The Gospels do not speak of a mysterious man...

[Giuseppe]

In a recent article against mythicism, prof Craig A. Evans writes:

The Gospels do not speak of a mysterious man from a far away, unknown place. They speak of a Galilean, a man from Nazareth, whose family members were known, who headquartered in Capernaum, who drew crowds, taught, and performed works of power in specific places.

If Mcn is the Earliest Gospel, then quasi any single point of this quote is falsified:

• Mcn speaks "of a mysterious man";

• Mcn talks about someone who is descended from the heaven already adult, a heaven higher than the heaven of the creator, hence a "a far away, unknown place";

• Mcn speaks of an angel not from Galilee, not from Nazaret;

• Mcn speaks of an entity who has not a carnal family, but is only tempted in a such belief.

It is enough to conclude that, if prof Craig A. Evans conceded that Mcn is the first gospel, then he would be titled to figure as mythicist.

[Secret Alias]

The Gospels (Mark + Matthew + Luke) don't but what's the "gospel secret"? Secret/mystery = musterion

[Giuseppe]

The Gospels (Mark + Matthew + Luke) don't

Are you so sure?

All that is necessary to have a Gospel that talks "of a mysterious man" is only an incipit as:

In the 15° year of Tiberius, Jesus descended from above in Capernaum...

Why do we need any more witnesses?

[schillingklaus]

The gospels are just indirectly euhemerizing corruption of pre-Christian gnostic tradition. Therefore, H. Raschke already realized that the evangelical Christ is a historization of the Paulinic christ, who is a Catholically tuned gnostic Christ, who is entirely metaphysical. Euhemerists are unable to discern the metaphysical foundations beneath layers of mutilation.

[Giuseppe]

The gospels are just indirectly euhemerizing corruption of pre-Christian gnostic tradition.

'Indirectly': Are you sure?

It seems to me that there was not an intermediate step between the following two claims:

• 1) the demonic archontes (included YHWH among them) crucified the Son of Father in heaven;

• 2) Pilate crucified Jesus.

From (1) to (2) the process is direct and immediate (which is, personally, the intrinsic beauty of the euhmerization), beyond the precise time when it has been made.

[mlinssen]

The gospels are just indirectly euhemerizing corruption of pre-Christian gnostic tradition. Therefore, H. Raschke already realized that the evangelical Christ is a historization of the Paulinic christ, who is a Catholically tuned gnostic Christ, who is entirely metaphysical. Euhemerists are unable to discern the metaphysical foundations beneath layers of mutilation.

Granted on all points

They're also unable to discern that someone who says

Matthew 13:11 Ὁ (-) δὲ (And) ἀποκριθεὶς (answering), εἶπεν (He said) ‹αὐτοῖς› (to them), “Ὅτι (Because) Ὑμῖν (to you) δέδοται (it has been granted) γνῶναι (to know) τὰ (the) μυστήρια (mysteries) τῆς (of the) βασιλείας (kingdom) τῶν (of the) οὐρανῶν (heavens)

Mark 4:11 Καὶ (And) ἔλεγεν (He was saying) αὐτοῖς (to them), “Ὑμῖν (To you) τὸ (the) μυστήριον (mystery) δέδοται (has been given) τῆς (of the) βασιλείας (kingdom) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (of God). ἐκείνοις (To those) δὲ (however) τοῖς (who are) ἔξω (outside), ἐν (in) παραβολαῖς (parables) τὰ (-) πάντα (everything) γίνεται (is done)

Luke 8:10 Ὁ (-) δὲ (And) εἶπεν (He said), “Ὑμῖν (To you) δέδοται (it has been given) γνῶναι (to know) τὰ (the) μυστήρια (mysteries) τῆς (of the) βασιλείας (kingdom) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (of God); τοῖς (to) δὲ (however) λοιποῖς (the rest), ἐν (it is in) παραβολαῖς (parables), ἵνα (so that)

is a provider of those mysteries, and hence a mysterious man himself
And the fact that these are the only verses in the gospels, the complete and utter absence or use or even reference to any and all of it elsewhere, is suspicious, no?

62. said IS : I say [dop] my(PL) Mystery to they-who are-worthy of my(PL) Mystery
he-who your(F.SG) right-hand will make-be he there-is-not to-cause your(F.SG) left-hand understand : [dop] she/r make-be who/at?

Ambiguity in that very last word still to solve, it could also mean "them"