Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Aractus]

And again, what was wrong with the NRSV 3rd Ed published by Oxford University Press? This is not to say they're the only ones who suggest a date around 70 CE. You can do a simple wikipedia search and find it (though I tend to go with Oxford more than Wikipedia). Christian scholars and apologists do try to push it back to 65 or even 60 CE. More skeptical scholars who don't believe in woo and divine prophecy place the earliest possible date at 70 CE for reasons already given.

The NRSV isn't the best translation, it tries to do way too much. Good on them though for taking on the NJB, when compared to it it is far better. They present as fact in their summary that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced Yahweh and that the Masorites borrowed the vowels from Adonai. Parroting this line for no real purpose, and never going into the correct pronunciation of Jesus/Joshua, etc.

Actually, scholars think that roughly half the epistles are "probably authentic" and the rest are of dubious authorship. Pseudo-epigraphy was a common problem with religious texts. Anyone who wanted to push a certain theological agenda could "discover" a letter by a more notable church figure from history that happened to agree.

Nothing is dubious. "Disputed" does not mean dubious - and disputed by who? If you're talking about Paul's 13 Epistles (or 14 if you count Hebrews). Why don't we put this a different way. Of the 13, 7 are unanimously accepted by scholars including critics, sceptics, liberal and secular scholars. Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are disputed by some scholars, but certainly not by all nor by any clear majority. The three Pastoral Epistles are the only 3 that are rejected as being authentic/genuine Epistles by a majority (although, as you well know said majority comes from secular/sceptics).

And Wikipedia is wrong, shock-horror, about Ephesians. The majority view is that it is Pauline, or that it was written in collaboration with somebody under Paul's approval (ie co-written).

Please don't try and stretch the truth when you talk about these things.

Unlikely. Matthew corrects Mark in too many places where the theology is embarrassingly wrong. For example, Mark has Jesus saying "no divorce ever". Matthew, knowledgeable of Jewish customs and laws, puts in the caveat of the absence of female chastity.

It's unlikely but it's possible.

Good for you. Prove it.

I already have. 61 AD is when Luke ends the book of Acts.

One would think they'd have gotten the nativity story straight then, to say nothing of the contradictory itinerary of Jesus' ministry.

Um, I know I explained this before, but Matthew is written to a Jewish audience. Both Mark and Luke are written to Greek Christians. This necessitates that you will have less information which is relevant only to Jews and not Greeks. This, by the way, is why Matthew mentions the exception to divorce where Mark and Luke do not.

Let's stick to canonical works. Christians maintain that the heterodox Christian texts came much later, which is why they can be discounted.

No, not necessarily.

Do me the kindness of a link, then. They're easy to create. It's the globe-with-the-chain-under-it icon above the text box.

To be blunt, I'm skeptical of your claim to have debunked my observations given the quality of the logic you've presented so far.

The language that Luke uses is not consistent with a "one and only census administered under Quirinius". The way it is most often translated is "the first census under Quirinius", well how is there a "first" census if there's only one? It's nonsensical. It's also a detail that Luke would be highly unlikely to get wrong because the census of 6AD was a very famous census, and he would have known the date that it happens.

He is simply talking about some other census that we do not know anything about that happens "BEFORE" the census under Quirinius.