Science, of course, has to be verifiable...
Yes.
My science is verifiable because it upholds all of modern science and goes much, much, further.
No, it doesn't 'uphold' modern science, or even the findings of modern scientific enquiry. As soon as you assert that it 'goes further' you've exceeded scientific methodology and entered, at best, speculation. As it is, you've reverted back past the onset of scientific methodology to indulge in baseless superstition.
Sadly, we need to know what Jesus was saying and doing at the time of his ministry rather than just dismiss him because man has twisted his word to breach the code.
Why do we need to know what Jesus was saying? Surely the argument stands or falls on its own merits? Either it's true, in which case it doesn't matter if it's attributed to Jesus or not, or it's not true, in which case it doesn't matter if it's attributed to Jesus or not. Of course, if you're suggesting that the Bible misrepresents Jesus that's a different story, which would lead me to the question 'How come you have the right version'? The last guy that thought that seems to have been Joseph Smith, and the one before him was Mohammed ibn 'Abd Allah.
Science doesn't work well that way.
I can, without fear of contradiction, concede that you are an expert in how science doesn't work.
O.