Luke the careful historian tells it like it is

[oldbadger]

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

The above sent to another member.

Yes. Sure. Luke was probably the producer of G-Mark, all be it copied from other sources, plus maybe a few extra anecdotes passed down by oral tradition.

But 'careful historian'?
....'Telling it as it is'?

The ancestry list is very odd, seeing that Joseph was an illiterate Galilean peasant in all probability. Of course, if Luke's ancestry list was on the distaff for Mary, I've often wondered whether Mary was in fact a Levite, but if so then she may well have been a temple virgin in a Zippori Greek temple, since many upper class folks were practising Hellenisms. Mary the Temple Virgin? Has a ring to it.

Luke's nativity is surely copied from Christian inertia, and Jesus never told us about any of it.

Luke was no historian, and didn't mind if his stories were wild.

 

[Spartan]

Luke's nativity is surely copied from Christian inertia, and Jesus never told us about any of it.

Evidence for that? I think Mary must have been a good source of facts surrounding the nativity.

Yes. Sure. Luke was probably the producer of G-Mark, all be it copied from other sources, plus maybe a few extra anecdotes passed down by oral tradition.

But 'careful historian'?

Luke was no historian, and didn't mind if his stories were wild.

"One of the greatest archaeologists of all time was Sir William Ramsay. He studied under the famous German historical schools in the mid-nineteenth century, which taught that the New Testament was a religious treatise written in the mid-200s AD, and not an historical document recorded in the first century. Ramsay was so convinced of this teaching that he entered the field of archaeology and went to Asia Minor to specifically find the physical evidence to refute Luke's biblical record. After years of field study, Ramsay completely reversed his entire view of the Bible and first century history. He wrote:

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians. 1

Luke's accuracy is demonstrated by the fact that he names key historical figures in the correct time sequence. He also uses the correct, and often obscure, government titles in various geographical areas, including the politarchs of Thessalonica, the temple wardens of Ephesus, the procouncil of Cyprus, and the "first man of the island" in Malta. In Luke's announcement of Jesus' public ministry, he mentions, "Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene". Scholars questioned Luke's credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a leader of Chalcis who ruled from 40-36 BC. However, an inscription dated to the time of Tiberius (14-37 AD) was found, which records a temple dedication naming Lysanius as the "tetrarch of Abila" (Abilene near Damascus). This matched Luke's account and stunned the liberal scholarship of the day. 2

In the Book of Acts, Paul was brought before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaea. Again, archaeology confirms this account. At Delphi, an inscription from Emperor Claudius was discovered that says, "Lucius Junios Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia . . ." Historians date the inscription to 52 AD, which supports the time of Paul's visit there in 51 AD. 3

Later in Acts, Erastus, a coworker of Paul, is appointed treasurer of Corinth. In 1928, archaeologists excavated a Corinthian theatre and discovered an inscription that reads, "Erastus in return for his aedilship laid the pavement at his own expense." The pavement was laid in 50 AD, and the term "aedile" refers to the designation of treasurer. 4

In another passage, Luke gives Plubius, the chief man on the island of Malta, the title, "first man of the island." Scholars questioned this strange title and deemed it unhistorical. Inscriptions have recently been discovered on the island that indeed give Plubius the title of "first man." 5

Elsewhere, Luke uses the Greek term "politarchs" ("rulers of the city") to refer to the leaders in Thessalonica. Although it sounds inconsequential, this was another hit against Luke's credibility for centuries, because no other Greek literature used this leadership term. However, approximately 20 inscriptions have now been discovered that bear the term "politarch," including five finds that specifically refer to the ancient leadership in Thessalonica. 6

As a final example, Saint Luke calls Iconium a city in Phyrigia. Who cares? Well, this was also a major rub against the credibility of Luke for centuries. Scholars, going all the way back to writings from historians like Cicero, maintained that Iconium was in Lycaonia, not Phyrigia. Therefore, scholars declared that the entire Book of Acts was unreliable. Guess what? In 1910, Ramsay was looking for the evidence to support this long-held claim against Luke and he uncovered a stone monument declaring that Iconium was indeed a city in Phyrigia. 7 Many archaeological discoveries since 1910 have confirmed this - Luke was right!

When reviewing the research and writings of Saint Luke, Famous historian A.N. Sherwin-White declares: "In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error. 8"

Luke the careful historian tells it like it is

Oldbadger, you're busted!

 

[oldbadger]

Evidence for that? I think Mary must have been a good source of facts surrounding the nativity.



"One of the greatest archaeologists of all time was Sir William Ramsay. He studied under the famous German historical schools in the mid-nineteenth century, which taught that the New Testament was a religious treatise written in the mid-200s AD, and not an historical document recorded in the first century. Ramsay was so convinced of this teaching that he entered the field of archaeology and went to Asia Minor to specifically find the physical evidence to refute Luke's biblical record. After years of field study, Ramsay completely reversed his entire view of the Bible and first century history. He wrote:

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians. 1

Luke's accuracy is demonstrated by the fact that he names key historical figures in the correct time sequence. He also uses the correct, and often obscure, government titles in various geographical areas, including the politarchs of Thessalonica, the temple wardens of Ephesus, the procouncil of Cyprus, and the "first man of the island" in Malta. In Luke's announcement of Jesus' public ministry, he mentions, "Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene". Scholars questioned Luke's credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a leader of Chalcis who ruled from 40-36 BC. However, an inscription dated to the time of Tiberius (14-37 AD) was found, which records a temple dedication naming Lysanius as the "tetrarch of Abila" (Abilene near Damascus). This matched Luke's account and stunned the liberal scholarship of the day. 2

In the Book of Acts, Paul was brought before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaea. Again, archaeology confirms this account. At Delphi, an inscription from Emperor Claudius was discovered that says, "Lucius Junios Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia . . ." Historians date the inscription to 52 AD, which supports the time of Paul's visit there in 51 AD. 3

Later in Acts, Erastus, a coworker of Paul, is appointed treasurer of Corinth. In 1928, archaeologists excavated a Corinthian theatre and discovered an inscription that reads, "Erastus in return for his aedilship laid the pavement at his own expense." The pavement was laid in 50 AD, and the term "aedile" refers to the designation of treasurer. 4

In another passage, Luke gives Plubius, the chief man on the island of Malta, the title, "first man of the island." Scholars questioned this strange title and deemed it unhistorical. Inscriptions have recently been discovered on the island that indeed give Plubius the title of "first man." 5

Elsewhere, Luke uses the Greek term "politarchs" ("rulers of the city") to refer to the leaders in Thessalonica. Although it sounds inconsequential, this was another hit against Luke's credibility for centuries, because no other Greek literature used this leadership term. However, approximately 20 inscriptions have now been discovered that bear the term "politarch," including five finds that specifically refer to the ancient leadership in Thessalonica. 6

As a final example, Saint Luke calls Iconium a city in Phyrigia. Who cares? Well, this was also a major rub against the credibility of Luke for centuries. Scholars, going all the way back to writings from historians like Cicero, maintained that Iconium was in Lycaonia, not Phyrigia. Therefore, scholars declared that the entire Book of Acts was unreliable. Guess what? In 1910, Ramsay was looking for the evidence to support this long-held claim against Luke and he uncovered a stone monument declaring that Iconium was indeed a city in Phyrigia. 7 Many archaeological discoveries since 1910 have confirmed this - Luke was right!

When reviewing the research and writings of Saint Luke, Famous historian A.N. Sherwin-White declares: "In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error. 8"

Luke the careful historian tells it like it is

Oldbadger, you're busted!

And what has any of that got to do with the Gospel of Luke?

Luke wrote that once Jesus was born, and visits to the Temple completed, that Joseph, Mary and child returned to Nazareth.

Are you comfortable with this report?

 

[oldbadger]

Luke the careful historian tells it like it is

Oldbadger, you're busted!

You never did study the article, or you would have noted on pages 34-35 the following:-

Ramsay never submitted the Gospel of Luke to the same thorough study that he did Acts. However, he cannot be criticized too harshly for this because this was really outside the realm of
[p.35]
his qualifications. He was an expert in Graeco-Roman studies and had little acquaintance with Palestinian and Semitic studies.

My interest is in G-Luke, and although it offers valuable additional info to the Jesus story its early writings and nativity are not of value to the student of historic Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence for that? I think Mary must have been a good source of facts surrounding the nativity.



"One of the greatest archaeologists of all time was Sir William Ramsay. He studied under the famous German historical schools in the mid-nineteenth century, which taught that the New Testament was a religious treatise written in the mid-200s AD, and not an historical document recorded in the first century. Ramsay was so convinced of this teaching that he entered the field of archaeology and went to Asia Minor to specifically find the physical evidence to refute Luke's biblical record. After years of field study, Ramsay completely reversed his entire view of the Bible and first century history. He wrote:

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians. 1

Luke's accuracy is demonstrated by the fact that he names key historical figures in the correct time sequence. He also uses the correct, and often obscure, government titles in various geographical areas, including the politarchs of Thessalonica, the temple wardens of Ephesus, the procouncil of Cyprus, and the "first man of the island" in Malta. In Luke's announcement of Jesus' public ministry, he mentions, "Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene". Scholars questioned Luke's credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a leader of Chalcis who ruled from 40-36 BC. However, an inscription dated to the time of Tiberius (14-37 AD) was found, which records a temple dedication naming Lysanius as the "tetrarch of Abila" (Abilene near Damascus). This matched Luke's account and stunned the liberal scholarship of the day. 2

In the Book of Acts, Paul was brought before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaea. Again, archaeology confirms this account. At Delphi, an inscription from Emperor Claudius was discovered that says, "Lucius Junios Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia . . ." Historians date the inscription to 52 AD, which supports the time of Paul's visit there in 51 AD. 3

Later in Acts, Erastus, a coworker of Paul, is appointed treasurer of Corinth. In 1928, archaeologists excavated a Corinthian theatre and discovered an inscription that reads, "Erastus in return for his aedilship laid the pavement at his own expense." The pavement was laid in 50 AD, and the term "aedile" refers to the designation of treasurer. 4

In another passage, Luke gives Plubius, the chief man on the island of Malta, the title, "first man of the island." Scholars questioned this strange title and deemed it unhistorical. Inscriptions have recently been discovered on the island that indeed give Plubius the title of "first man." 5

Elsewhere, Luke uses the Greek term "politarchs" ("rulers of the city") to refer to the leaders in Thessalonica. Although it sounds inconsequential, this was another hit against Luke's credibility for centuries, because no other Greek literature used this leadership term. However, approximately 20 inscriptions have now been discovered that bear the term "politarch," including five finds that specifically refer to the ancient leadership in Thessalonica. 6

As a final example, Saint Luke calls Iconium a city in Phyrigia. Who cares? Well, this was also a major rub against the credibility of Luke for centuries. Scholars, going all the way back to writings from historians like Cicero, maintained that Iconium was in Lycaonia, not Phyrigia. Therefore, scholars declared that the entire Book of Acts was unreliable. Guess what? In 1910, Ramsay was looking for the evidence to support this long-held claim against Luke and he uncovered a stone monument declaring that Iconium was indeed a city in Phyrigia. 7 Many archaeological discoveries since 1910 have confirmed this - Luke was right!

When reviewing the research and writings of Saint Luke, Famous historian A.N. Sherwin-White declares: "In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error. 8"

Luke the careful historian tells it like it is

Oldbadger, you're busted!

You are still conflating an accurate geographer with an accurate historian. The failure of the author of Luke in regards to the nativity tells us that he got some very important historical facts wrong, or he disagrees with Matthew on the date of Christi's birth. The census story fails on almost every level, and it tells us when the author of Luke thought that he was born, in the year 6 CE.

I see that you are still having trouble finding reliable sources.

 

[lukethethird]

Luke the careful historian tells it like it is
The gospel Jesus is a supernatural entity, good luck finding him a place in history. What it is here is people somehow conflating history with theology.

 

[nPeace]

You think that witnesses popped off for a moment and missed key words?
Now that's faith for you. the

I didn't say that, now did I? You didn't read that either, did you?

It's just that Mark wrote more accurate truth, even taking the Christian editing and additions in to account.

It's not a case of one being more accurate than the other.
Both are accurate, and corroborated each other.
Take for example, the accounts you referred to.
Mark said, "With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last." (Mark 15:37)
Anyone can be left uncertain to what that means. Did he cry out in pain - Arggggggggggggggggg? Did he cuss and scream? It's anyone's guess.
However, Luke fills in those details. So that a good detective can piece together, each account, and get an accurate picture. 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.
That makes perfect sense - I could actually picture Jesus, knowing the spirit was leaving him, with the remaining strength left in him, straining to utter those words - I commend my spirit - his last breath leaving him.
A movie producer could write that script, and it would be viewed as realistic.

Of note, is the fact that Luke's account harmonizes perfectly with Matthew's. Both says, he crid out with a loud voice. Luke says what he cried out.

You sure are clinging to something. An agenda?

Me? Consider that compared to the one finger you are pointing, the three pointing at you appears to be accurate. I have no agenda. The evidence is here speaking for itself. Your arguments however, seem like sand falling through a sack full of holes... and no little holes either.

Luke was no accurate historian.
I will offer more tomorrow.


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.

You call this personal?
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 am stating how it seems to me, based on what you are saying.
I see no list of obvious errors. I see someone grabbing at straws and catching nothing but air... while carrying an empty sack full of holes, that left a trail of sand a mile behind. Is that personal. Then

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.

I think it's about time people got off the Quirinius debate. It's ... boring.

The Date of the Census of Quirinius and the Chronology of the Governors of the Province of Syria on JSTOR
[GALLERY=media, 8617]Clip by nPeace posted Aug 9, 2018 at 10:25 AM[/GALLERY]

Luke 2:1 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.

Of course the message reached the inhabited earth, by whatever means. So all Roman citizen traveling or displaced, heard.

@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.....

For sure... it's the last one.
The question is, do you want to add any other information in to this account, anywhere, from any other source that you trust?
Is that rhetorical, or do you want an answer?
Why add to four corroborated accounts, to distort it with misguided opinions?

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

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

 

[nPeace]

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.



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.




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.



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.




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).




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



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.



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





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.

Because someone said or wrote something doesn't make it true, we agree, but that can be said of anyone. However, it doesn't mean it's not true either.

Thanks... and thanks for the dialogue.

 

[oldbadger]

For sure... it's the last one.
The question is, do you want to add any other information in to this account, anywhere, from any other source that you trust?
Is that rhetorical, or do you want an answer?
Why add to four corroborated accounts, to distort it with misguided opinions?

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

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

Ahhh........ you never told me what the Christian Jury decided.

And so all of Matthew's story about nasty Herod, the flight to Egypt, the return, and nasty Archelaus...... that's all just rubbish?

And if it truly is a part of the story, how can you tell me that Luke was an accurate historian?

 

[oldbadger]

I
It's not a case of one being more accurate than the other.
Both are accurate, and corroborated each other..

You don't know what corroboration is, it seems.

Corroboration is evidence that holds up other testimony, and G-Mark does nothing to hold up Luke's dreamed up account of the crucifixion.

 

[oldbadger]

Me? Consider that compared to the one finger you are pointing, the three pointing at you appears to be accurate. I have no agenda. The evidence is here speaking for itself. Your arguments however, seem like sand falling through a sack full of holes... and no little holes either.

Wow! I never did hear that rhetoric before.

You call this personal?
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 like witness statements first. Luke had none at all in his entire gospel. I think that Mark witnessed some of his statement.

I don't mind hearsay reports for historical consideration, but they need proper corroboration, not your kind....

I like objective agenda-free research, and I don't think that you would be a good investigator in this subject matter.

 

[oldbadger]

Luke the careful historian tells it like it is
The gospel Jesus is a supernatural entity, good luck finding him a place in history. What it is here is people somehow conflating history with theology.

So you think that the Jesus story is not historical?
Just myth?

There was a Jesus, and he picked up and carried the Baptist's mission after the arrest. But that mission was all about ending Temple and priesthood corruption. Why else would they have been redeeming sins and cleansing thousands of folks in the Jordan for nothing? Temple takings must have crashed, hence the arrest of the Baptist.

If you think that all theology is myth then I wonder what you think that huge ruin in Jerusalem was, originally? An alien space-port?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you think that the Jesus story is not historical?
Just myth?

There was a Jesus, and he picked up and carried the Baptist's mission after the arrest. But that mission was all about ending Temple and priesthood corruption. Why else would they have been redeeming sins and cleansing thousands of folks in the Jordan for nothing? Temple takings must have crashed, hence the arrest of the Baptist.

If you think that all theology is myth then I wonder what you think that huge ruin in Jerusalem was, originally? An alien space-port?

Yes, it is likely that the Jesus story is a mixture of myth and history. My favorite analogy is the historical Abraham Lincoln and Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. The fact that the second one is mythical does not mean that the first one was too.

 

[lukethethird]

So you think that the Jesus story is not historical?
Just myth?

There was a Jesus, and he picked up and carried the Baptist's mission after the arrest. But that mission was all about ending Temple and priesthood corruption. Why else would they have been redeeming sins and cleansing thousands of folks in the Jordan for nothing? Temple takings must have crashed, hence the arrest of the Baptist.

If you think that all theology is myth then I wonder what you think that huge ruin in Jerusalem was, originally? An alien space-port?

So you believe.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, it is likely that the Jesus story is a mixture of myth and history. My favorite analogy is the historical Abraham Lincoln and Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. The fact that the second one is mythical does not mean that the first one was too.

OK.
The real Jesus story seems to have been a failure. The Baptist did better, but he did not last long.

It was all about money and Temple-priesthood takings. Imo.

Same thing would happen today if some bloke figured out a way for thousands to avoid paying their taxes at public meetings. He would have a car crash, or something

 

[oldbadger]

So you believe.

Hang on......!
Do you think that the laws in Leviticus were just mythical?

That would be a real laugh.

One of those laws forbids creditors from snatching a debtor's tools of trade. That law applies today where I live, but you think that the bloke who wrote that wrote junk?

Get real.

 

[Spartan]

OK.
The real Jesus story seems to have been a failure.

Not in a million years. You'll need much better arguments to get there, and that's not possible because it's true.

 

[nPeace]

Ahhh........ you never told me what the Christian Jury decided.

And so all of Matthew's story about nasty Herod, the flight to Egypt, the return, and nasty Archelaus...... that's all just rubbish?

And if it truly is a part of the story, how can you tell me that Luke was an accurate historian?

I'm quite surprised, but I guess the world is full of surprises.
Have you not spoken to Jehovah's Witnesses before. Visit their official website if you haven't... The jury is unanimous.

You don't know what corroboration is, it seems.

Corroboration is evidence that holds up other testimony, and G-Mark does nothing to hold up Luke's dreamed up account of the crucifixion.

Oh. Let me find out then. Thank God for dictionaries.
corroborate
verb

1. confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).

Oh my. I must be getting too old for this this.

Wow! I never did hear that rhetoric before.



I like witness statements first. Luke had none at all in his entire gospel. I think that Mark witnessed some of his statement.

I don't mind hearsay reports for historical consideration, but they need proper corroboration, not your kind....

I like objective agenda-free research, and I don't think that you would be a good investigator in this subject matter.

This is a detective... more than ten years.

I'm sure thousands - actually millions of people don't think you really are looking for objective agenda-free.research. To me, this thread bears that out.

How many murders have you investigated... ans solved?

 

[oldbadger]

Not in a million years. You'll need much better arguments to get there, and that's not possible because it's true.

So you feel certain, about Jesus?

 

[oldbadger]

I'm quite surprised, but I guess the world is full of surprises.
Have you not spoken to Jehovah's Witnesses before. Visit their official website if you haven't... The jury is unanimous.


Oh. Let me find out then. Thank God for dictionaries.
corroborate
verb

1. confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).

Oh my. I must be getting too old for this this.


This is a detective... more than ten years.

I'm sure thousands - actually millions of people don't think you really are looking for objective agenda-free.research. To me, this thread bears that out.

How many murders have you investigated... ans solved?

How about you? What do or did you do for work?

And do you feel that the Christian message is certain?