Very interesting reply, godspell.   Your hypothetical Jesus answer to my Q1 hits the nail on the head and is the reason the passage troubles me.  If you are right, then I would feel deeply disappointed that my view of Jesus is too ‘high’.  Similarly, if you are right about Jesus’s answers to Q2 & Q3, then I am disappointed, but less so, because although I have think that Jesus, did have foreknowledge of specific events, I have never thought of Jesus as being omniscient (that would be ridiculous) and I could more easily assimilate into my beliefs and understanding, Jesus being mistaken about timings or details of future events (in his own words, ‘no one knows the date, not even the son..’). 

Your comment that they loved him so deeply is poignant.  There can be no doubt for anyone with intelligence, that Jesus was one of the most remarkable men in history, even without “The Triumph of Christianity”.  Sinfullness and fallibility are not exactly the same.  Fallibility could just mean for example not being omniscient.  I am not sure there is evidence in any of the ancient manuscripts (cannonical or non-cannonical) that Jesus sinned?   You may say this is hardly surprising, but actually, is it not suprisingly that nothing negative at all was written?   If we judge Jesus as a sinner, then I think we do this by supposition on the basis of historical probability ie every other human being who’s ever been ‘born of woman’ is a sinner.  Actually, this itself is a mystery, why are all human beings sinful?  But maybe there was just one human who wasn’t sinful?  if true, would this be more of a mystery?  That his followers loved him deeply and were devastated after his death is of course one of the evidences that has been used to support the resurrection.  The converse wishful thinking argument doesn’t persuade me: ghost-like appearances of a deceased person to their loved ones, yes, but how many bereaved people have ever gone round proclaiming that their lost one has been bodily resurrected?  Just thinking aloud (or in writing)

Good points again, but it seems to me that you are very reasonably making a probalistic argument that Jesus was a sinner in thought and deed – ie it’s highly likely on the basis of waht we know about human beings – without exception.  It’s important to note that a good variety of NT authors considered Jesus sinless:  Jhn 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? 2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 1Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth 1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Heb 4:15 – For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Another possibility to consider, particularly since Jesus submitted to the Baptism of John (… ‘for the forgiveness of sins’), is that from that point onward, ie during his ministry, he remained sinless.

Of course, I agree with you that probalistic reasoning comes into much of the historical reconstruction of Jesus’s life, but not all of it.  The fact that he existed in the 2nd temple period, that he was Jewish, that he was a teacher, that he was crucified and that he was claimed to have risen from the dead is not pure probabalistic reasoning.  That he carried out the bodily functions you refer to is pure probabalistic reasoning, since there is no written descriptions of these.  I have not argued for his pre-existence or divine essence; and I also never claimed that we had a single written word by anyone who knew Jesus the man – though some of the sayings for example in Mark, Q, the Gospel of Thomas and even quotes of Jesus by Paul may come very close.  So you are pinning 2 strawmen to me!   All I was pondering about was whether it might be possible that Jesus led a sinless life either throughout or at least post-baptismally – based on what was said about him by the authors I quoted and the lack of anything negative said about him.  That he was not as important during his lifetime as other contemporary figures such as John the Baptist, Caesar Augustus, or Philo, is agreed, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t more important than these figures in the history of the world!  It didn’t take long either! and it was arguably the resurrection (claimed or historical) that was and is the chief cause of his fame and importance!