For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Undeceived]

By now you've heard many possible explanations for Luke's wording. Would Luke have recorded a census if there wasn't one?

Would two Gospels have recorded a virgin birth even though the OT didn't mention such a prophecy?

Is this a red herring? If you want to switch topics, fine, but I don't understand the point this is supposed to make. The virgin birth may or may not have been prophesied (http://jewsforjesus.blogspot.com/2007/11...cy-or.html ), but if it wasn't, doesn't that make it all the less likely that two writers would record it?

No one heard of "Luke's" account until Irenaeus named it so....at the end of the 2d century AD.

Acts was most certainly written in the 60s AD (http://carm.org/when-was-acts-written ). We also know that the same man wrote both Acts and Luke, with Acts presumably part two of a set written to a patron by the name of Theophilus (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1). The question whether this man was "Luke" himself is an inconsequential one-- but we do have evidence for it. Paul calls Luke his "dear friend Luke, the doctor" (Col. 4:14) and "fellow worker" (Phm 24). Luke shows good knowledge of medical conditions as well as a sophisticated vocabulary, which is what one would expect from a real-life physician.