Luke the careful historian tells it like it is

nPeace said:

Ah. A good book with a genealogy that was not challenged by enemies of Jesus - a so called fraud, and his impersonating followers... How does that work?
It seems there is nothing skeptics would not say to deny undeniable evidence.

What do you know... they included myths in their good book, as well, and the opposing Jews let them be.

Click to expand...

Ditto to Christians who make up fake evidence and start web sights on it.

nPeace said:

You never fail do you... You repeat the same note, every time... like clockwork.
When will you ever learn that you are not the only one who can read and understand?
First, understand why someone posts something, instead of assuming what you don't know.
Second, take a lesson from your own instructions - If you don't know a thing, ask... nicely.

Click to expand...

Right back at you.

nPeace said:

No. You say that without any valid support.

You don't need to understand an entire story, in order to pen the truth.
As he says, he traced all things accurately. He does not have to give every detail, in order for it to be accurate.

Click to expand...

Only a witness (without knowledge of the whole incident) can give truly reliable evidence. Hearsay must be treated with care.

The thread is all about whether Luke was a 'careful historian', telling it like it is.

And although many of Luke's anecdotes and stories do add to the 'balance of probabilities' about the story, he was neither 'careful' nor the most accurate report. Not being a witness himself he could do no more than write down what he had heard and read about.

See here........ which of these two reports do you believe? Please don't attempt to marry them together....... that would be a manipulation like so much of the Christian story. Here we go.........

Luke {23:46} And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he
said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and
having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Mark 15:34}
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted,
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

I think that any detached jury would choose Mark's account as 'more likely to be true'.

Subduction Zone said:

Where did you get that number from?

Click to expand...

The number 39 - 40? It's not my number. It's the ridiculous numer of the so-called experts. 30 - 40 years after this event.
Does not 30 + 52+ = 80+?

Subduction Zone said:

The last time I checked the Gospel of Luke was not written until 80 AD or later. That is more like 50 years. And Luke was a good geographer, but not so good of a historian. For some reason Christian apologists seem to get the two conflated.

Click to expand...

The last time you checked what? An inacurrate dating of the Gospel of Luke?
Of course you like that dating, but it's wrong. I showed you why it's wrong.
If you disagree then the burden of proof lies with you, to show why 80 is correct.
If you can show me clear evidence, then I will gladly accept, otherwise it just that you prefer those opinions.
What make 80 AD correct to you?

Subduction Zone said:

Why do you continue to assume that Luke was written by Luke? Again, most scholars do not seem to think that this is the case. What we have is a book that has all the hallmarks of someone that cared but was not an eyewitness speaking to perhaps some eyewitnesses, for the later events, but no eyewitness testimony at all for the earlier events.

Click to expand...

I am not assuming anything, but even if I am, I have the right to assume he did, in the same way you and your scholarly "friends", have the right to assume he didn't.
I am entitled to think, just as they are, aren't I?
Shouldn't we all think for ourselves, or do you think we should allow others to think for us?

Although none of the Gospel writers identified themselves as such, there is substantial evidence that these books were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively. The first three of these books are sometimes called synoptic (meaning “like view”) because they have a relatively similar approach to documenting what Jesus said and did.

Colossians 4:14 Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and so does Demas.
2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Bring Mark along with you, for he is helpful to me in the ministry.

Luke was a later first century disciple, who was a companion of Paul, some time after Paul's conversion. Hence an eyewitness to some of the events before and after Paul's ministry.
His record (Luke; Acts) covers a period from... Aw, why say this again, when the video said it all.
Why bother with people who don't care to look at material they are given.

Yes, I know you don't care much for these, but...
The first point would be enough.
It's up to you.

Riders said:

Ditto to Christians who make up fake evidence and start web sights on it.

Click to expand...

Whatever is that supposed to mean?

Riders said:

Right back at you.

Click to expand...

Thanks. If it applies to me, I will accept it, but I don't see how it applies to me. You'll have to point that out.

Subduction Zone said:

The last time I checked the Gospel of Luke was not written until 80 AD or later.

Click to expand...

That 80 date doesn't hold water. Most scholars date Luke much earlier than that. Here's why:

"1. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.
3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
5. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism.
6. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.
7. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.
8. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing.
9. The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem.
10. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period.
11. Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.
12. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul's prophecy in Acts 20:25 (cf. 20:38) may have been contradicted by later events. If so, the book must have appeared before those events.
13. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period. Harnack points to use of Iusous and Ho Kurios, while Ho Christos always designates 'the Messiah', and is not a proper name for Jesus.
14. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.
15. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy. It is also an odd place to end the book if years have passed since the pre-62 events transpired.

If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus."

The Dating of the New Testament

oldbadger said:

Only a witness (without knowledge of the whole incident) can give truly reliable evidence. Hearsay must be treated with care.

The thread is all about whether Luke was a 'careful historian', telling it like it is.

And although many of Luke's anecdotes and stories do add to the 'balance of probabilities' about the story, he was neither 'careful' nor the most accurate report. Not being a witness himself he could do no more than write down what he had heard and read about.

See here........ which of these two reports do you believe? Please don't attempt to marry them together....... that would be a manipulation like so much of the Christian story. Here we go.........

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he
said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and
having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted,
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

I think that any detached jury would choose Mark's account as 'more likely to be true'.

Click to expand...

Which one do you accept?
Did Mark leave the scene and miss this... "he gave up the ghost"?
Oh wait. He didn't leave the scene. Verse 37, With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

I would think that it make perfect sense, that Jesus cried in a loud voice, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Goodness me!
At what point will you give this up.
If I tried this even five times in a row, and all five times a perfectly reasonable and logical answer was supplied, I'd say to myself, "Well Gee. Maybe I am a bit shortsighted. Perhaps I am the one who is wrong - looking for a grain of salt in a haystack".

But to the contrary, some people will do this 300 times and believe that they have something. Oh my!

The only detached jury that would choose one account over the other, is a jury that should never be on the stand, simply because they don't consider all the facts. It seems to me, you look at one witness and decide you like him. You look at the other and decide you don't like him, and you base your verdict not on evidence, but appearance.
No proper judge would want you on board.

I was only moments ago talking with someone about what causes someone to be blind.

Why would a person want to blind themselves?

Spartan said:

That 80 date doesn't hold water. Most scholars date Luke much earlier than that. Here's why:

"1. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.
3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
5. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism.
6. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.
7. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.
8. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing.
9. The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem.
10. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period.
11. Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.
12. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul's prophecy in Acts 20:25 (cf. 20:38) may have been contradicted by later events. If so, the book must have appeared before those events.
13. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period. Harnack points to use of Iusous and Ho Kurios, while Ho Christos always designates 'the Messiah', and is not a proper name for Jesus.
14. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.
15. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy. It is also an odd place to end the book if years have passed since the pre-62 events transpired.

If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus."

The Dating of the New Testament

Click to expand...

Add this to the list. I think that makes it solid enough.

Spartan said:

That 80 date doesn't hold water. Most scholars date Luke much earlier than that. Here's why:

"1. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.
3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
5. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism.
6. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.
7. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.
8. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing.
9. The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem.
10. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period.
11. Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.
12. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul's prophecy in Acts 20:25 (cf. 20:38) may have been contradicted by later events. If so, the book must have appeared before those events.
13. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period. Harnack points to use of Iusous and Ho Kurios, while Ho Christos always designates 'the Messiah', and is not a proper name for Jesus.
14. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.
15. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy. It is also an odd place to end the book if years have passed since the pre-62 events transpired.

If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus."

The Dating of the New Testament

Click to expand...

Have you ever thought it was because Acts was not of times before 80 AD?

Find some real scholars and not apologists. Apologists are just liars for Jesus and can't be taken seriously. Apologists tend to forget that Luke copied large parts of Mark, so at the very least it was later than Mark.

Here is another source that puts the earliest date for Luke at 85 CE:

Historical Context for Luke/John by Unknown | The Core Curriculum

"The Gospel According to Luke, written in roughly 85 C.E. (± five to ten years), most likely during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, is known in its earliest form from extensive papyri fragments dating to the early or middle of the third century."

@oldbadger ...and yes, the evidence is clear, Luke was a careful historian.
Deny it all you want, but you have been beaten on this thread. Accuracy and Reliability of the Gospel of Luke

nPeace said:

Which one do you accept?
Did Mark leave the scene and miss this... "he gave up the ghost"?
Oh wait. He didn't leave the scene. Verse 37, With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

Click to expand...

You think that witnesses popped off for a moment and missed key words?
Now that's faith for you. the
It's just that Mark wrote more accurate truth, even taking the Christian editing and additions in to account.

Goodness me!
At what point will you give this up.
If I tried this even five times in a row, and all five times a perfectly reasonable and logical answer was supplied, I'd say to myself, "Well Gee. Maybe I am a bit shortsighted. Perhaps I am the one who is wrong - looking for a grain of salt in a haystack".

Click to expand...

You sure are clinging to something. An agenda?
Luke was no accurate historian.
I will offer more tomorrow.

The only detached jury that would choose one account over the other, is a jury that should never be on the stand, simply because they don't consider all the facts. It seems to me, you look at one witness and decide you like him. You look at the other and decide you don't like him, and you base your verdict not on evidence, but appearance.
No proper judge would want you on board

Click to expand...

I think you are getting very personal for lack of any educated responses to my easy to understand list of obvious errors or manipulations.

More tomorrow.

nPeace said:

@oldbadger ...and yes, the evidence is clear, Luke was a careful historian.
Deny it all you want, but you have been beaten on this thread. Accuracy and Reliability of the Gospel of Luke

Click to expand...

That author liked Luke's report that Caesar ordered a census across the entire Roman world.

That sinks tthat author straight away. The census was held across three provinces, and Galileans sure did not have to report to other provinces..... They were taxed wherever they were.

But all Jewish men paid Temple fees when present there, which of course was not part of the 6AD census.

Study Roman taxation across whole empire.

nPeace said:

@oldbadger ...and yes, the evidence is clear, Luke was a careful historian.
Deny it all you want, but you have been beaten on this thread. Accuracy and Reliability of the Gospel of Luke

Click to expand...

Two Simple history lessons................
Lesson One:
Luke {1:5} There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias,................

So here we are circa 5BC.....

And then, suddely, we jump to 6AD!
Luke {2:1} And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Think of that, a ten year pregnancy.



So the 1st history lesson is this........... look at all reports objectively.
----------------------------------------

Lesson Two:

Luke {2:39} And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Ahhh........ and so Matthew wrote a load of junk about the flight out of Judaea in to Egypt?

So the 2nd history lesson is this......... don't try and manipulate obvious contradictions together.

It would be much better to simply start the story where Mark starts it. Simple straight report.

@oldbadger Yes. Tomorrow is a good time for me to respond.
Signing off.

Subduction Zone said:

Have you ever thought it was because Acts was not of times before 80 AD?

Find some real scholars and not apologists. Apologists are just liars for Jesus and can't be taken seriously. Apologists tend to forget that Luke copied large parts of Mark, so at the very least it was later than Mark.

Here is another source that puts the earliest date for Luke at 85 CE:

Historical Context for Luke/John by Unknown | The Core Curriculum

"The Gospel According to Luke, written in roughly 85 C.E. (± five to ten years), most likely during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, is known in its earliest form from extensive papyri fragments dating to the early or middle of the third century."

Click to expand...

That doesn't wash. Luke would have surely noted the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Spartan said:

That doesn't wash. Luke would have surely noted the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Click to expand...

Correction, you mean "the author of Luke". Until you give some substantial evidence that it was Luke that alone is an invalid claim. And yes, the author of Luke probably did observe that. But he may not have felt that it was germane to his story. His story was about Jesus and the Acts of the apostles. You should be asking yourself why real scholars do not seem to agree with you.

Subduction Zone said:

Correction, you mean "the author of Luke". Until you give some substantial evidence that it was Luke that alone is an invalid claim. And yes, the author of Luke probably did observe that. But he may not have felt that it was germane to his story. His story was about Jesus and the Acts of the apostles. You should be asking yourself why real scholars do not seem to agree with you.

Click to expand...

There's more affirmations on Luke being the author than whoever you pick as your stud horse.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

Spartan said:

There's more affirmations on Luke being the author than whoever you pick as your stud horse.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

Click to expand...

Please, if all you have are apologist sites you might as well not bother. If your claims are correct you should be able to find articles written by actual scholars. There is peer review for this sort of work. Works based upon that is a minimum standard.

nPeace said:

Thank you.
It seems to me, from this, there are, and never has been any historian then... unless perhaps you can correct me by providing some solid facts, to the contrary.

Click to expand...

If you limit your statement little, I think I agree. I'd say something like 'there's no clear evidence that any historians existed before...'

Some sort of time limitation, with the likely period being 1600 or later.

I think some of the chroniclers from before then may have loosely hit the mark, but interference, narrative components,myth, propoganda and lack of rigour were all generally too impactful on texts in my opinion.

To be clear, that doesn't necessarily make the texts uninformative, and certainly not universally inaccurate.

nPeace said:

Which 'historian' meets those seven tenets?
Let's start with the first on this list - the father.
Herodotus (c. 484 BC – c. 425 BC) was an ancient Greek historian who was born in Halicarnassus in the Persian Empire (modern-day Bodrum, Turkey). He is known for having written the book The Histories, a detailed record of his "inquiry" (ἱστορία historía) on the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars. He is widely considered to have been the first writer to have treated historical subjects using a method of systematic investigation—specifically, by collecting his materials and then critically arranging them into an historiographic narrative. On account of this, he is often referred to as "The Father of History", a title first conferred on him by the first-century BC Roman orator Cicero.
Despite Herodotus's historical significance, little is known about his personal life. His Histories primarily deals with the lives of Croesus, Cyrus, Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius, and Xerxes and the battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Artemisium, Salamis, Plataea, and Mycale; however, his many cultural, ethnographical, geographical, historiographical, and other digressions form a defining and essential part of the Histories and contain a wealth of information. Herodotus has been criticized for the fact that his book includes a large number of obvious legends and fanciful accounts. Many authors, starting with the late fifth-century BC historian Thucydides, have accused him of making up stories for entertainment. Herodotus, however, states that he is merely reporting what he has been told. A sizable portion of the information he provides has since been confirmed by historians and archaeologists.

Click to expand...

Good example. And many would disagree with me, and categorise him a historian. I think he was a step forwards on the path to accurate historians.

nPeace said:

In his introduction to Hecataeus's work, Genealogies:
Hecataeus the Milesian speaks thus: I write these things as they seem true to me; for the stories told by the Greeks are various and in my opinion absurd.

This points forward to the "folksy" yet "international" outlook typical of Herodotus. However, one modern scholar has described the work of Hecataeus as "a curious false start to history", since despite his critical spirit, he failed to liberate history from myth. Herodotus mentions Hecataeus in his Histories, on one occasion mocking him for his naive genealogy and, on another occasion, quoting Athenian complaints against his handling of their national history. It is possible that Herodotus borrowed much material from Hecataeus, as stated by Porphyry in a quote recorded by Eusebius. In particular, it is possible that he copied descriptions of the crocodile, hippopotamus, and phoenix from Hecataeus's Circumnavigation of the Known World (Periegesis / Periodos ges), even misrepresenting the source as "Heliopolitans" (Histories 2.73).
...........

It is clear from the beginning of Book 1 of the Histories that Herodotus utilizes (or at least claims to utilize) various sources in his narrative.
...........

Click to expand...

It's also clear that those secondary sources could be repeating stories based on the same primary sources (eg. Local myths).
Tracing tales of Hercules/Heracles along Phoenician trade routes is an interesting exercise. There is a blending of the same primary story with localised variations. Does this then confirm the underlying story? Perhaps, but I think not. Neither does it disprove it, incidentally, although personally I'd attribute it as mythical.

nPeace said:

Please, could you explain why it is difficult, and what are some of the contributing factors.

Click to expand...

Time, and the accuracy of other sources, for the most part.
Imagine for a moment that Luke IS a careful and completely accurate historian.

It would still be difficult to know this is the case, unless there are OTHER careful and completely accurate historians, and we can see that they weren't working from the same primary source (only).

I also rate eye witness accounts related second or third hand quite lowly, but again, that's not unique to Luke.

Consider Albert of Aix (chronicler of the first crusade).
He was a step forwards from many peers. He interviewed returning crusaders systematically for information, though he was never present at the crusades himself.

One would therefore assume he cross-checked sources, and certainly much of what he wrote about can be verified, particularly in relation to people and places.

He also used poems as source material, and included things which appear clearly allegorical or mythical.

So, is his history useful and interesting? Yes. If we treat it too literally, though, we run the risk of putting our modern understanding of 'history' onto a document which does not meet that bar.

nPeace said:

Which makes me curious to know which 'historian' you would pull from the list I referred to, and consider a historian. Can you give me one, and show why that one gets a pass.
Take your time. No rush. You can have the entire month - no problem (not being sarcastic, but sincerely).

Click to expand...

Maybe none. I study history, but that's such a broad canvas it's hard to know too much. I'm unaware of one, put it that way.
I'd welcome anyone suggestions to that end though.

I'll do some hunting around of areas I'm less familiar with. I generally read more on classical history, plus some more focused areas (dictators, Irish history, Native American, Christianity).

nPeace said:

Oh? I was not aware that Belshazzar was considered mythical. From what source does this information come?

Click to expand...

It was one of the reasons the Cylinders of Nabonidus were so informative. It showed that a fact evidenced by the Bible, and commonly pooh-poohed, was actually accurate.

There are lots of examples, this isn't a great one, but it's a novelty for me to be able to quote these type of sources...lol

The time critics didn’t believe in Belshazzar

nPeace said:

What sources are you referring to? I was not referring to the sources concerning Belshazzar.
Is this why you mentioned Belshazzar as being mythical? Are you saying that the mention of Belshazzar in the Bible is mythical, whereas, the one mentioned in the chronicle is historical?

Click to expand...

No. I meant some people saw Belshazzar as mythical in the Bible due to a lack of corroborating evidence. The chronicles provided a cross reference which seems to confirm the Biblical reference.

nPeace said:

It appears so.
I thought I was being clear. Seems I am not sure how to be clearer. You'll have to view the video, and look again at the second point (#2). If you still don't get it, don't bother with it.

Click to expand...

Sorry, still haven't watched it...!!!

nPeace said:

Understood.
Perhaps the structure of the statements gave me a wrong impression.
However, it's not uncommon for religious people to put other religious people in a box, and especially is it not uncommon for this to be done by religious people with primary focus toward secular leanings, or even as scripture says, 'half baked' - Not saying this is the case with anyone in particular, but I have experienced this elsewhere, and it appears to be present on these boards.
My argument though is based on what come through to me. Since I can't read thoughts, the persons conveying their thoughts would be obliged to make their position clear. At least that what I think... placing myself in that position.

Click to expand...

I think clarity of position and the thought behind it is important. Also want to thank you for your efforts in this thread in doing that in our discussions. It keeps things interesting, instead of frustrating.

@nPeace

As promised, one more extract from Luke for your scrutiny.

Now, pretend that you have an all Christian Court, Christian Judge guiding an all Christian Jury. The Deists have all been thrown out of the building.

In the following extract Joseph and Mary have left Bethlehem, given sacrifice at the Temple etc, and are leaving........

Luke: {2:39} And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Now let's overlook Luke's description of Nazareth, that tiny hilltop community, ok? The question is, do you want to add any other information in to this account, anywhere, from any other source that you trust?

Are you happy with Luke's account that after the birth of Jesus they left Jerusalem and went to Nazareth?

Just talk to the all Christian Jury.....