Setanta came out swinging with-
"There are no copies of the so-called gospels which date from any earlier than the mid-4th century. Three hundred years is a lot of time to edit the texts. Scholars cannot even agree on who Mark was. Personally, i think it's about a 50-50 shot for the historicity of the putative "Jesus." Maybe he existed, and maybe he's just the avatar for Essene teachings. It doesn't really matter, though, because after christians got involved in Roman imperial politics, whatever truth there might have been was no longer verifiable. There is no unambiguous historical evidence for the existence of your boy Jesus which is contemporary to the time in which he allegedly lived.
For someone who claims not to be a christian, you sure puke up a lot of their propaganda"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My dazzling series of ripostes-
1- After 400 years the original gospels must have been crumbling to dust, so they were simply copied onto new parchment like the earliest Buddhist teachings were, and the Koran..
2- There are plenty of bits in the gospels that show Jesus and his chums in a bad light, for example Jesus showed weakness and begged God to get him out of being crucified, and some of the disciples chickened and ran off in fear of the romans. So if the gospels were edited as you claim,why weren't jarring bits like that airbrushed out?
3- For centuries atheists said "Nazareth never existed in Jesus's time", but recent excavations beneath the modern city reveal 2000-yr old ruins of houses,(google 'Nazareth Dig') leaving atheists red-faced. So if they were wrong when they said there was no ancient Nazareth, they could be wrong when they say there was no Jesus..
4- I'm not a Christian in the accepted sense because I don't go to church and haven't been baptised (yawn), the advantage of which is I'm neutral and am free to think for myself without having to toe any Organised Religions official line..