And again I tell you that Luke never claimed that all Roman subjects had to leave their homes and register. You asked me then why "everyone" did it, and I replied with a reference from Strong's exhaustive concordance indicating that "all" can and often is used in the N.T. as denoting members of a particular class. I did not actually state this explicitly, however, because I wanted to leave it to you to note it for yourself. I thought you had explicitly agreed with me that the text does not state that all Roman subjects had to leave their homes and register, so I have to confess that I am completely mystified as to why you state it again here .
The claim of an Augustinian registration is neither supernatural or extraordinary. I have simply asked for demonstrative (not mere conjecture or speculation, as fine as those might be) evidence that would tend to controvert even a single historical claim of Luke. In light of the complete absence of such data I see no reason to adopt the position that an historical reference from someone who has been proven time and time again to be correct about such details should be presumed false in the absence of present independent confirmation of one or two anachronistically particular evidential requirements. I see no valid principle of historical interpretation that would not allow such a document the benefit of the doubt about such details.
Please note that a plethora of historical facts does not make something non-fiction. For example, Tom Clancy writes very detailed fiction, with more historical and technical details than any other modern fiction writer. Almost all of the places in his books are real; most of the technical details of military and political activities are accurate, as well. However, that does not make Jack Ryan the *real* President of the United States.
Duly noted, and true enough, as far as it goes. You have correctly acknowledged that Luke wrote with many accurate details. Yet to interpret Luke's writing in light of, or as comparable to the modern fiction genre of a Tom Clancey is historically anachronistic and improper. I agree with you that our controversy hinges on a standard of evidence, and thus I am compelled to ask you again for the authority behind your proposition that presumption of doubt about historical details is required in the historical evaluation of a document by an author who has been proven correct about such mundane details time and time again.
I also agree with you that that attention to detail and the inclusion of factual places, politicians, and events does not necessarily make the whole of some writing non-fiction. Yet, if you have clear and convincing demonstrative evidence that would tend to controvert Luke about such details even once, you will have me over a barrel:^)
Cordially,