Imagine this...

[The Grand Nudger]

again another very distinct difference between our thought processes. i do not allow myself to cut out historically documented events just because they do not fit my narrative. take the document or leave it. i can not cherry pick what i want to believe.

Good for you - but what you believe in isn't any of the historical jesi.  

my short minded brother there wasn't a university of historical record keeping a 1st century historian must graduate from to be considered a proper historian. what made a 1st century writer a historian was the subject matter he wrote about. if he recorded events or researched and recorded events he was deemed a historian. luke fits this bill like it or not. what's more his non affiliation with the church in the book of Luke makes that record a secular account.

No, he doesn't....and no....nothing in magic book is a secular account.  Words - again.

that's not true.. again i provided a list of period correct historians who all establish christ as a living breathing man who lived in the time and place the bible describes. like it or not, Christ is an establish person in that time period more so than any other living figure in that time or place,aside from the emperor of rome. Real/non biased historian can not deny Christ. not without calling every other person who was said to be alive in that same time and place. as there is more written by christ than those who you take for granted were there.

Entirely true, go look it up for yourself.  No real unbiased historian™ has a thing to fucking say about christ as history.  This, even though plenty of them do believe that jesus was christ.  The rest is the same garbage you've peddled before and been corrected on - I see no reason to re-correct you.  

you just making wild accusations at this point trying to red herring off topic.. when ever you collect yourself and want to have a real discussion then please address the topic in a way that reflects the things i have said.

You don't believe in any historical jesus.  You think those accounts of a man who lived and died and was forgotten like any other are both false, and heretical. Your disagreements with words, historians, and history...aren't disagreements with me. I'm a little bit surprised that you gave such little care to the historicity of jesus that you didn't know this stuff already. Seems like it might be important - even though you strenuously disagree with everything the subject matter contains. OTOH, it's often the case that people are embarrassed by the progenitor of their cult, I suppose. Preferring legend and myth to the uncomfortable humanity of a real person.

The historical jesus, put simply, is the notion - based on the criterion of embarrassment - that a man was baptized by john and crucified by rome. That's it. That's all. That's the whole enchilada. That's the historical jesus that historians are nearly (lol) universally agreed on. Where was he born? Not a clue. Where did he live? Not a clue. What was his name? Not a clue. What was he crucified for? Not a clue. What did he have to say..about anything? Not a clue. Did he have disciples? Not a clue. Did they continue on after his death? Not a clue.