Mere chronological closeness is not a criterion for validity.<quoted text>Your ridiculous fiction has positively nothing to do with the Bible or anything Christian.
Have you ever even read the Bible?
No Christian discounts the Epistles of Paul, which most scholars consider to be closest to Jesus chronologically. They form a majority of the New Testament and are fully authorized by all Christians.
You are also conflating "christian" with "Saulian Nicene".
I don't dispute that Nicene followers of Saul are the most numerous and the dominant paradigm, often through the good offices of much mayhem and murder.
The observation that Saul plagiarized Plato and the Stoics (Philo of Alexandria, too) is not a matter of mere conjecture, much less a "fiction". The two groups of writings can be, and have been, placed side by side and compared. The thoughts are closely parallel in a great many particulars, and identical at some critical points. That these are incorporated seamlessly into his other propositions (without citation of their sources) attests to his deceptive practices.
Are we to assume that Plato, the Stoics and Philo of Alexandria were all prophets of the Father?
Here, AGAIN, is an easy-to-read comparison of the two collections of writings. There are more in-depth scholarly discussions available to anyone who wants to delve into the issue.
It is unremarkable that it was the gentile Nicene followers of Saul that collected a canon of writings that support their views ... then enforced those views with the sword of empire.
Not only was it unremarkable, it was predictable ... and was.