempary record, but I have a special advantage--I have debated this topic many times in the past. I happen to have a copy of her book, The Christ Conspiracy, and the author simply does not specify the ancient sources for her controversial claims. Instead, she cites other fringe authors. Fringe authors constitute the entirety of her bibliography and the majority of her chapter endnotes. That is why I carefully worded my demand for sources: "...find quotes and specific citations to the ancient documents..." I already know that the author Acharya S CLAIMS that her information is rooted in the ancient sources, such as Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, Book of the Dead, etc. Each of these sets of texts are translated and published online, with the links listed as follows:http://www.sacred-texts.com... (Pyramid Texts)http://en.wikipedia.org... (Coffin Texts, Parts I, II and III)http://www.sacred-texts.com... (Book of the Dead)So, my challenge remains essentially the same as before, but I will provide more specifics: hunt down the evidence for her essential claims about these texts, and prove it with a quote and a link containing the translations of the ancient texts. Since Con stands behind his position that the character of Horus was crucified, then I suggest Con focus on the crucified Horus to fulfill the challenge. If Con succeeds in this, it means that I can copy the words of Con's quote, I can go to a page of ancient translated text from a link that Con provides, I can type CTRL-F and CTRL-V to find the words of the quote, and those words are sufficient to suspect that Horus was crucified according to ancient myth.I won't even limit the challenge to those three ancient sources listed above. Go to any ancient source, such as Herodotus or Plutarch. Win this challenge, and win the debate.Historical silence about JesusSince Con has thankfully not Gish Galloped again, I will go back to a point he made in Round 3, directly relevant to the debate. He claimed: "The third Youtube video shows 23 major historians who were alive during Jesus' time who fail to record anything about Jesus, or any other MAJOR events of the New Testament, such as King Herod ordering all babies in Bethlehem killed."So, this point often comes up in debates about the existence of Jesus, and it is most relevant when the opponent is a Christian who believes that Jesus entered and exited the world with nuclear explosians of implausible events per the New Testament canon. The point is NOT so relevant against opponents who believe Jesus was, in his own time, only one of many regular human lowerclass religious leaders. The point that there are existing copies of only about 23 writers in that wide time period and heavily populated region underscores the counterpoint that almost all writings were lost to the sands of time. But, when Christianity grew, so did the reputation of Jesus, and that is when Jesus starts showing up in extant writings. At 3:33 in the third video, the narrator seems to disagree with the claim that "Christ" refers to Jesus in three passing historical mentions by ancient writers. One of them is the writing of Tacitus, as follows:Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.Source: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu...I leave it to Con and the readers to decide whether this passage really refers to Jesus Christ or if it refers to some other Christ as the narrator claims.I feel lucky to have been a part of this debate. Thank you.