Uhh no. Maybe when considering the locations of cities and such fine. Points such as they relate to theological aspects are the ones in question, not anything else. Read my post again.

That's why i said, Quote: "When it comes to the HISTORICAL points." I've stated several times that it's the historical points i'm using to back up my debate, not the theological ones. Reread MY posts.

Once again, i'll cite this refference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_th...s_an_historian

How does one divide exactly what is historical and what is theological? Ever read a fictional story based on true events?

The events that can be proven historically, such as the Crusifixion and persecution of Jesus, would be considered historical. The miracles and such that require faith would be considered Theological.

Reread it. All the Historians and Archaeologists supporting Luke as sourced in that article are noted Apologists. Possible conflict of interest?


Which historical points in particular? Number of people at Palm Sunday, number of people at execution, what? I still don't see how a sudden attitude-change is all that relevant as to whether or not the theory holds any water.


That the only possible explanation was that God heartened their hearts = must have been God?


Ugh.



I'll address this anyway again, despite everything. Set-up. Mob-mentality. Individual is smart, mob is stupid. How do you know whether the same people at the Palm Sunday were the same at the square? How does anyone know whether they were seeded or not? I'd consider any other explanations first rather than just saying God hardened their hearts.


Because our degrees in psychology/sociology and human nature tell us so? Be careful about making categorical propositions.


Edit: I would also read the article's Talk Page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Luke_the_Evangelist