[CondoleezzaProtege]

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." ~ The Gospel According to Saint Luke, Chapter 1: 1-4

[FoxPro]

Excellent.....

Where did you find this information?

Are you a historian by trade?

[stevem]

I went to a seminary for four years in a previous life. We were taught that the synoptic gospels were written between 45 and 70 AD with Mark first in about 45 AD. This was well within living memory of many of Jesus' contemporaries. We were taught that John was written about 90 AD.

As a personal aside I have enjoyed reading the synoptic gospels since I turned forty in a middle previous life. John, though, is my personal favorite as I think the morals and ethics in John were written by John and whoever may have been his subsequent editor for me, and me personally.

People who dismiss Luke as fantasy have a different agenda than teaching the New Testament. I found a part of it frightfully interesting starting as early as the Passion, no, earlier than that...starting with the plotting of the Sanhedrin to destroy Jesus. I think Luke hits on this with a two by four.

In my dotage I found the Roman Empire to be every bit as evil as Empires almost always are. These days I really, really sympathize with the barbarians. Nevertheless, the Romans made a real contribution to Western Civilization even in the 'Empire' days. For Roman citizens they had an iron clad 'Rule of Law' that even the governors respected and feared if they were caught ignoring.

I read the New Testament for moral teaching. Still, and Great Caesar's Ghost (!!!) there is interesting historical stuff in it.

[Fraxinus]

Were historians insular enough to think that the US was the only country where city names were used multiple times? I have no problem believing that the Roman empire had multiple towns and cities sharing the same name.

Another point, that seem inane to me, is the Names of officials, why not have a multitude of officials with same or similar names over any extensive period?

[wildbill]

I’m not much of a religious man, but I’ve found it interesting how much recent archeology confirms writings from the Old and New Testament.

Lots of real people writing about real events and places.