Everyone must decide whether the Gospels and New Testament report Jesus' story accurately or not because the book threatens everyone everywhere who doesn't believe that it really tells everything that truly happened concerning him exactly as it really occurred, especially when it comes to a few very key points that would have ended up either making the faith a popular one as opposed to it being virtually ignored.

                             History Lesson for Mythicists #2 (Regarding the Historical Jesus)

​ Anything that humans make, whether it's a mower with rolling blades that you push to trim your yard or a mower that's pulled behind a tractor that has rotary blades which are powered by that tractor's PTO—or a set of religious concepts—they must go through stages of development.

It isn't actually as hard as some might think it is to find out how the Christian concepts that were developed by Jesus came about. All you have to do is read these four major messianic passages: Deuteronomy 18:18-19, 2 Samuel 7:12-13, all of Isaiah 53, and all of Daniel 7; because If you read and understand those four you will begin to understand exactly what Jesus was thinking and why he said the things he actually did say.

Deuteronomy 18:18-19 explains why, if Jesus was one of two major prophets, i.e. one like unto Moses because he was so important, Jesus' words would have carried such extreme importance (in his view, which he taught a few of his disciples about), as that importance of his words is emphasized in several places within the New Testament—which major NT principle nearly every Evangelical Bible college and seminary have by now discarded by them adopting dispensationalism (to make their jobs easier), which shows that those schools and their beliefs are both man-made and useless when it comes to trying to be genuinely faithful to both Jesus and the NT's message relative to messianic prophecies... which alleged messianic prophecy fulfillments the entire religion is supposed to be deriving its authority from as well as it being founded upon.

2 Samuel 7:12-13 says the Messiah would be a king whose throne would last forever, that because of its particular wording, also since many priests going forward inferred that there was divine inspiration involved (divine inspiration not only in this but in generally all other Jewish scriptures), that David's son Solomon was only a foreshadowing of that magnificent future king... which statement is actually nothing more than an ambitious political one made by a very small and insignificant kingdom, one whose bark was quite loud at times, nevertheless whose actual bite was nearly nonexistent. This was the true nature of this kingdom, i.e. the Southern Kingdom which was also called Judah, whose priests wrote most of these pieces.

Jesus was a highly motivated person who came across Daniel 7 while he was reading the Jewish scriptures (those that were available in his time) looking for what the Pharisees were doing wrong, to see why they were oppressing his family members and friends, as well as so many other middle or lower class people in his time; whereas the scriptural rebuttals to the Pharisees that he developed was why he became so popular in Galilee. But when he read Daniel 7:9-14 he was captured by its apocalypticism, thus he became an apocalypticist, not just a person who could argue the scripture proficiently enough to put the Pharisees in their place. Daniel 7's verse 13 is why Jesus is called the "Son of man" within the four Gospels well over 70 times.

Jesus interpreted Isaiah 53 in his own way while he was putting together his own messianic scenario, a scenario in which everything that the Jewish prophets (while many of those Jewish books were actually written by priests, i.e. books like Daniel, Isaiah and Jeremiah) wrote about concerning a magnificent future leader—whether there were difficulties that he must encounter before glorious conquests and great privileges to enjoy came later—that to Jesus those would all be accomplished and fulfilled by the way his scenario would unfold. Isaiah 53 was why Jesus believed he must be crucified before rising from the dead, i.e. crucified and die just before he came back, in a few months, to destroy the entirety of Rome as well as the Jewish Temple that was no longer needed, along with its wicked (essentially atheist/unbelieving) priests—all as corrective measures to set the entire world aright. For setting the entire world aright is what apocalypticism has been all about!

Note: Jesus did, in fact, foretell the destruction of the Jewish Temple as that is recorded in Mark 13. He actually said "there shall not be left one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down," because that is not what actually happened since the Wailing Wall contradicts that. Please bear in mind that the Gospel of Mark would have been written in 67 CE, thus couldn't be changed because too many Christians had already read it by 70 CE when the throwing down of all of those stones didn't really happen as Jesus said it would. It's the same sort of thing as why Isaiah (also Jeremiah) foretold the complete and utter destruction of the city of Babylon when that was also coming soon, while too many people had also read that. Therefore it could not be changed later when Cyrus overtook Babylon and then decided to utilize the city instead of destroying it. Meanwhile, this problem with Isaiah and Jeremiah wrongly foretelling Babylon's destruction was why the apostle John had to spiritualize Babylon's destruction as coming at the end of the world instead of when Cyrus overtook it, as how that is depicted in Revelation 17 and 18.

Any questions?

                             My Introductory (first installment) History Lesson for Mythicists

Let's lay down a few concrete points: Just like Rome was a real political entity just prior to and during the the first century CE, so was Israel. Israel, as much as some of us have come to disapprove of what it has stood for (or what it has come to stand for to many, including Christians), it did have a magnificent Temple during that time, which Temple was massively beautified by Herod the Great in that same period; even as a number of the stones that were used in that temple's building still remain in place to this day, at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. This is real history—for those who don't know how to decide that—just as first century Israel was a real political entity, one that was ultimately governed by Roman overlords.

Get this: Within the Roman Empire of that period, the Jews alone were allowed to have special assemblies in buildings like synagogues, or to have any such assemblies at all. This was because the Jewish leadership of that general time, people like Herod's father Antipater, supported Julius Caesar in his war with Pompey, which Ceasar greatly appreciated, therefore conferred that a special privilege to be given to the Jews within what was then a still arising Roman Empire. See: http://isites.harvard.edu/…/icb…/Lesson%203/3b%20Sanders.pdf

Jewish synagogues have been around since the third century BCE, which building remains can be seen all across the area of what was once the Judean Province of the Roman Empire, and elsewhere in much more distant Roman Provinces. Synagogues were places where Jewish scriptures were read and taught primarily to the Jewish public (of course), i.e. those Jews who lived in Judea and abroad, which practice continually exposed those people to not only literature itself, but Jewish customs and what later became some entrenched beliefs about their past concerning Moses, the Creation of the world, Sodom and Gomorrah, also Abraham... and of course THEIR OWN IMPORTANCE as the CHOSEN PEOPLE of what was alleged to be the only extant God.