If the text isn’t presented like a fiction but as a chronicle of past events, we have no reason to accept it as true? Fine, doing so we have to delete the majority of ancient writers’ stories!
Which, when the stories contradict experience, evidence, or common sense, we do. Do you think the Iliad is true? Do you think the Oddyssey is true? Do you think any of the Greek/Roman gods stories are true? How about the creation stories of the Hindu faith? How about the creation stories of the Australian aborigines? How about the creation stories of the various American Indians?
{qsWe are discuss on Luke’s text. Luke presents his account as historical one, not fiction. His manner to cling his accounts to synchronistic data about men in power of his age shows that his story isn’t a fable or an allegory, but is a chronicle.[/qs]
There is no indefiniteness here as to time or place, but Luke names no less than seven public officials so that we can establish the time of the beginning of John’s ministry and that of Jesus.
He also had an agenda. We can't just accept, at face value, everything Luke says. He had a vested interest in convincing others of his story. It would have been incompetency in the utmost for him to make a story that misuses famous people that any aware person would have been aware of. If my aim is to prove the existence of a person, would it not behoove me to work in as much established fact as I could get my hands on?
As I stated before, when we have no corroboration, we are left with more tentativity than if we have some. One source, written with an obvious bias, does not convince me of it's TRUTH, regardless of when or where it was written.
™ Version 4.2
