Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?

[37818]

Pliny's account of the eruption of Vesuvius.

Yeah, Of the event in 79 CE.

[Roy]

Yeah, Of the event in 79 CE.

Your point?

[37818]

Your point?

An important document in history. But not more ancient than the Hebrew Bible nor most of the New Testament except John who is generally believed to have written his writings after 70CE.

The Jewish temple was destroyed in 70CE.

[Roy]

An important document in history. But not more ancient than the Hebrew Bible nor most of the New Testament except John who is generally believed to have written his writings after 70CE.

The Jewish temple was destroyed in 70CE.

I see. Your 'point' is that Pliny's text cannot qualify as a more accurate historical document than Luke because Luke was written about a decade earlier. Or, more succinctly, before 70CE is ancient but after 70CE is not.

[37818]

I see. Your 'point' is that Pliny's text cannot qualify as a more accurate historical document than Luke because Luke was written about a decade earlier. Or, more succinctly, before 70CE is ancient but after 70CE is not.

I have not checked, but is Pliny's text with variants and translation available? How many known copies are there?

I just checked: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...F-wIkHNp-Qzm3J

[Doug Shaver]

How many known copies are there?

If it's credible, one is all we need. If it's not credible, a thousand copies won't make it credible.

[Tassman]

An important document in history. But not more ancient than the Hebrew Bible nor most of the New Testament except John who is generally believed to have written his writings after 70CE.

The Jewish temple was destroyed in 70CE.

[37818]

Name one such scholar who is a born again Christian?
Bible scholars do hold that gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke were written before 70 AD. Matthew is regarded as one of the disciples making him an eyewitness. Luke knew Paul, and Paul quotes from Luke's gospel account before 70AD.
Yes, but does not make the gospel accounts mere hearsay. And the writings of Pliny and Tacitus demonstrates Christianity was in existence prior.

[37818]

If it's credible, one is all we need. If it's not credible, a thousand copies won't make it credible.

What has proven those those gospel accounts not to be credible?

[Doug Shaver]

What has proven those those gospel accounts not to be credible?

It's not about proof in the mathematical sense of proof. It's about sufficient reason to believe. No apologist has ever shown me a good reason to believe that the gospels contain credible history. Without good reason to believe, I am justified in not believing.

[Tassman]

Name one such scholar who is a born again Christian?

Being a born-again Christian has nothing necessarily to do with scholarship. Historians use historical-critical methodology in researching historical texts, this is the means of investigating the origins of ancient texts in order to understand the world and context of the texts.

Bible scholars do hold that gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke were written before 70 AD. Matthew is regarded as one of the disciples making him an eyewitness. Luke knew Paul, and Paul quotes from Luke's gospel account before 70AD.

Yes, but does not make the gospel accounts mere hearsay. And the writings of Pliny and Tacitus demonstrates Christianity was in existence prior.

[37818]

It's not about proof in the mathematical sense of proof. It's about sufficient reason to believe. No apologist has ever shown me a good reason to believe that the gospels contain credible history. Without good reason to believe, I am justified in not believing.

So Tiberius Caesar is not of credible history (Luke 3:1, for 28AD)? The occurrences of Jewish Passovers are not a matter of credible history (John 2:23, for 28AD, John 6:4, for 29AD and John 11:55 for 30AD in which Mark 14:12 would be April 5, 30AD the day before the purported crucifixion)?

[37818]

Being a born-again Christian has nothing necessarily to do with scholarship. Historians use historical-critical methodology in researching historical texts, this is the means of investigating the origins of ancient texts in order to understand the world and context of the texts.

There is bias in scholarship. Belief and unbelief does affect conclusions. There is the matter of actually knowing God or not knowing any kind of God.


There is evidence to conclude Luke's gospel account was written well before 70AD.


So. That does not make the gospel narratives less.

[Tassman]

There is bias in scholarship. Belief and unbelief does affect conclusions. There is the matter of actually knowing God or not knowing any kind of God.

The primary bias among scholars is with those that try to shoehorn historical texts into their own religious presuppositions.

There is evidence to conclude Luke's gospel account was written well before 70AD.

No, not much evidence! "The dating of Luke-Acts is more disputed than the dating of Matt. but ca. 85 is the most often suggested date for both. John is customarily assigned to the 90s, with final redaction in 100-110. (Occasionally there is a revisionist attempt to move all the Gospels back much earlier, but none has been persuasive enough to gain much following in the scholarly world.)"

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wor...f-the-gospels/

So. That does not make the gospel narratives less.

It does make the gospel narratives less. Eyewitness reportage as per Pliny's account of the eruption of Mt Vesuvius is far more reliable than second or third hand accounts of the highly improbable events of the Jesus story.

[Doug Shaver]

There is evidence to conclude Luke's gospel account was written well before 70AD.

Can you show us that evidence, or is this just one more thing we should believe just because you say so?