It became an issue when you said you found it 'interesting.' "I find it interesting..." often carries a negative connotation in today's world.
On the other hand, I take some comfort in knowing that you wrote the words above, now I know something about how you think. Otherwise, had I read, say from Joe Blow, that you said the things above, I would have to consider whether you said the things above or whether they are Joe Blow's interpretation or memory or further hearsay.
On the other hand, if this hypothetical Joe were an eyewitness to what I said, you would have reason to believe him, now wouldn't you? Unless, of course, he was a pathological liar.
Bottom line; if I could read Christ's words, in his own words, as I can George Washington's for example, I would have more faith in what I think and believe about them.
Since you don't, you'll just have to accept the multiple corroborating witnesses, two of whom wrote first-hand and two of whom wrote from first-hand sources. If you can't, it's not for lack of evidence, it's for unbelief in the evidence.
If finding things interesting often carries a negative connotation, it often carries no connotation at all. As in I find this interesting so I will look into it further. In my usage of the statement I held no negative connotation.
"On the other hand, if this hypothetical Joe were an eyewitness to what I said, you would have reason to believe him, now wouldn't you? Unless, of course, he was a pathological liar."
I have read and heard that often there are many different version of "eye witness" accounts. I do not accept everything anyone says as true, let alone correct. I think a person can misinterprate what he sees or hears or both, and that wouldn't mean that he is neccessarily a "pathological liar" or even a just plain ordinary liar.
I remember a famous phrase by President Reagan, "trust but verify." I don't think he was implying that everyone was a pathological liar.
Since you don't, you'll just have to accept the multiple corroborating witnesses, two of whom wrote first-hand and two of whom wrote from first-hand sources. If you can't, it's not for lack of evidence, it's for unbelief in the evidence.
Oh, I can refuse to accept hearsay testimony as fact and still believe in the conclusion that might be drawn from that testimony, there's no contradiction there.
As for the absence of proof that these historically famous personages wrote anything down, that does mean that they didn't...I just happen to find it interesting, you know for converstational purposes...don't you?