[mad_as_he$$]

Well there is a large gap of his life in the Bible. I don't see any parts of the Bible that must be rejected based upon the timeline. Much of the Bible is supported by Roman records - Bible scholars include those as "proof". Google St. Issa and do some reading and tell me what you think. There are several explorers and scholars that documented the story in Asia Minor. To me it is way more believable than the "Code". There were well established trade routes to India during the time. Many of which still exist today. I only believe what I can see and touch - and sometimes I doubt that.

FWIW I was never taught he was God only the son of God. Part of the Deity - yes he may be a god but not God.

[Tribune7]

Google St. Issa and do some reading and tell me what you think. There are several explorers and scholars that documented the story in Asia Minor.

The life of Christ was apparently described to Central Asians by the Nestorians and other Christians and they adopted it to Issa This makes a lot more sense. Christians did make it to Central Asia. Notovitch was writing almost 1900 years after the Lord's birth. The Gospels were writen by His contemporaries.

FWIW I was never taught he was God only the son of God. Part of the Deity - yes he may be a god but not God.

The Divinity of Christ (most Protestants hold this view also)