>>101866937
>by establishing a doctrine compatible with their pre-existing beliefs.
Ah yes, because "I am the truth, the way and the light" is very compatible with polytheism.
>This is why Jesus is described in a similar manner to a demigod
Proof?
Meanwhile, in reality, the reason the apostles' descriptions make Him sound as though He possessed divine authority is because... their descriptions were accurate. It's also not correct to say they described him like a demigod, though - the depiction of early icons, such as Christos Pantokrator, show what appeared on the surface to be a normal mortal man. Which also, incidentally, just so happens to match the image shown on the Shroud of Turin, which obviously wasn't a forgery because it would presume that people five hundred years ago would have predicted that modern humans would have an
>and why his death is considered a blood sacrifice, among other things.
Still no proof?
The real reason it's because it literally was a blood sacrifice, that fulfilled several of the ritual sacrifices of the Israelite faith.
>Previously, there had been no significant institution to unite Jesus's followers,
... except for the Church, of course. Which had one centralized institutional clergy and organizational structure, and which centrally, authoritatively settled matters of doctrinal dispute, the earliest example being the Judaizers conflict that was settled at the Council of Jerusalem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem . Another famous example being the Council of Nicaea.
>who could not even agree on basic issues such as whether he presented himself as a ghost or a human.
Except they DID agree on these basic issues, anon. That's what councils I mentioned above are for - coming to agreement on the correct dogma and denouncing any heresies and deviations that may emerge, as the very first Apostles themselves did at Jerusalem, and as we were explicitly ordered to continue to do in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
Which, incidentally, is also why the Roman Catholics are the schismatics and we are the originals - because it was the Metropolitan of Rome, the Pope, who unilaterally presumed to change the Nicene Creed without convening a council first and then tried to excommunicate the Metropolitan of Constantinople for ignoring him, despite the fact that they were equals and the Pope had no authority to do so. Thus, breaking away and inventing his own new heretical religion in the process.
Your argument is identical to saying that that not all atheists agree on there being no God because other people are theists.