Err well, first of all, people wouldn't have a thing for romanticism. Not from Jesus's enemies, at least. There's a ton of written records from Roman-Jews who hated Jesus. Why would they try to embellish Jesus's image? And the Bible is God's book, but there's nothing wrong with that. The Bible isn't flawed surprisingly. Written over 1600 years from 40 different authors, it's a pretty consistent book. Nobody's messed with it, too. Although it was written by sinful-mankind, it was influenced by God. Kinda like God told somebody what to write, and that person wrote it down.
History from the victor's point of view doesn't actually change history. The events happened, and there's more than just the victor's account of the story to prove what happened. And also, we're only talking about 2000 years ago. It's not like humans were prehistoric at the time. The legacy of Jesus was also prevalent for many centuries, leading up to the renaissance. I will agree with you though that religion is "inconsistent" , but that's only because it was left in the hands of mankind. And we're a very sinful and flawed species, so you can't expect perfection from us.
I don't understand; are you completely rejecting all historical evidence/records that proves Jesus's existence? I mean there is plenty of history written from the "losers" point of view that validates Jesus's existence and perfect life. There's more than just the Bible that talks about Jesus; in fact, there's a LOT of work from many different roman historians/scholars.
+K for a well reasoned response on Believing's wall. The problem with discussing this issue with dyed-in-the-wool creationists is that they invariably beg the question - they assume the premise of God, and then base their entire argument on this premise, when the existence of God is one of the conclusions of the argument as well. A scientist discussing the origin of man with a creationist is like a cartographer discussing mapmaking with a flat-earther - completely nonsensical. PS - pink unicorns are real.
Just because the answer to "why" as "god made it" isn't necessarily wrong just because it's easy. (And it's still not an easy answer, but not my point.) If you're going to look back at the history of religions to prove that they're false, try looking to the origin, not the development. I'm talking about in the days of Jesus. History doesn't lie, although humans may interpret it differently. What happens afterward with the twisting of doctrine / Crusades (which i did a huge project on) is the result of human failure/sin.
