Perhaps like the above, it all depends on the biases of either side.
It really doesn't.
Non-Christian historians have no reason or motive to ignore Luke,
if he is in fact a first class historian.
So if he is, we should see lots of non-Christians saying so.
Unless you have a persecution complex, and believe that all non-Christians are
anti-Christians, who would ignore Luke
regardless of how "first class" he is as an historian.
You seem to be making that mistaken assumption - that historians are in one of two camps, one of Christians, and one opposed to anything that might support a Christian position.
But the reality is that most historians are in a third camp - they couldn't care less about Christianity; Their sole focus is determining what events actually occurred in history, and what events are make-believe, tall-tales, inaccurate recountings, or just generally muddled and incomplete.
You claimed (or worse, passed on unquestioningly someone else's claim) that an atheist had lauded Like as a first class historian. That would be more impressive if it had been more than one historian; And if it had actually been an atheist, it would also have been more persuasive. As it turns out, it's a manipulative untruth.
So you have been demonstrated to have been disseminating at best inaccurate, and at worst outright false, claims. But rather than admit your error, you instead engaged in a false dichotomy fallacy - or perhaps just a persecution complex.
Your case was FAR stronger before you posted it, and gets weaker with every response you post.
You are coming across as someone who was so absolutely convinced by a terrible argument made by someone else, that you posted it here, expecting it to be a slam-dunk; And when called on it, you had insufficient understanding of the subject to defend the claim in any way.
Why, given this, would you expect anyone to take you seriously? Why do you continue to take your (demonstrably unreliable) sources seriously? They keep dropping you in it - telling you stuff that only the gullible would believe, and thereby setting you up to once again look a fool when you parrot their nonsense.
You seriously need to reconsider your choices of who to trust.
Unless, of course, you are in fact an anti-Christian
agent-provocateur, who is here trying to make Christians look foolish. In which case, well done, you are an absolute master of your craft.
