> Why do you presume this?

Luke 1.1-4: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

> How do you know that the author of Luke is the same person mentioned by Paul?

1. The writing styles and vocabulary of Luke and Acts are similar enough to be attributable to the same author.
2. The early church Fathers and historians unanimously attributed the writings of both to the man who travelled with Paul.
3. While he excludes himself as a witness to the life and events of Jesus, repeatedly through Acts the author uses the 1st person plural pronoun "we".

What evidence do you have that he wasn't? I mean, let's talk.

> Luke was not an eyewitness to the events of Acts 2, so we presume he interviewed people

Why do you presume this?

> We know that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul's

How do you know that the author of Luke is the same person mentioned by Paul?

> All this according to the devout followers of Jesus who were not there, had no access to witnesses, and were writing decades after the fact

This shows a minimalist bias on your behalf. You judge the gospel accounts as guilty until proven innocent, which is discriminatory.

1. The Gospel accounts say that one of the disciples, most likely John himself, was allowed into the temple courts during the trial. (Jn. 18.15). Eyewitness.

2. The Gospels say Peter was also in the vicinity, but outside the door (Jn. 18.16), though he still had at least occasional eye-contact with Jesus (Lk. 23.61). It's possible he was within earshot.

3. Nicodemus was on the Sanhedrin (Jn. 3.1), and was most likely in the room during the proceedings. Nicodemus was at least sympathetic to the cause (Jn.7.50-51; 19.39). Very likely eyewitness.

> If you assume their accounts are accurate

You are assuming (without evidence, I might add) that their accounts are inaccurate. The reliability of the gospels with regard to history, culture, language, and geography has been established. Since you can no more prove the miracle parts didn't happen than I can prove they did, the evidence stands in favor of the reliability of the accounts.

> We can only be confident of this if we accept the gospel stories are accurate representations of history, which they are most likely not.

Again, you're making an assumption for which you have little evidence. The reliability of the gospels with regard to history, culture, language, and geography has been established.

> Jesus' trial was witnessed by crowds, and his crucifixion by many. Everyone in the city seemed to know about this

All this according to the devout followers of Jesus who were not there, had no access to witnesses, and were writing decades after the fact. If you assume their accounts are accurate, then it's pointless to go through the logic of the tomb must have been empty, everyone would have checked, his trial was witnessed, etc. All of these points are based on the same sources that say Jesus walked on water, his mother was a virgin, the dead rose from their graves, etc.

> We can be confident that if some simple evidence was available to quash the claim of the resurrection, it would have been brought forth with speed and power.

We can only be confident of this if we accept the gospel stories are accurate representations of history, which they are most likely not. But my point is that if we accept the gospel stories are history then it doesn't matter whether anyone cared to bring any evidence against the resurrection claim. The book you are accepting as history explicitly says there was a resurrection, end of story.

> I don't doubt that Jesus existed and was crucified for inspiring a rebellion.

You're right. Jesus' crucifixion is a reliable historical given. I wasn't trying to "get...much" with it, but only establish the notoriety and familiarity of the man and the event in Jerusalem that weekend.

> Jesus' trial... "only attested by the bible."

You're right of course. Tacitus mentions Jesus' trial before Pilate, as does Josephus. Wikipedia, on "Pilate's Court", write: "Critical historians are mixed in their assessment of the historicity of the trial of Jesus. In favor of the historicity are scholars such as N.T. Wright and Michael Licona. Opposed to the historicity of the trial are scholars such as John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman."

> Barabbas

John Howard Yoder writes, "Interpreters disagree whether there really existed a settled custom, as this account infers, of releasing a condemned person in the Passover season, and whether Pilate’s appeal to it should be understood as a sincere effort to save an innocent man, or else to avoid releasing the more dangerous Barabbas." You're right that no outside source has been found to corroborate this event.

> The resurrection and its details are only attested by the bible.

You're right, but that doesn't prove it's made up or non-historical. New finds are occurring every day.

> the practice at the time was for victims of crucifixion to be buried anonymously.

You're right again, but this isn't the whole story. While such permission to bury a body of those executed for sedition was rarely given, there were examples where such was granted. Ulpian, a Roman jurist of the 3rd century, says: "The bodies of those who are capitally punished cannot be denied to their relatives. At this day, however, the bodies of those who are executed are buried only in case permission is asked and granted; and sometimes permission is not given, especially in the cases of those who are punished for high treason. The bodies of the executed are to be given for burial to any one who asks for them." The Bible says that Joseph didn't just take it upon himself to take the body of Jesus for burial, but made it an issue of legality and public accountability. And the Bible says that people were aware of that, and witnessed the burial in the tomb.

> So I don't think anybody was capable of checking the tomb.

People were capable of checking the tomb. Joseph had procured the body legally (through Pilate), and the tomb was not on private property (as far as anyone knows). The women were coming there early in the morning to finish preparing the body, so there's no reason to think the location (or existence) of the tomb was either secret or not capable of being checked.

> Who says that the jesus cult was an immediate problem for the authorities? The gospels weren't written for several decades, at least.

The story of the resurrection began spreading almost instantly. There is a creed recorded by Paul in 1 Cor. 15.3-6 that historians agree goes back so close to the event itself that its testimony is indisputable. Scholars across the spectrum acknowledge the authenticity and earliness of the belief and teaching of the resurrection. Scholars say the LATEST date for the creed is 35 AD, but since the creed would have been formulated before Paul wrote it, it is most reliably placed earlier. Even the radical and skeptical Jesus Seminar dates it no later than AD 33.

> As far as the resurrection ....

I don't doubt that Jesus existed and was crucified for inspiring a rebellion. That doesn't get you much.

> Jesus' trial was witnessed by crowds, and his crucifixion by many

Only attested by the bible. In addition, the books of the bible describe his crucifixion very differently. Who was supposed to have been standing around listening to Jesus's last words? Why did every gospel record them differently?

The trial may have happened similar to how the bible describes it, although the part about Pilate agreeing to release Barabbas is kind of absurd. The crucifixion may have occurred. But that doesn't get you much.

> When the resurrection allegedly happened, you can't tell me that no one bothered to check the tomb to verify anything

The resurrection and its details are only attested by the bible. In addition, the practice at the time was for victims of crucifixion to be buried anonymously. So I don't think anybody was capable of checking the tomb. Who says that the jesus cult was an immediate problem for the authorities? The gospels weren't written for several decades, at least.

Your entire position is "but the bible claims otherwise".

> your specious reasoning rings hollow

So does yours. ?!? My reasoning may be specious, but you still haven't done anything but say "nuh uh, the resurrection must have been real, because of what the bible says".

Wikipedia writes: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_E ... _historian)

"There is some disagreement about how best to treat Luke's writings, with some historians regarding Luke as highly accurate, and others taking a more critical approach.

Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... [he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."[17] Professor of Classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record... it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."[18] New Testament scholar Colin Hemer has made a number of advancements in understanding the historical nature and accuracy of Luke's writings.[19]"

Luke was not an eyewitness to the events of Acts 2, so we presume he interviewed people, Peter being the most likely person. We know that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul's, and we know that Paul and Peter knew each other and had more than one conversation, so Luke having spoken to the guy in charge that day is not out of the question.

> Since Luke has been proven to be an accurate historian there is little reason to doubt the factualness of his report

The author of Luke has proven himself to be an inaccurate historian on several occasions if you go by normal standards for historical writing. Probably the least controversial way to prove this is that he copies word for word from other texts without citing his source or even acknowledging where he got the information. This combined with numerous historically dubious passages, passages containing events the author of Luke could not have known about, the lack of any known connection to witnesses of the events he describes all lead me to conclude that his writings are not historically reliable. This becomes especially obvious when you look at the bigger picture that he appears to be a devout Christian and has every reason to include the stories he believes to be true (because of his religious faith) as though they were actual historical events.

Consider what the historical value would be if we found a text written by one of Joseph Smith's devout followers that contained stories about all the great things Smith did and the miracles he performed. And the text was written decades after Smith's death by an anonymous author who was copying from an earlier un-cited anonymous work. Even if you could confirm that the book made many references to actual historical events, you would not accept anything this book says as history without further evidence. Especially where this book seems to contradict logic.

So to imagine that Peter was actually speaking to crowds of thousands who all heard his voice and converted immediately, and then someone counted the numbers of people converted, and then they remembered this number and accurately passed it down from person to person until the author of Luke hears it decades later and writes it down, it is an unlikely scenario. There are no verifiable instances of people being converted in such a scenario and it seems like an extremely difficult thing to do. On the other hand, it seems totally plausible that a devout believer would have imagined his heroes converting people by the thousands. We know devout believers of all religions have made up stories to fit their expectations. This happens all the time. So it seems more likely that the mass conversions described by the author of Luke wasn't something that actually happened.

Thomas Finn, in a book called "The Early Christian World,"...

(http://home.lu.lv/~harijs/Macibu%20mate ... roniski%20)/Early%20Christianity/The%20Early%20Christian%20World.%20Vol.%201-2.%202002.pdf) pp. 295-298

...examines the numbers given in Acts 2.41 et al. He tracks the growth of early Christianity from Pentecost to Constantine, claiming that "the figures correlate well with the few facts that ancient literature and archaeological remains have turned out." But he admits that some of the figures are "projections based on what is known about the empire's cities." He says that by the end of the 1st century (granted, that's 60 years later), there are about 1400 Christians in the city of Rome (out of a population of 650,000). By the end of the 1st century, records show churches in 42 cities of the empire. There are no possible means by which to verify the figures given in Acts for the growth claimed. Since Luke has been proven to be an accurate historian, there is little reason to doubt the factualness of his report. It IS known that Christianity spread rapidly and well, so the figures make sense, but there's no extrabibilical source to corroborate them.

You think there were thousands of Christians in Jerusalem 2 months after Jesus was crucified? How did you come to this conclusion?