Although it is far more conclusive than your attempted caricature of reasoning prevalent at this thread Arch, as I stated Ã¢â‚¬Å“it says he carefully investigated and interviewed those eyewitnesses who were there from the beginning to make an orderly account of the life of Jesus and His ApostlesÃ¢â‚¬Â. So, you will need far better evidence to overturn these historical facts of Dr. Luke.
I agree. I hope you will be cooperative in finding these "historical facts".
Question one: Who was on hand to answer the questions you are asking Arch? You, or the eyewitnesses Dr. Luke interviewed?
Hopefully that's what we'll find some answers to. Who were these witnesses? Are they trustworthy? Are they first hand witnesses? Did they even exist, or are they entirely fabricated?
Oh, and I got these original dates from Ron. It's not my atheist background that led me to question these dates, but the history that Christians have been teaching.
Question two: Your adopted reference repository http://en.wikipedia....nology_of_Jesus gives the dates of JesusÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ birth between 8 and 6 BC, and the date of HerodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s death at between 5 and 4 BC. The math, according to your Wikipedia fits well, and should satisfy your Ã¢â‚¬Å“thirst for truthÃ¢â‚¬Â.
Interesting, Wikipedia is the only source I've ever read that lists these dates. As good historians, I think we'll have to double check these conflicting dates.
As was pointed out earlier Arch, the sources of your Ã¢â‚¬Å“previousÃ¢â‚¬Â explorative studies are far less reliable, knowledgeable and antiquity based, to mount any kind of defense for the accusations you are attempting here.
Wow, the arrogant, obnoxious presumptions of this statement are not befitting you Dee. You have no idea what my previous studies were. This is entirely assumptive and, as you say "plain old wantsitnottobetrue"-ism.
They are based on presupposition, circular reasoning, and plain old wantsitnottobetrue!
Actually they're based on the teachings of the most intelligent, faithful man I've ever met.
So, you can believe anything you have a desire to (because it will still be faith based and not history based), but eventually youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll either have to accept the truth on the New TestamentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s factual historicity, or tell a lie and say it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t historical fact.
I'm not trying to believe anything. I'm collecting dates and putting them in order. The only belief that might come into it would be in the works of those that found the dates in the first place; I can hardly be blamed for that.
I can't help but feel your approaching this the wrong way. It seems every time I pose a question regarding this history, you jump down my throat and chide me for having the indecency to even ask such questions.
What I hope to do is produce as unbiased a timeline as possible, so anyone can come here and learn the historical truths of Jesus. You should be viewing this as an opportunity. There should be very little speculation in this forum; either the dates are there or they're not. You should have no trouble producing evidence to support your position.
Again, I feel the need to emphasis that my previous studies have led me to believe there was an historical Jesus. The only reason I ask these questions is to play devils advocate so that we can get a balanced view on this matter.
With that in mind, can we please continue without the accusations.