In defense of prophecy

What strikes me about your list is how many of these are only shown in ONE of the gospels. Methinks the gospel writers or their sources added, or distorted, these events to match existing prophecy.Quite a few are so generic as to be meaningless, e.g "He will be hated without a cause", "People will shake their heads at him", "People will stare at him" and "He will be mocked, ridiculed, and rejected". These could be applied to ANY notable religous leader.Others are supernatural events without evidence "He will be raised from the dead on the third day" and "He will ascend to heaven".

It doesn't ultimately boil down to these three options.What if Jesus was simply a populist leader? An evangelical if you will. Who's later followers applied the trappings of godhood to him. What if a large portion of the biblical sayings attributed to Jesus weren't said by him?Note that even in the biblical record there is some suggestion of this. Look closely at the Gospels, now look at the record of Paul's teachings? Notice any differences?What if 'Jesus' is actually a conglomeration of several figures living at the time? Who's teachings became merged into the figure singularly recorded as Jesus?What if one of the other many Gospels were actually true, and the four chosen by the Catholics false?

I notice you fail to address the main point of my post.Please either retract, or defend, your Lord, Liar or Lunatic Trichotomy. I do not hold to either of these three possibilities.