1) the Odes of Solomon are evidence of a pre-christian worship of a suffering mythical Christ not named Jesus (prof Stevan L. Davies agrees entirely).
Other evidence of a celestial Christ not named Jesus is added by Rylands:
(Beginnings of Gnostic Christianity, p. 146)Epiphanius says that he had not been able to make out
whether the Christ of the book of the Ossaeans was our Lord
Jesus Christ. Evidently therefore the name Jesus did not
occur in that book. The sect of the Sampsaeans is said to
have remained in existence to a later date than that of the
Ossaeans, but there was evidently no Jesus in their doctrine.
Epiphanius says they were neither Christians nor Jews.
They were, in fact, a Jewish sect, and they were Christians
in the sense that they revered a divine Christ. Certainly,
however, their Christ had no connection with Jesus. The
same may be predicated of the early Gnostic Ebionites;
but, as was previously pointed out, they, or some of them,
did at some time begin to regard Jesus as a manifestation
of the Christ. The same statement may be made concerning
the Naassenes and their allied sects. The name " Jesus "
is found in the Naassene Hymn, but the character of the
fundamental doctrine of the sect renders it practically certain
that the name was not primitive. Origen says that the
Ophites " would not even hear the name of Jesus."
2) According to pre-christian sects, this celestial Christ ''had manifested himself only in the persons of certain mythical or semi-mythical characters'' such as Adam, Cain, Abraham, Enoch, Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph,and Moses.
(Homilies 18:13)" No one knows the Father but the Son and he to whom
the Son may wish to reveal him." The statement is correct ;
for he, being the Son from the beginning, was alone appointed
to give the revelation to those to whom he wishes
to give it. And thus the first man Adam must have heard
of him, and Enoch, who pleased [God], must have known
him ; and Noah, the righteous one, must have become
acquainted with him, and Abram his friend must have
understood, and Isaac must have perceived him ; and Jacob,
who wrestled with him, must have believed in him ; and the
revelation must have been given to all among the people
who were worthy.
My comment: here I have a problem with the Rylands' explanation. He assumes -- doing it not so explicit as I would have liked -- that ''to see Christ'', for these biblical figures, is the same identical thing as ''to have Christ in me'' à la Galatians 1:16 (''To reveal his Son in me''). Only in this way he can allow the idea that these biblical figures were ''Christs'' in their own right insofar they saw him.
3) Applying the inductive hypothesis, there was a sect that wanted that also the biblical Joshua had to be named Christ. That sect was the original Christianity in action before Paul himself.
What is more likely? That that sect did so (it named Christ as Joshua) on the wave of the previous identification of Christ with each biblical figure, or because there was a real Jewish preacher called Joshua of Nazareth?
There is no doubt that the first explanation is more likely than the second one.
Therefore Jesus never existed.
MY COMMENT:
I like a lot the logic behind this case. But I would like to see more evidence of the equation:
revelation of the Christ = possession by the Christ.
I know that that is already a fact according to prof Stevan L. Davies. But which is the evidence that it was a believed fact also for the biblical figures who ''saw'' Christ?Thank you for any answer.