Still Hob, no historian evidence, Luke is even in Question and most likely was not even written by the follower of Paul name Luke the Doctor, I give you these references:
J. Fitzmyer has set out a strong case for concluding that Luke was a Gentile Christian, not a Greek, but a non-Jewish Semite, a native of Antioch, where he was well educated in a Hellenistic atmosphere and culture."
- Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 100
"The tradition that Luke the physician and companion of Paul was the author of Luke-Acts goes back to the second century C.E. The Luke in question is referred to in Col 4:14; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11, where he is identified as a physician. It is improbable that the author of Luke-Acts was a physician; it is doubtful that he was a companion of Paul."
- Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels
Luke himself was, in all probability, one of these gentile members who had first embraced a liberalized Judaism and then had moved into the Christianity that grew from the liberal Judaism."
- John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, p. 119
So again, the bible is not idependant and was not written by a person that observed the events mentioned about this "Jesus" it is again drawn on Tradition that "Mommy and Daddy" (or Big Brother-mentor ect) said were right.
Again why no evidence that this GREAT Man/God lived, if he had assembled thousands, drew crowds where ever he went, why no record of him from secular sources. Every one else you mentioned wrote well after 70ad. The book of luke MAY have been written prior to 70 ad, but that is in question and may have been written later. the dates they give for Luke is 62-72ad, depending on who you read.
Now part of my comments earlier were not fully accurate, I went back and researched them and discovered that it was not Philo who was a homie of Jesus but it lwas Justus of Tiberius, and it is his works that were lost. But none the less Philo didn't move to Alexandria until he was older and was in or around Jerusalem during jesus lifetime. an interesting qoute I have found taken from a work by Dennis McKinsey from Bible Errancy electonic magazine makes the statement;
(a) Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry in Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place--when Christ himself rose from the dead. Yet, these events were not mentioned by him. (b) Under the reign of Tiberius the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was allegedly involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Yet, Seneca and Pliny the Elder, who recorded all the great earthquakes, meteors, comets, and elipses they could find and who lived during the period of Jesus, failed to mention the event. (c) Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He wrote a history covering the time of Christ's reputed existence. This work perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the 9th century, was acquainted with it and said, "He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did" (Photius, Bibliotheca, Code 33).
The reason I got the Justin martyr mixed up was the reference to Justus, my mistake for taking it strictly from memory.
So again lets see some independent history (Outside of the suspicious bible) on this person Jesus. No, he may have existed, he may have been a man, but I doubt he was anything more, if he did exist, then a man, perhaps a rebel, who knows? But I don't see a man/god here.
Josephes mentions quite a few Jesuses inn his writings, most he offers quite a bit of information about them, but this Jesus there are two controversial paragraphs about him. Why?? One of these contexts speaks WAY out of character for a Jew who is not a christian, and the other only mentions the death of James. So this is nothing more then the mention of the christian movement and the myth that goes along with the movement, which I am sure he was familair with to a point.
Seedy
