Imagine this...

[The Grand Nudger]

like it or not my guy luke and everyone else who documented a gospel that wasn't there did so as a scribe or from a point of documenting history. you only dismiss them because they were later assimilated into the bible.. 

I dismiss luke as history because luke isn't history, and luke was no historian.  I have no interest in taking magic book out of the context in which it was written.  That context, was not history, and was not secular.

It's flat intellectual dishonesty to dismiss the whole bible and everyone's individual work as religious. theses are the people who havent any  interest in truth only an easy intellectual way out without looking at or considering anything that might threaten their prejudice narrative or sense of superority.

You appear to have a problem with words, yet again.  Nothing in magic book is accurately described as secular, or history, or secular history.

again, once you look at first person records, the historical jesus fills out to the gospel specifications. again not letting you dismiss the accounts of luke and mark just because you say so/just because you are not intellectually honest to admit that those two by all rights were non affiliated historians/scribes. so suck it up, move on or your welcome to try again. this time we will need some citations. not just the fact that their work was included in the bible 300 years after or some biased bull shite commentary by some contemporary hater.  Rather we need to see primary sourced material that shows luke and mark to be a shill for the church/conspired to be included in a religious book of magic. (your standard of proof not mine just holding you to it as what is good for the goose is also good for the atheist)

 I'm informing you that none of the candidate reconstructions for a historical jesus are your christ.  You can argue until you're blue in the face that I'm unfairly rejecting your boyfriend for this or that reason - but I'm not talking about your boyfriend at all, and neither are those historians in describing the historical jesus.

You believe in christ and reject the random jew who lived and died and was forgotten, the historical jesus. Ironically, the formation of a religion out of the idea of some such guy was probably the most significant factor in our knowing nothing about any real man behind the myths today. As you so helpfully pointed out - christians had a strange way of curating literature about their god as soon as they captured the authority of the state.

Personally, I find the notion that a christian can be embarrassed laughable in the present moment and company - but...speaking of christian shame and curation and arguments from the critereon of embarrassment - we have no idea what the authors of those stories would or would not have found embarrassing..even if we do know what their later anthologizers did find embarrassing about them. I don't believe in the historical jesus any more than you do. I don't think that the arguments are compelling, and there's no evidence to consider...so that's pretty much a dead end for me.