The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[dyresand]

I would have thought the resurrection would have been remarkable enough to mention in the first print rather than a postscript.

Oh yeah! By the way, jesus rose from the dead.

Damn magical zombies they should stay dead. 

---

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.



No. He just actually read it.



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. 

Remember now Luke is strong with the force that one.