The historical Jesus predicted a first-century doomsday

I am again grateful to J.Maximus for the very thoughtful presentation of his arguments. His entry was intended to introduce his own arguments, not to rebut my arguments, and I hope he will address my arguments in this third round. I will rebut his arguments in this round.My fellow debater's central argument is: the early Christian authors did not reliably record the theology of Jesus, so therefore we can not have certainty about the historical Jesus based on their writings. I accept the presented facts of early Christian doctrinal shift. But, I claim that the conclusion of uncertainty does not follow from the evidence, for the four reasons given as follows:Multiple attestation places uncertainties of historical reliability in perspective. It is very implausible that multiple traditions would independently commit the same false assertions. The unified agreement of multiple independent attestations can be explained either with their accurate correspondence with the historical founder (Jesus) or by correspondence with an implausibly-sudden drastically shifted doctrine between the founder and the latest common root of the traditions. We know from the writing of Paul in Galatians that the church started to diverge immediately upon the inheritence of leadership of the religion to three disciples of Jesus--Peter, James and John, who disputed theology with Paul (see Galatians 2:9). Secondly, as I explained fully in Round 2, doomsday cult doctrines are almost always attributable to the cult founder. Doomsday doctrines are almost always necessary and central to the beginnings and developments of doomsday cults, and there is seemingly no reason known from the evidence to count Christianity as among the very few exceptions.Thirdly, the presented examples of "drastic shifts" are not nearly as "drastic" as the proposed complete overhaul of the central theme of the cult per Paul, Mark and Q. The first example is a shift in doctrine between a future resurrection and a contemporary metaphorical resurrection. The second example is a shift in the travel itinerary of Paul. The third example is a shift in doctrine between a sudden apocalypse and a gradually-unfolding apocalypse. None of these shifts are nearly as drastic as the overhaul that would be required for the cult to go from non-doomsday to doomsday between Jesus and his close-to-immediate successors. Fourthly, nor has my fellow debater proposed an explanation for such an overhaul. Two of the three relatively-minor shifts have an obvious explanation--Christians were reformulating their doomsday doctrines in light of the expired deadline. The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians and the Epistle to the Colossians were each written, not by Paul, but by forgers ("Pseudo-Paul" as J.Maximus has correctly stated) very late in the first century, seeking to apologize for the apparently-failed prophecy of Jesus (see Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Third Edition, pp. 376-381). These were minor shifts in doctrine, but what is the explanation for the proposed complete overhaul of the main theme of the cult from Jesus to his immediate successors, from supposedly non-doomsday to doomsday?For the combination of these compelling reasons, it is far more reasonable to accept my proposed conclusion as fact, that Jesus himself predicted the imminent doomsday. I await the counterpoints to such arguments, and I thank J.Maximus for his generous contributions of time and thought.