There are too many specific details in the account to conclude that it was a false account.
Actually if you talk to a trial lawyer they will tell you that specific details from an eyewitness is no guarantee of accuracy - in fact, the opposite is often true. Someone who is lying will often make up details to try to make their account more credible by closely fitting with the circumstantial evidence - and it is exactly those specific details that a good trial lawyer will use to trip up the witness on cross examination.
You have to remember that these gospels were being circulated to the jews themselves to prove jesus Messiahship. Any untruths would have quickly been identified by the authorities and squashed.
You make a lot of assumptions about how the gospels were written that cannot be independently verified. And furthermore, most people in the 1st century were illiterate, there were no printing presses, no newspapers, no books or pamphlets - so to talk about the "gospels being circulated" in a form that "the authorities" could find and squash is rampant speculation at best.
Yes. Formal education was a luxury in the first century. Why do you think they needed scribes?
Are you really saying that because there were no newspapers or books or pamphlets most people were illiterate???
Not what I said but lack of print materials without a doubt does contribute to illiteracy. However my point was that lack of print venues made it difficult to distribute the gospels widely.
ancient nations invented the written word without books, newspapers and pamphlets...give them some credit.
It does not logically follow that the existence of the written word means most of the population is literate.
The apostles and early disciples were able to read and write, Jesus was reading aloud in the synagogues from a young age so I think you can safely conclude that most people could read and write in the first century.
How do you know that most of the apostles and disciples were able to read and write? Not at all clear that this is so. There is some evidence that Jesus may have been able to read and write, yes. But it does not follow that the general population could read and write just because Jesus could, or even the apostles/disciples.
Luke says that Jesus was 'about 30 years of age when he began his ministry'
please explain how this cannot mean 30 years of age... paulk says it could mean 28 or 33
"About 30" does not mean "exactly 30". If Luke had meant to be specific he would have said, "Jesus was 30 years of age when he began his ministry." It doesn't say that. You are pretending that it does. That isn't respecting the word, it is reading your bias into it. No respect is shown when you do that. The intellectual dishonesty is yours.
Sorry, you can't read it that way either. "About 30" means Luke did not know. Could have been less than 30, could have been more than 30, could have been exactly 30. Luke did not know and neither do you, no matter how much you wish it to be "30 plus up to 12 months."
For someone who claims to "respect the Word of God" you sure do read it just the way you wish it to be and not what is actually written there.