The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader

Fiction, myth and trustI am in agreement with Con that many of the claims of the gospels (such as the genealogies) are "made up," though I would not use the word, "fiction." When lay critics of Christianity (I am one of them) use the word, "fiction," they may mean "falsehood" in general, even falsehoods intended to be believed, but textual scholars understand the word to specifically refer to literature intended as entertainment. I suggest that Con should use the phrase, "unreliable myth," not fiction, since he does not believe that the gospels were written with the explicit intention to entertain. When Con demands, "Why SHOULD we believe the gospels are accurate?", I must make it clear that my case is neither about trusting nor about distrusting the gospels. Instead, it is about the most probable explanations to the evidence, evidence including the ancient Christian myths reflected in the gospels, and I assert that the best explanations entail a historical human Jesus of Nazareth who founded Christianity as a doomsday cult.Spurious sourcingCon has many claims, and the most important claims depend on the 11 listed sources. I have found that these sources tend to either be unauthoritative or do not reinforce the corresponding claim of Con. I explain in more detail below.King ArthurIf King Arthur was an amalgamation of many different kings, then this would lend plausibility to the idea that Jesus was a mythical amalgamation. So, Con claimed, "Many accounts of Arthur claim to be factual, but for all we know, he is an amalgamation of different kings." Though he uses the phrase, "for all we know," connoting neutrality, he shifts the same claim to a position of certainty a few paragraphs later: "Most scholars believe he was an amalgamation of many different kings and warlords who were all named Arthur." I am parsing words, because Con's source #1 (http://www.grahamphillips.net...) that accompanied the former statement seems to supply no such claim. On the contrary, that source concludes that the myth of King Arthur was inspired (singularly) by the historical figure of Owain Ddantgwyn. To be fair, the source also claims that the name of "Arthur" may be a derivative of the title given to many kings in a succession, though this speculation falls short of both the claim that Arthur is an amalgamation of many Arthurs and the claim that "most scholars" accept it. I reviewed the Wikipedia page titled "Historical basis for King Arthur" [1], and no such point is presented.Louis W. CableI cited the epistles of 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians as among the three early Christian sources that believed in an imminent doomsday. Con countered, "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." For this claim, Con cited source #3, an article titled, "SOME FAMOUS NEW TESTAMENT FORGERIES," by Louis W. Cable. This source claims that the epistle to the Galatians is "considered by most Bible scholars to be one of the few Pauline epistle judged to be authentic." All of us agree that the authentic Pauline epistles (whatever they may be) are the earliest Christian sources, but we disagree on the identities of those authentic epistles. Louis W. Cable was a geological field worker, not a reputed historian or a scholar [2]. In fact, the epistle to the Galatians is generally recognized by secular critical scholars to be among the seven (not among the few) of the canonical Pauline epistles that are authentic, out of fourteen epistles total [3]. The epistles I cited for my claims, 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians, are likewise considered among the authentic [3], in large part for their imminent eschatology, though that opinion may not be shared by a geological field worker. I don't care if arguments originate from poor authorities, but, if Con doubts my claims of Pauline authenticity, then he should appeal directly to the primary sources and argue in detail, not rest on poor authorities in his passing citations."Biblical scholar" Hayyim ben YehoshuaCon makes the following questionable claim, quoting from an article of unknown publication purportedly written by the "Biblical scholar" named "Hayyim ben Yehoshua" of source #4."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."There are many problems with this line of argument, and at the core of the problem is that "Hayyim ben Yehoshua" is otherwise unknown to the literate world. The only place this name appears in web searches is in connection with this article. The first "convicted criminal" listed in this quote appears likewise ephemeral--a search on Google Scholar for "Yeishu ben Pandeira" returns no results, though a potentially alternate spelling, "Yeshu ben Pandera," is the identity of "Jacob the heretic," but he was a figure of the 2nd Century CE (after the composition of the canonical gospels), and there is no account that he was a convicted criminal. I strongly suggest that Con uses either primary sources or secondary sources to make his case. I don't wish to continue to dredge through infinitely-iterated unprovenanced Internet myths. I am sure you agree it is difficult enough dealing with unprovenanced ancient myths.Appealing to authorityCon claimed that most scholars disagree with the hypothesis that Jesus was apocalyptic, and he used a source that conducted two non-scientific polls of a few arbitrarily-selected members of the Jesus Seminar and Society of Biblical Literature. It is appropriate to appeal to the consensus of qualified authorities as a shortcut for a premise (we both have no choice in a debate as complex as this), but it is inappropriate to appeal to authorities as an argument for one's final conclusion. Authorities in the field of Biblical scholarship are especially problematic, as most participants in the field get into it only because they have a strong ideological bias affecting their opinions--almost all are Christians, whether liberal or conservative, even those who agree with me that Jesus was an "apocalyptic prophet." I do not rest on authorities for my central position in this debate, and I ask that Con likewise dismiss such appeals as irrelevant. We all have access to the primary sources, and that should be the primary basis of our debate."Son of Man" and JesusCon was well to rely on a primary source for this argument, and he argued that the quote about the "Son of Man" in Mark 8 was actually a quote from John (the Baptist?), not from Jesus, because otherwise Jesus seems to be referring to himself in both the first-person and third-person. The primary source attributes this quote to Jesus, so there is a prima facie problem with that hypothesis, and I propose a third option, proposed by Bart D. Ehrman: Jesus was referring to the "Son of Man" as someone else, not himself. It makes plausible sense because the "Son of Man" was understood among apocalypticists in the time of Jesus to be the title of the messiah [4], and Jesus had no appearance of political power that would be necessary to easily convince anyone that he was the messiah, only a prophet.Too many argumentsUnfortunately, I am out of characters, or I would love to analyze the remainder of Con's claims. I request that Con please focus his arguments. It takes many times more characters to rebut a faulty claim than to present one. Thank you.References[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://ffrf.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...