I read (past tense) Christian historical sources, and quite a lot too, because they're often the only ones (like medieval texts about rites and stuff, interesting and enlightening). As for contemporary Christian scholars - this is difficult. I find them as hard to read as the "ancient alien visitors" people, but just not as entertaining. I think there maybe very intelligent people around, but the most vocal (and some of those you linked) often have an intolerable holier-than-though attitude of rightousness and an unhealthy obsession with "debunking the bible debunkers" (I admit that the latter also often suffer from unhealthy obessesion). Also many of those people are, what I wouldn't call intelligent, but clever. They are pretty good at presenting their case and hide the circular reasoning (maybe even from themselves). But in the end, taken apart, it's most of the time the good old "proving the bible by the bible" and (to me) strange reasoning.
Like that guy you linked a many pages ago, that argued that the vastness of the universe proves God.
Well, if the universe was small and Earth at the center - I think this would be considered strong evidence for a purposeful creator to every sane person. But to see the exact opposite, the antithesis, also presented as evidence pro God is remarkably insane.
People like these make me reluctant to read more from that corner.

As for recommendations for historical studies: Well the easiest recommendation is - read everything ;-).
But for an overview I actually recommend Wikipedia. Now that site has a very careful and sceptical approach to both religion and "alternate" history. But most articles have a good list of references. Start from there.

Also read the books of those "alien visitors" and "alternate history" people. If nothing else, they are highly entertaining. The "gurus" (Butler, von Däniken) of those people are most of the time pretty good storytellers. If you have the time, look at the evidence they come up with, then look at the answers given by respected scholars. It's often not as easy as it seems. When they come up with maybe ten pieces of evidence, the "real" scholars will maybe disprove five of these, and most oft the times the easiest ones, and consider them "debunked". But that leaves five open issues that sometimes contain real gems of how "traditional" history can't explain everything and that would be worth exploring further. But this is extremely time consuming. At this point I had to give up, since at some point I had to start actually earning a living ;-)

I further, with all my heart, recommend reading as many legends, epics, fairytales, sagas, creation myths, religious stories from all around the world as you can get your hands on. This is (IMHO) both entertaining and very enlightening. You learn a lot about different cultures and their take at the world. Also these stories (just like the Bible) contain a tremendous amount of wisdom.

Well the Romans usually were pretty pedantic in documenting things. Much of this is lost in time (things like burning down Rome surely didn't help). I beg to differ in that if there was an actual miracle like a resurrection took place, the Romans would have had looked into it and at least written a report. It also strikes me as odd that AFAIK there are no verified accounts on the Romans wanting to have a word with the killed and resurrected Jesus. Wouldn't they care that they "failed" to execute him?

Sorry. Then please explain again (for the slow minded ;-)) what you base your belief on.
From your posts I gather the following:

You believe, because other people believe too. You're by far not the only one.
You believe in a creator, because you can't image another reason for the universe to exist.
You believe in the authentic resurrection of Jesus. You believe this because you believe that the bible is a reliable source (reason?), and because your belief in the creator gives you the ground on such a thing is possible.
What else?

Ahem. Do live in the country or city? I grew up in a village (with quite a few sheep). Actually sheep nearly always keep together, because this offers the best protection from predators. Of course there are "lost sheep" like there are lost cows, lost gazelles, lost deers.
As kids we would often bring home the sheep. Now this weren't big herds, just small groups. But it's enough to guide the leading sheep and the rest will follow. I you watch big herds with shepherd and dog: When they're not moving they both have not much to do, because they stay together on their own. When the herd is on the move, the shepherd takes the lead and the dog will check that noone is left behind. Most of them stay together. That's why one shepherd and one dof is usually enough for a big number of sheep.
You need a lot more manpower for cows or horses, for instance.

And 1000 years ago, when most people in the world had never ever heard of Jesus, they couldn't be saved? How loving and fair.

This "I'm a sinner" a concept that totally alien to me. I see myself first and foremost as human. And human means I'm a conscious animal. Consciousness means power and with power comes responsibility. I'm not always living up to this responsibility. In the result be both try to be "better people", you feel by default guilty and always need to repent, while I by default feel innocent and if I do wrong I try to find the reasons that made me fail and make it better next time.

That's the cherry picking I spoke about. Built a hospital? Jesus' teachings did that! Killed your heathen neighbor and his whole family and took his land? They got Jesus wrong!
Good deed? Because they were Christians.
Bad deed? They were no real Christians.

From my view also pales in comparison, just the other way around.