The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[DeistPaladin]

Luke: Fan Fic Writer Pretends to be a Historian

Is that what experts say? Let's see...

Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... [he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

Professor of Classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record... it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."

Nope. Guess not. Guess atheists shouldn't pretend to be experts on subjects they know nothing about.

Like Matthew, Luke tries to elaborate on Mark, fleshing out a story of Jesus' birth and a bit of his childhood. He also gives us a number of milestones to offer more of a historical setting. Many Christian apologists such as Josh McDowell, praise the "incredible accuracy" of Luke as a historian. 

Evidently, McDowell read a different Gospel then the rest of us did.

No. He just actually read it.

Like Mark, Luke is a companion of Paul and not an "eye witness". He admits in his opening of his Gospel that he has stitched together the different accounts he has heard, acting as if he were a historian.

What Luke admits is that he has done his homework...something that your forum mates do not want to credit him with at all. So, watch your back...you've just given away the store.

I'll finish this tomorrow.

Oh, well, a bunch of Christian apologists say Luke was a great historian. I guess that makes him one then. And it completely makes up for his 10 year pregnancy goof.