The historical Jesus predicted a first-century doomsday

I regret that this is the last round of a wonderful debate. Quotes of Con are italicized below.My opponent states that "doomsday cult doctrines are almost always attributable to the cult founder." While this may be true, it does not assist us much in the matter of determining the theology of the historical Jesus; we cannot apply this reasoning until we can assert with high confidence that Jesus viewed himself as the founder of the cult that later became ChristianityThe argument does not require the assumption that Jesus viewed himself as the founder of the cult, because the proposed pattern has nothing to do with whether or not a cult founder believed he or she was a founder. Instead, it has to do with de facto cult founders, and Jesus was the de facto founder of the Christian religion. In almost all known cases, the founder of the cult is responsible for the doomsday doctrine, not the followers.It is technically correct that an apocalyptic mentality of the historical Jesus can explain the apocalyptic mentality of the early Christians. But it is unnecessary to tack such a mentality onto the historical Jesus; apocalypticism was fully developed within various sects of first century Judaism. There is no need to credit any specific individual with the origin of the apocalyptic mentality within early Christianity.Con goes on to rightly prove that apocalyptic thinking was common in the region and era. Unfortunately for Con, there is and remains a need credit Jesus with the apocalypticism of the religion that he founded, because the strong pattern of doomsday cults requires it. The prevalence of apocalyptic thinking is neither here nor there with respect to the consistent historical pattern of doomsday cult doctrines being attributable to the founder. Con has seemingly sidestepped the power of this argument, perhaps (not certainly) attributable to a misunderstanding of the argument. The argument is NOT about the figures most likely to have invented apocalypticism. Yes, neither Jesus nor his followers invented apocalypticism. But, the issue, per the resolution, is about whether or not Jesus was preached the imminent doomsday, and it is about the figure or figures most likely to be the originators of the specific apocalyptic prophecies attributed by all early Christian records to Jesus Christ.Further, given that Con himself rightly asserts that apocalypticism was prevalent at the time of Jesus, then it provides a powerful explanation for how Jesus first gained a loyal cult following. Con seemingly dug himself into a hole. Indeed, Con's source (L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, page 70) affirms that the genre of apocalyptic literature in the region was prevalent from 225 BCE to 200 CE. Does Con wish to provide a second social phenomenon of the same time and place that would primarily explain the initiation of the Christian cult?Mark and Matthew contain the story of Jesus rebuking Peter (Mk 8:27-33; Mt 16:13-23) for focusing on the apocalyptic aspects of his messiahship.This is merely speculation, not a directly evident interpretation, and mere speculation should not be presented as evident fact. Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection; Peter rebuked him, for an unspecified reason per Mark, and for predicting his own death per Matthew. There is no apparent connection to doomsday apocalypticism in either of these passages. If Con's proposition about these passages were mere speculation, then it would be difficult enough in relation to his case. But, Con's speculation is made far more difficult by the fact that, in the passages directly following Mark 8:27-33 and Matthew 16:13-23 (such as Mark 8:34-38), Jesus himself focuses on the messianic aspects of his messiahship."Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."Con proposes that, directly before the above statement, Jesus rebuked Peter for focusing on the apocalyptic aspects of his messiahship. I believe that this assertion is bizarre.In Mark, the miracles associated with Jesus' charge not to tell are apocalyptic in nature: they involve cleansing (1:40-45), resurrection (5:35-43), and sense-restoration (7:31-37, 8:22-26). Following the miracles that others might mistake as signs (the first 'unveilings' or 'revelations') of an approaching apocalypse Jesus orders secrecy. Mark's Jesus takes measures to ensure that people do not perceive his message as one of an imminent apocalypse. Indeed, he doesn't even want people to know he is the Messiah (8:27-30) because he knows they will misinterpret it as an apocalyptic sign!Con argues that some of the miracles of Mark's Jesus are apocalyptic in nature, Mark's Jesus wished to keep these miracles secret, and therefore Mark's Jesus wanted to discourage a perception of his message as apocalyptic. There are two problems with this argument: (1) There is no prima facie connection between those miracles (cleansing of a leper, resurrection, and healing the blind) and apocalypticism, and Con's premise is not fact but mere speculation on his part. (2) Mark's Jesus is most explicitly apocalyptic, as we can very plainly see in Mark 8:34-9:1 and Mark 13. Con can freely make assertions about the historical Jesus, but he is much more restricted if he wants to make assertions about Mark's model of Jesus. Con's conclusions should not directly contradict the known facts.Not only was the early Christian movement Jewish, but it was also sectarian, making its members further prone to apocalyptic mentality.There are things that could be expected from cult sectarianism. But, it is not apparent that apocalypticism is one of them. There is no direct connection between sectarianism and apocalypticism.If, however, it can be somehow believed that sectarianism has any causal relationship with apocalypticism, then it hardly helps the case of Con. It is multiply and plausibly attested that Jesus himself was strongly sectarian, ranting against the other Jewish sects of Pharisees and Sadducees (Mark 8:15), and it could have been only either his sectarianism or his apocalypticism that finally motivated Pontius Pilate to crucify him. How, then, is it less likely that Jesus was apocalyptic based on the argument that sectarianism causes apocalypticism?I will fulfill a request to Con that I provide some references to the 'Q material' that I find to be apocalyptic in nature. I refer Con back to Round 2, where I listed the three earliest Christian sources and cited the apocalyptic passages. The gospel of Q is the second item in the list, and I provided three passages from Q: Luke 3:7, Luke 13:22, and Luke 13:40. The corresponding passages in Matthew are 3:7, 6:25, and 24:44, respectively.In closing, I invite the question to Con one last time: given almost all of the doomsday cults where the founder is responsible for the doomsday doctrine, what should make us believe that Christianity was a special exception?This ends my part of the debate. I am strongly grateful to J.Maximus for sharing in this challenging and enhancing experience.