Doherty is most at home when analyzing the Pauline epistles, drawing on an earlier lineage of scholars who recognized there is next to nothing in them indicating a "historical" Jesus. In this regard, Earl correctly identifies that when Paul is speaking of "scripture" and "prophetic writings," he is referring to the Old Testament, specifically the Greek translation or Septuagint. In that book, the word "Christos" appears some three dozen times, and it is evident that, in his revelation of Christ, Paul is building upon so-called "messianic prophecies," not the words or deeds of a "historical" Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, the canonical Christ represents not "fulfillment of prophecy" but, rather, a patchwork of Old Testament "messianic scriptures," amalgamated with Pagan philosophical notions and mythical motifs, along with both Jewish and Gentile wisdom sayings. Christ is, through and through, a literary figure, handily demonstrated in this lengthy book.
OK the arguments of some people, already known plus this one go something like this: Christ prophecied the destruction of Jerusalem, ergo (sic!) the Gospels were written after or at least not long before Anno Domini 70. Christ was prophecied by Isaiah and others tima after time, aspect after aspect of his life, ergo (sic!) he never existed, St Paul made up a fulfilment out of nothing but (otherwise so far unfulfilled) OT prophecy.
Do I see a question begging argument? How do either of these guys know anything about whether fulfilled prophecy happens or not? They seem to be just presuming it does not happen. And to be dealing with all evidence according to that presumption./HGL