You're smearing together all kinds of different issues. Kmguru's ancient-astronaut theories. While I'm personally very interested in Indian religious history, I find his speculations unhelpful and frankly a rather bizarre. The fact that he's a moderator. Take that up with the board's management. I'm not particularly impressed by Sciforums' moderation myself. Why people disagree with you. Probably because they disagree with you. Your 'my sources which are better documented than any historical source anyone can name' complaint. Nobody's denying that the early Christian writings existed in antiquity. There's lots of evidence that they did. What people like myself question isn't the writings' existence, it's their theological contents. The 'my sources do not count because they are believers' complaint. The fact is that Christian evangelists ask us to believe some pretty outlandish things. The Jewish god really exists. Jesus was the incarnation of that god in human flesh. Jesus died and then rose from the grave. And all kinds of interpretive stuff about the supposed sotorological significance of his death and resurrection. Then the claim is made that the historical documentation for all of this is totally conclusive. What documentation is that? The early Christian documents, in which some the early Christians wrote about the things that they believed. The problem is that while ancient manuscripts documenting their beliefs are tremendously interesting in a history-of-religions sense, they don't explain why we should believe the same things. Your claim that most serious scholars regard the gospels 'as absolutely authentic' still leaves us with the question, absolutely authentic... what? The Quran is doubtless an authentic religious writing from late antiquity too, but few Christians will want to commit themselves to the literal truth and divine inspiration of all of its contents.