[orgaelin]

No I'm not Patrick, though you did make me laugh!

It's all outlined by Flavious Josephus. What I wrote is just a re-write of the work of Barbara Thiering, and in turn she is quoting Flavius Josephus.

Josephus was a Jewish historian who actually lived in Judea at the time when Jesus was alive, and is generally accepted as a very valuable source of information about history both in and before his own time. The same ideas are echoed by Laurence Gardner.

We have two tools at our disposal here for ascertaining the truth. One is the work of Josephus, a historical reference, and the other is our own judgement of whether or not the pieces fit the puzzle.

I think they do. The explanations about the white stones and Jesus turning over the tables of those selling sheep, oxen and doves... they just make sense, or at the very least more sense than if you just take the biblical stories literally and on their own.

However far from the truth it seems or even may be, it still seems closer than accepting each of the 'miracles' literally.

I'm not against miracles, and still assert that none of this should have a negative effect on anyone's faith. Jesus could still have been sent by god, but with god working through the minds of men, rather than sending down ghosts to impregnate virgins.

Seriously, whose explanations are the most credible?