So you argue that such a momentous event was ignored or overlooked by reputable historians and writers extent at the time, only to be written about by essentially nobodies?
I notice you have a habit of calling other arguments circular, when your arguments are themselves circular.The standard chronology is circular to other late dating errors. For 1 and 2, you are simply making a fiat claim.
If such an early date for these texts is self evident then why do we not get any concrete mention of them or Christians until a hundred years later?
Every date for his death I have seen at 41 ad, with one exception that has it at 43 ad.He was no longer high priest after 41 AD, and lived into the 60s. His son (or maybe nephew, I could check) was high priest in the later period.
No, it is consistent with when Luke comes into history. Even with the standard model of Gospel dates, Luke is the very last Gospel named. Papias doesn't know of him; Justin doesn't know of it; Polycarp doesn't know of it. But lo and behold, Irenaeus names it.This is circular to late dating unbeliever paradigms that Luke was simply a liar/forger in the late 2nd century.
Indeed. Such as Codex Sinaiticus being a forgery. But no one is stupid enough to think that.As you can see above, in that paradigm you can come up with all sorts of competitive theories.
Hollow rhetoric signifying nothing.However, the high priest Theophilus fits superbly with the events of 30-45 AD and Luke's excellent knowledge of the Temple. Plus, he may well have been one of the great company of priests who came to faith in Jesus in Acts 6.
You're a putz.