[Poison Pill]

That’s right because anything recording Him is automatically counted as *religious* and not *secular.*

There is no recording going on in the Gospels. They are not first hand accounts. If they were first hand accounts, it stands to reason that they would have been written in Aramaic, not Greek. The Gospels are devotional works written generations after the fact. The writers don't properly identify themselves. They don't fix dates. Their works are not independent accounts as they borrow heavily from each other, especially from Mark and even then they can't get the orders of events straight.

[MHGinTN]

I notice the spirit that is within you still does not want to view ‘objective reasons’. But I am going to post something on my profile page, anyway, for the Easter Season.

[rollo tomasi]

Paul wrote to the Hellenized Christians/gentiles that were emerging, of course he is going to write in Greek. In Acts he speaks directly to a Hebrew crowd/authorities and switches from Greek to te Hebraidi dialect during this. Speaking to the audience as well as describing places where there was not a Greek translation. Matthew was said to have been written in at least two languages which makes sense because that Gospel was tailored to the Hebrews. The first Gospel written, Mark, was said to have been a first hand account from Peter and other witnesses (Papias) to the actual author. Mark was a gentile, Rome embraced Hellenization, hence a lot of the territory understood Greek more than any other language, so Mark wrote in Greek. Luke the same thing, gentile/Greek.

I hope you have the same zeal in believing Hannibal never existed as you have for Jesus never existing. Rome historians were a joke describing history at that time, any serious scholar would attest to that. One mistake that offended authorities or made certain areas of Rome look weak meant either death or exile. Also, Christianity wasn't exactly embraced by the authorities. Why would Roman authorities give a lick or even permit some “cult” to spread their message via the archives or approved "historians".? Jerusalem was a backwater dump and stabilizing an Empire was more at the forefront than a religion that ran counter to the State sanctioned ones.

[Elsie]

There is no recording going on in the Gospels. They are not first hand accounts.

HMMMmmm...

---

Is the book of Luke considered to be a 'gospel'?

---

Luke 1:1-4

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.

With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

[Elsie]

Their works are not independent accounts as they borrow heavily from each other, especially from Mark and even then they can't get the orders of events straight.

Sounds like the 'news' bureaus of today!