Shanno,

Surely you understand that science deals with the HOW of life and philosophy/theology can deal with the WHY of life?

In modern Western culture we like to separate the two, but in many other parts of the world and times in history this is not done. A friend of mine who worked as a doctor in remote PNG said that when people were sick they wouldn't ask "what medicine do I need to be better?" they would ask "who put a curse on me?" The doctor would respond by praying for them AND administering medical treatment. This was no contradiction in that culture; people saw physical ailments, as existing through physical means (the HOW), but by being caused by non-physical means (the WHY).

In our culture, we would scoff at that, but that doesn't make it any less right for the cultures who accept it.

Now Luke was a 1st century doctor, long before (mostly Christians brought about) the modern scientific method. We would expect him to have as much medical knowledge as a 1st century doctor would have but to also interpret physical events through spiritual perception, and of course to communicate it in such a way so that his readers would have understood.

So really this isn't a question of good/bad doctor, but of culture.

BTW, with JtheB: You do realise it is possible for foetuses to move in a womb don't you? I think from the 5th month onwards the mother can sense it. Is it so perplexing to you that he might have done so at the sound of somebody else's voice? I think JtheB was about 6 months in the womb by the time Jesus was conceived, yes? So its more than possible that he could have lept (the Bible says "for joy") at that age.

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

This is quite different to your (website’s) interpretation "only the ignorant and foolish will listen to Him". I don't see the word “only” in there. I think this verse is saying that those without preconceived ideas are the ones who will receive God's revelation, because they are not so caught up in their own man-made revelation. I could be wrong, but that's how I read it. This isn’t the only verse on Godly revelation though.

Dear Shanno... amazing :) first you kind of punch into the Bible for its lack of connection to history etc, then, when I demonstrate a very strong connection you blast that with a 105mm howitzer of "But story tellers often used real history as a framework for their stories" (paraphrase of your words)....

But you missed the crucial point. The High Priesthood of Annas AND Caiaphas. There is only ever ONE High priest, their could not be 2, but in this particular situation, there were specific reasons for Annas AND Caiaphas being regarded as High Priests, and those reasons would unlikely be known or even mentioned by some 'story teller' who simply wanted a few historical sticks to make a lean-to for his otherwise mythical story.

Pauls situation is not given sufficient weight by either you or my other 'enemy' :) Netab. Not only does Luke tell the account of Pauls conversion, but Paul ALSO backs this up in a number of places in his own separate writings.

In Pauls letters, I suppose his reference to:

9 Come to see me as soon as you can.
10 Demas loves the things of this world so much that he left me and went to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus has gone to Dalmatia.
11 Only Luke has stayed with me. Mark can be very helpful to me, so please find him and bring him with you.
12 I sent Tychicus to Ephesus.
13 When you come, bring the coat I left at Troas with Carpus. Don't forget to bring the scrolls, especially the ones made of leather. [b] 14 Alexander, the metalworker, has hurt me in many ways.


In 2 Tim 4 are just 'convenient sticks' to hang a story on ? :)

Come come..let us reason together. If this was a physical contest your argument would be lying on the mat and out for the count mate, such is the KO quality of these facts.

David, I'm not trying to deliberately miss your point but I honestly don't get it. There's no doubt that the authors of the gospels had a reasonable idea of the history of the so called Christ's days but that in itself does not prove the historicity of Christ. Wouldn't you think that a person who was strutting the stage performing miracles, getting crucified and rising from the dead would at least get some mention in the non biblical media of the day. No pictures, no personal letters, no contemporary writings - nothing, nothing, nothing!

You talk about a knockout punch as though this discussion were a fight. I'm not fighting - I simply seek the truth. If you can put forward verifiable facts I will gladly adopt your view on this issue. The fact that you adopt your view so steadfastly without any facts is the thing I find a little disturbing.

There were many writings by the time the Council of Nicea came around but only the authoritative ones were canonised as Biblical texts. So there was some mention of Him in non-biblical sources. Its possible political leaders of the day tried to silence a lot of mention of Him- He was crucified as a heretic and guilty of treason, afterall. I'm not sure how much direct influence He would have had on the Romans/Greeks/etc. seeing as the bulk of His ministry was to the Jews in Palestine. We do have some recordings from Josephus (hellenistic Jew) but we're not sure if some details were added later on.

I think the above post is a reasonable summary of the situation. However, I think that we would probably disagree on the criteria of 'authoritative'.

I would see Constantine's agenda for this meeting being one of the imperatives of state rather than the verification of the testaments for use.

I believe there is some very good reason why the collateral evidence has been in short supply. Firstly, Pilate was on nose with his boss the emperor Tiberius and would not want the attention that a insurrection in his area of responsibility would bring; he would have kept records at a minimum and made sure it was kept from Tiberius. Secondly, those records kept by the temple priests of their contact with Joshua were probably destroyed with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (I think) as would other records kept by private individuals.

There is a significant number of testament scholars who believe that the early testaments had access to the Q document which was probably a first hand account of Joshua's life and times; but which has since been lost.