The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader

Thanks for the quick response, ApostateAbe. == The Gospels are Works of Fiction == My opponent begins by misinterpreting my definition of "fiction." His response seems to be that the gospels contain "religious sermonizing" and little in the way of "drama." When I said fiction, I merely meant they were made up. Not all works of fiction are "entertaining." If the gospels are not fictional but were instead meant to be "historical accounts" of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, then how does my opponent reconcile this with the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection? Does he claim these are historically accurate events or does he concede that at least some large portions of the gospels are complete works of fiction? Most scholars who believe in a historical Jesus do not believe that this historical Jesus was born of a virgin or that he was resurrected from his grave. Of course Luke and John want you to believe that their accounts of Jesus are FACTUAL. The miracles Jesus performed are far less impressive if the reader is led to believe they are works of fiction… But just because this is meant as a religious text does not make it any less fictional. Is the work of L Ron Hubbard, regarding aliens landing on Earth, any less fictional because it was meant as a religious text for the Church of Scientology? Many of the same problems of the historical Jesus also plague the search for the historical King Arthur, even though he was much more recent than Jesus. Many accounts of Arthur claim to be factual, but for all we know, he is an amalgamation of different kings. [1] Like Jesus, no firsthand accounts exist (written by someone alive during Arthur's life). The only accounts that exist are people writing about the legend stories that became oral tradition after this historical person's supposed death. The same is true of Jesus. My opponent even cites the genealogies tracing Jesus' relation to King David (to prove to the Jews that he was the foretold Messiah) as being "boring facts." These genealogies are clearly fiction, as many scholars, like Richard Dawkins, have pointed out. Luke's genealogy has 41 generations between David and Jesus, whereas Matthew has only 26. [2] The accounts do not even agree on who Mary's father was, or on her great-grandfather. There is little overlap on the names. This is precisely what you'd expect if the genealogies were MADE UP. When two historical documents completely contradict, one or both are deemed to be works of fiction. Why SHOULD we believe the gospels are accurate? What is their primary source material? What firsthand account do they come from? They never say. The following site documents the NUMEROUS inconsistences between the various gospels, such as the Three Wise Men story and whether Jesus' birth was "secret" or announced far and wide. [3] Had King Herod truly ordered all babies in a given region killed, this major event would undoubtedly have been recorded by other sources, but it was not. Ultimately, this source concludes, "The gospels have been shown to be fiction pure and simple while many of the so-called epistles of Paul are obvious counterfeits as are those of Peter and John. (See Who Wrote the New Testament? by Burton L. Mack.)" == Jesus as an amalgamation == Lol. My opponent literally says, "this proposition would still hold some weight if there were other mythical characters in antiquity who likewise were an amalgamation of many other different characters." There is: King Arthur. Most scholars believe he was an amalgamation of many different kings and warlords who were all named Arthur. This is quite common: myths become oral tradition, amalgamate different stories and people into one, and then someone writes these stories down, many years later. In the same way, Jesus is most likely an amalgamation of various Pagan gods, people named "Jesus" (Yeshuh in Hebrew), and various false Messiahs who were put to death by the Jews. Most Christian holidays chose their dates and motifs based on Pagan holidays. This Biblical scholar elaborates: "Many of these beliefs are based on the pagan legends about the gods Tammuz, Osiris, Attis, Dionysus and the sun god Mithras. Other myths about Jesus appear to be based on various different historical people such as the convicted criminals Yeishu ben Pandeira and ben Stada, and the crucified false Messiahs Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin, but none of these people can be regarded as an historical Jesus." [4] == Doomsday Passages As False Attribution == Of those who believe the gospels to have some historical merit, most believe that Jesus was NOT an apocalyptic prophet, but merely a deeply religious man. Instead, they demonstrate that John the Baptist was an ascetic who believed that his followers must deny themselves pleasure to atone before the coming apocalypse. JOHN was the apocalyptic prophet and John's quotes are falsely attributed to Jesus. Much scholarship points to the fact that John believed in asceticism (fasting/denying pleasure) and doomsday prophecies, whereas Jesus did not believe in asceticism or doomsday prophecies. In fact, there is much scholarship to prove this point. Biblical scholar J.D. Crossan points out many passages (see source) that show a fasting John and a feasting Jesus. [5] In fact, the John of the New Testament seems to share many traits with the Jewish sect of Essenes revealed in the Dead Sea Scrolls, who believed in removing sin with water, asceticism (fasting), and apocalyptic predictions. Crossan concludes that "John ‘lived in apocalyptic asceticism,' which Jesus at some point rejected. Jesus became ‘almost the exact oppose of John the Baptist." [5] Although Jesus initially was baptized by John and accepted the first of John's followers, they clearly diverged in belief systems. My opponent cites the account of Paul, but these were the last gospels to be written (later means less likely to be historically accurate) and have the most easily falsifiable information contained therein, as my other source has pointed out. [3] As my opponent points out, the gospels of Matthew and Luke are believed to pull their quotes from some unknown "quotation book" that Biblical scholars call "Q." Many of the quotes were likely without a clear author or Matthew and Luke purposely obscured the author for religious purposes. Thus, we cannot trust their accounts. The gospel of Mark, the earliest gospel, is thus the most trustworthy regarding quotes from Jesus vs. John. [5] The gospel of Mark clearly shows John's followers fasting and Jesus' refusing to do so: "Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, ‘How is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?'" [6] My opponent cites some "apocalyptic" quotes from Mark. Let's examine them. The quote from Mark 8 concludes with: "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." The "Son of Man" was a term for Jesus. This quote is referring to Jesus in the THIRD PERSON, so it is clearly a quote from John, not Jesus. Many other "apocalyptic" Jesus quotes refer to the "Kingdom of God" coming, but most Biblical scholars, such as Robert W. Funk, believe this was a metaphor the historical Jesus used for the perfect world we could achieve here on Earth through spiritual enlightenment. [7] This is the widely held belief. According to two polls of Jesus scholars in North America, between three-fifths and three-fourths of Jesus scholars REJECT the historical Jesus as a doomsday prophet. [8] It's nice to have that many scholars agree with you. My opponent keeps asking voters to accept the account of Jesus that is more compelling. This account is obviously more compelling since it explains why SOME quotes from Jesus are filled with love and hopefulness and some quotes are filled with loathing and doomsday prophesies. The optimistic quotes are from the TRUE historical Jesus, whereas the doomsday prophecies are all from John, who clearly believed them. Since Jesus' earliest followers were also John's, it was easy for John and others to corrupt the accounts of the early Jesus with their own beliefs. My opponent claims here that all religions predicted a doomsday. This is just patently false. He provides no evidence of this. Christianity has predicted many doomsdays, but these are merely perversions of the historical Jesus' true words (done for political purposes). == Early Christians were Gnostics == My opponent provides a number of quotes that SOME early Christians believed in the doomsday. I don't dispute this, but these were not the true followers of Christ. Gnosticism was a religion that centered around achieving gnosis (the salvation of the soul from the material world). Gnosticism predated Christianity, but early Christian teachings line up well with Gnostic beliefs. [9] This matches well with what Biblical scholars currently believe Jesus meant by the "Kingdom of God." The Gnostics clashed with the Orthodox Church. "Gnostics saw Jesus as a spirit that never actually existed. The orthodox rejected the Gnostic view that Jesus was only apparently physical but in reality a spiritual being, insisting that he, like the rest of humanity, was born, lived in a family, became hungry and tired, suffered and died." [10] In a political move, the Orthodoxy ratified certain gospels as the "New Testament" in the 4th Century CE, but refused to include any of the 54 "Gnostic gospels." [11] There is no reason to believe that the Orthodoxy was correct about Jesus and the Gnostics incorrect. The accounts of Jesus we "accept" today are all the result of a VERY political decision made in Rome in the 4th Century. These other gospels are equally valid and point to Jesus not actually existing but merely being a spiritual being who only appeared to be present. [1] http://www.grahamphillips.net... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.skeptically.org... [4] http://www.vexen.co.uk... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] Mark 2:18 [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://www.vexen.co.uk... [10] http://www.theosophy-nw.org... [11] http://tinyurl.com...