When does biblical history begin ?

[Aroura]

[Huggy Bear]

[Little Rik]

the widely accepted scholarly theory is that Paul started Christianity.

That is bizarre.  

Paul never went to India yet during his time Christianity was already under way there.


So you tell me how it is possible that Paul started Christianity?

Check the dates Aro so you will not make mistakes such as this again.  

[Aroura]

[Wyrd of Gawd]

[Little Rik]

[Aroura]

[Little Rik]

Wrong once again Aro.  

There is absolutely nothing that say that Paul ever went to India.
Nothing.
But there is tons of history about the Apostle Thomas that went to India.
There is also tons of history about the fact that Christianity started in south India in the 52 A.D. which is before the dates that you
came up with.
Paul die in Rome sometime between 62 and 67 A.D.
In those times people didn't have the internet or other forms of media so news could not possibly spread fast.
If you consider that Paul die at the age of 61-62 and never went to India then it would be impossible for Him to have spread Christianity there in 8-9 years period between when Christianity in India started and his death.

Check your facts Aro.  

I didn't say Paul went to India. I said he is credited with spreading it to the east.   

I agree it started AFTER Christ supposedly died.  ok, so 50 years (Taking your word with no link).  It started during Paul's Lifetime, not Jesus.  YOU agree with me.
You don't think word of mouth could spread in 5 to 10 years? That is dumb.  It only takes a few months to travel from the middle east to India by caravan.  It could have spread there in under a year. The spread of Christianity is pretty well documented.  It spread there after Paul started it in the near east.  Even biblical scholars agree with that.  You know more than biblical scholars, now?

Maybe you should check your reading comprehension skills.   And please don't call me "Aro".  Thanks

P.s. I am checking my facts, and I'm linking my sources as well.  Which is more than I can say for you.

Is getting even more bizarre as your fantasy get a solid grip.  

1) If Christianity would have spread from the middle east where Paul was to India by people traveling in caravan it would have spread first in what is now Pakistan and then in north India but history tell us that it spread in south India so caravans are off.
It come obvious that someone came by ship not by caravan and considering that Paul was preaching in the middle east and then end up in Rome then your idea is just a guess that doesn't stand up.

2) Most people don't just start believing in a religion or philosophy of life just because someone spread the word that they heard from somebody else which again was spread by somebody else.
In most cases there got to be a very strong personality that instill the new philosophy of life and if you consider that before the Christianity was established people in India follow Shiva and Krishna for countless generations then it is obvious that people wouldn't give away one philosophy for a new one unless the one who bring the new one would have a very strong personality and offer more than the previous message that is why the idea that St. Thomas was the one who started Christianity in India make sense while the idea that Paul was the one doesn't make an inch of sense.  

[Aroura]

I didn't say Paul went to India. I said he is credited with spreading it to the east.   

I agree it started AFTER Christ supposedly died.  ok, so 50 years (Taking your word with no link).  It started during Paul's Lifetime, not Jesus.  YOU agree with me.
You don't think word of mouth could spread in 5 to 10 years? That is dumb.  It only takes a few months to travel from the middle east to India by caravan.  It could have spread there in under a year. The spread of Christianity is pretty well documented.  It spread there after Paul started it in the near east.  Even biblical scholars agree with that.  You know more than biblical scholars, now?

Maybe you should check your reading comprehension skills.   And please don't call me "Aro".  Thanks

P.s. I am checking my facts, and I'm linking my sources as well.  Which is more than I can say for you.

Is getting even more bizarre as your fantasy get a solid grip.  

1) If Christianity would have spread from the middle east where Paul was to India by people traveling in caravan it would have spread first in what is now Pakistan and then in north India but history tell us that it spread in south India so caravans are off.
It come obvious that someone came by ship not by caravan and considering that Paul was preaching in the middle east and then end up in Rome then your idea is just a guess that doesn't stand up.

2) Most people don't just start believing in a religion or philosophy of life just because someone spread the word that they heard from somebody else which again was spread by somebody else.
In most cases there got to be a very strong personality that instill the new philosophy of life and if you consider that before the Christianity was established people in India follow Shiva and Krishna for countless generations then it is obvious that people wouldn't give away one philosophy for a new one unless the one who bring the new one would have a very strong personality and offer more than the previous message that is why the idea that St. Thomas was the one who started Christianity in India make sense while the idea that Paul was the one doesn't make an inch of sense.  

Still no sources.  I'm sorry, but you are the one making assumptions about how and why things worked as they did.  I was just listing historical facts.

Sorry Rik, you are projecting the fantasy bit.  I think I see why so many people have you on ignore.

[Little Rik]

Is getting even more bizarre as your fantasy get a solid grip.  

1) If Christianity would have spread from the middle east where Paul was to India by people traveling in caravan it would have spread first in what is now Pakistan and then in north India but history tell us that it spread in south India so caravans are off.
It come obvious that someone came by ship not by caravan and considering that Paul was preaching in the middle east and then end up in Rome then your idea is just a guess that doesn't stand up.

2) Most people don't just start believing in a religion or philosophy of life just because someone spread the word that they heard from somebody else which again was spread by somebody else.
In most cases there got to be a very strong personality that instill the new philosophy of life and if you consider that before the Christianity was established people in India follow Shiva and Krishna for countless generations then it is obvious that people wouldn't give away one philosophy for a new one unless the one who bring the new one would have a very strong personality and offer more than the previous message that is why the idea that St. Thomas was the one who started Christianity in India make sense while the idea that Paul was the one doesn't make an inch of sense.  

Still no sources.  I'm sorry, but you are the one making assumptions about how and why things worked as they did.  I was just listing historical facts.

Sorry Rik, you are projecting the fantasy bit.  I think I see why so many people have you on ignore.

You see women.  
I knock down all your assumptions one by one and now not having any more grip to hang on you hide your failing behind the story that I don't produce sources.

You are getting totally pathetic.  
You know very well that there are tons and tons of historical reports about Thomas in south India about Paul in the middle east and Rome and about 52 A.D. when Christianity started in India and all the rest.
I don't think your problem is about laziness into going in your search engine and click this or that.
Your problem is that you can't stand to be told that you are wrong.
The same apply to all those that put me in the ignore list.

They also can not stand to be found wrong time and time again.