Meanwhile, if you are asking, instead, whether Jesus was simply a reimagined Metatron, see Was Jesus-Is-Michael an Early Christian Mystery Teaching?

I don’t understand what your question is.

If you mean to ask why Celsus assumes Jesus was historical, that’s obvious: he is writing over a hundred years after the fact and has no means whatsoever by which to know Jesus didn’t exist. All he has are the Gospels, which he just assumes are embellished claims about a guy. He had no way to arguing anything more than that; so he doesn’t.

If you mean to ask why don’t we assume Jesus is just like Antinoös, that’s obvious: we have tons of evidence he existed; evidence we lack for Jesus. Moreover, Antinoös was never mythologized to the extent or in the ways Jesus was; whereas when we look at other figures who were, none of them existed. Jesus thus looks like those guys, not like Antinoös.

I cover all this in Jesus from Outer Space.

I don’t see any relevance of this remark. “All religions differ from each other in their beliefs, therefore ours is true” is irrational thinking.

We do rational thinking here.

And Ehrman isn’t all that, but his mentor was and he knew the apostles were absolutely without hope until they found Him resurrected and alive and real.

No sir, the differences between Jesus Christ and other gods are immeasurable and you know this. Don’t play dumb. You can’t get away with it.

One day you will check Him out and He will utterly blow you away with the wonder of Himself. Then, then, you will know. Like Saul, that murdering monstrosity, cried out, “Who are You, Lord?”

I guess Islam is true and Hinduism and Buddhism too, since they also have won the hearts of hundreds of millions of people for thousands of years.

Oh no, wait, anyone who believes in a religion for that reason isn’t being rational.

I believe in being rational.

Which includes not straw manning opposing theories like you just did. Try actually learning something instead.

Metzger believes nothing is more certain historically than the apostles’ conviction that their Lord rose from the grave. And, like them, our lives are revolutionized by Him, as well. How have hundreds of millions found in Him the same transforming Presence?

No one, ever, spoke like that Guy.

His wife is a liberal Episcopalian-type Christian, and his family of origin is the evangelical type, and I can’t help thinking this must affect his unwillingness to look at the evidence for mythicism. Maybe his affirming historicity is the only reason they still have him over for dinner?

And to admit that many of the books and papers you have written over the years, the lectures you have given, the blog posts, and the debates you’ve featured in, all of which help make you the man you are, are based on a false thesis, might just be a step too far. He is human, after all.

Pity, because if he would come over to the dark side, it might kick-start a much-needed revolution. If I were rich I’d pay him to review OHJ.

Also, it’s eight now, not seven. Plus two sympathizers who at least agree doubting is plausible. This is how an evolution of the consensus begins.

The same exact situation described the 1970s position on Moses. Forty years later, and the consensus is that Moses was mythical. The consensus only counts when those forming the consensus have actually read the peer reviewed literature challenging that consensus and have reacted to it honestly. That takes decades. It also takes honesty and engagement from the experts forming the consensus. And yet, so far, they seem content to willfully ignore the literature of their own field, or even lie about what it says. That does not suggest this consensus is very reliable to begin with.