Was Jesus REALLY the “best documented person from the First Century?” To continue: “There's nobody else that has got a single biography written about them.” Are the Second Century Gospels really “biographies” or are they works of “Religious Propaganda”? The opinion varies from scholar to scholar – also this is where the Scholarly Dogma automatically creeps in – there is no historical evidence that the Four Gospels existed during the First Century, and what's more, which parts of the Gospels can with absolute certainty be described as containing “historical fact”? Why do the Gospels contain so many historical mistakes? When Robert M. Grant wrote his book “Second Century Christianity: A Collection of Fragments” (SPCK, 1946), he collected all the accounts of the Christian groups that rejected the Physical Substance of Jesus Christ – however, when his book was republished expanded and revised in 2003 (Westminster John Knox Press), the references to those Christian Groups was omitted. Why did this happen? The New Testament scholars really enjoy themselves having a go at modern sceptics about the so-called “History of Christianity” but when it comes to the earliest Christian Groups that denied the physical substance of Jesus (Robert M. Grant’s original description in 1946) they all behave like it did not exist. For example, Basilides believed that Jesus could not have been crucified because he was not born in the “physical flesh”. The scholars seriously point out that the Gospel of Mark was the earliest Christian Gospel dating from between 65-75 CE, but which Christians of that period referred to the Gospel of Mark? The Christian Scholars even refuse to answer that point.