risky on the part of luke the evangelist if he's talking about somebody that didn't exist then why make it so easy for people to figure that out i mean you know if a guy doesn't exist do you really want to give out his address and phone number i mean that just makes it easier uh for skeptics and well luke mentioning one possible time for jesus to be born is hardly enough information to really locate jesus or even determine that he didn't exist also another thing to consider is that the author of luke was writing about NUMBER_TOKEN years after jesus supposedly died vaguely knowing when jesus was born is nothing compared to what you would need to know in order to verify his birth in NUMBER_TOKEN ce i don't know why he makes it out to be like this is an exact location for jesus's birth in fact luke mentioning jesus's birth at this time is the exact time frame when nobody could verify the information for some reason new testament scholars act like it was easy to verify this kind of information at that point in time or that the early christians bothered to verify any historical information at all in galatians NUMBER_TOKEN paul completely segregates himself from any kind of historical sourcing he can hope to have and instead he clings on to his hallucinations and script he doesn't even care to historically verify his information with the other apostles he only cares that the gospel message matches the other apostles and what's the gospel message that jesus died and resurrected and absolved sins and you got to believe in him in order to get in heaven that was jesus's good word and the early church fathers just sort of read and believed the gospels they didn't care to historically investigate any of the claims in fact they cared more about the theological truth than the historical truth and by the way there were skeptics uh the early church was opposed uh sometimes violently in the first century and on into the second century and uh celsius was was uh a vicious critic of the early church uh and kelsey's writing in the middle of the second century he says oh jesus miracles aren't so impressive his teaching isn't that great uh blah blah blah but you know he never questions that jesus existed he in fact he doesn't even question that jesus performed miracles he just tries to explain them away so if can you imagine if he had a whiff that the the the historicity of jesus was doubtful he'd have gone nuts with that but there's not a hint yeah that that's a great point we'll have more evidence that we'll introduce celsius was opposed by origen the theologian and philologist during that early period of the church i don't exactly understand why we're bringing up celsius at this point because celsius was writing in the second century and he was going off the notion that jesus existed in history because nobody cared to verify whether or not this person was a historical figure or not it was just automatically assumed by the time that celsius
NO_SEGMENT_TOKEN