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

[DeistPaladin]

The NRSV isn't the best translation,

It's not the translation that's relevant to our discussion. It's their research as outlined in their annotations.

I've also read many books by Christian apologists (Strobel, McDowell, et. al.) and none of them are so bold as to push the Gospel dates as early as you do (which you know they would if they thought they could get away with it). I know you don't like being called "fringy" but that's what you are, even by apologetic standards, never mind academic standards.

Nothing is dubious. (about the Pauline authorship)

Sorry, but it is. I just love how Christian apologists fawn all over Ehrman when he insists there is a historical Jesus but gloss over his more serious research on pseudo-epigraphy, interpolation and changes in the Bible.

It's unlikely but it's possible.

I would say otherwise, given the theological mistakes in Mark that Matthew corrects but you are welcome to your opinion. That "thud" you just heard was the burden of proof landing in your backyard.

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

And the first Spiderman movie ends with Spiderman landing on the World Trade Center towers, so I guess the events in that movie happened during the 90s at the latest.

Sorry, but events in works of fiction are not useful in determining when the fiction took place in history.

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

.
Oh, I see. One is written to one audience and the other is written to another, which is why one has Jesus born in 4 BCE and the other in 6 CE, but that's OK because contradictions don't mean anything if each is made to a different audience ...not.

No, not necessarily.

Let's at least agree to stick to canonical works just to avoid opening a completely different discussion. Really, it works to your advantage that we don't also talk about the wild variety of early Christianities that existed in the first few centuries.

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

I'm aware of this apology and there are numerous and glaring problems with it. However, before we get into that, can you name for me one (1) single translation of the Bible that uses the word "before" and not "when" or "during" in the body of the translation in Luke 2:2? Not a footnote of the "controversy" but a translation that actually sides with your interpretation? I've have read 20 different English translations and two German translations and can't find one.

If you can, then we can discuss which translation is correct. If you can't, you're way off on the fringe again and should explain the conspiracy that thousands of different Bible scholars, all working independently of one another, all come to the same conclusion on what you believe to be the false translation. Afterwards, you can present your translation for peer review and become famous in the academic community. Good luck.