When does biblical history begin ?

[Aroura]

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.  

Lol, you aren't even making sense.  I never said Paul was in India.  Why do you keep acting like I did? I explained how he is responsible for the spread of information to India.  Never said he went there personally.  Your entire argument is the very definition of a straw man.  Keep setting up that argument I never made and knocking it down if it makes you feel good.

Right, Rik, everyone ELSE is wrong, and only you are right. 

[Little Rik]

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.  

Lol, you aren't even making sense.  I never said Paul was in India.  Why do you keep acting like I did? I explained how he is responsible for the spread of information to India.  Never said he went there personally.  Your entire argument is the very definition of a straw man.  Keep setting up that argument I never made and knocking it down if it makes you feel good.

Right, Rik, everyone ELSE is wrong, and only you are right. 

True.........you......never said Paul was in India..........and is also true that you said that......is responsible for the spread of information to India.
All I did was to debunk your idea that Paul is.........responsible for the spread of information to India.

As far as you keep on making up stories that Paul is responsible for the spread of information to India or start Christianity I will keep on knocking down your faulty argument.
That's logic, isn't it Aroura?  

[Catholic_Lady]

Not a lie at all. The general consensus amongst historians world wide is that Jesus was a real person who died by crucifixion under punctious pilot, the Roman prefect at the time. I remember even when I went to a public high school, Jesus' was mentioned in our World History book as the man who founded Christianity. His existence is just as much a historical fact as Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, and Mohammed. You can deny it all you want I suppose, but that is not what is widely accepted by people who actually study/investigate history.

Hi!
I won't be a dick, I promise, but let me clarify.

Nearly all New Testament scholars agree that Jesus was a real person.
This is not the same as historians.  So when you use the generic term "historians", you are inaccurate and might be called out on it.
Although many historians of a more general nature do accept that he existed and was crucified, but that is becoming more and more widely questioned. And there is certainly no consensus that he founded Christianity at all (and certainly none that he was resurrected or any of the important stuff that would make him the Son of God), as a matter of fact, as it is widely agreed that nothing was written about him until at least 70 years after his death, the widely accepted scholarly theory is that Paul started Christianity.

One of the reasons these facts are often questioned is because New Testament scholars would have a vested interest in finding historical evidence, and their biases are becoming more and more widely recognized.

There is quite a lot of evidence that Mohammad and Cleopatra actually lived, there is actually quite a lack of evidence for Jesus.  There is some, I admit, for a wandering Jewish person who was teaching radical religion in the area, as there were a number of Jewish fringe groups at that time.  
But even assuming there was a wondering Jewish priest named Jesus who was later crucified does absolutely nothing to prove the accuracy of the other 99% of the claims in the New Testament.

New Testament scholars, yes. But the general consensus among historians as well, in regards to Jesus, is that He existed and died by crucifixion under Punctius Pilot. I know it isn't all of them, but it is generally accepted among most that at least that much is historical fact. 

As for Him having founded Christianity, I don't claim to know what the "general consensus" is there, but it is true (despite Succumbs' accusations of me lying) that this is what my World History book taught us in High school. 10th grade. I distinctly remember this because I went to a public school at the time and I thought it was cool that Jesus was being acknowledged as a real person in history, outside of anything religion related. And though Paul played a huge role in spreading Christianity and establishing it officially, it was Jesus' name that was stated as the actual founder of the new faith. 

Also as a side note, you said there was historical agreement that the apostles existed? and that is simple not at all true, 
Even among biblical scholars, there is a wide division of opinion on this topic.

Hope I wasn't a dick, I tried not to be!  Just sharing info. 

I didn't say there was wide historical agreement on that, only on Jesus' existence and death by crucifixion. Though there is evidence that the disciples existed and that they were central to the very early rapid spread of Christianity. Whether that evidence is "enough" seems to be subjective and not as much as the evidence for Jesus Himself.

[Godscreated]

Okay here's my question,

These days there are many Christians who will support evolution and a very old earth 4.5 billions years old, with a universe that's along the lines of 14 billion years.

Somewhere in this period they throw humanity into the mix some believe Adam and Eve could still have existed, or be created especially during the time that humans were also evolving, others believe that Adam and Eve were just a story of man's fall from grace. Given that most biblical characters can be dated back by linage to Adam and Eve's children that gives us a period of around 6,000~7,000 years since those people existed.  When does what the bible says become real history ?

Where does it place original sin in this context ?

We, Christians are not certain when creation took place. We do understand through the scriptures it was some short time before the fall. The fall as far as we can determine happened some 6000 years ago because we can trace most of the linage back to Adam and Eve. what do you mean by original sin, I'm curious no atheist I've spoken with has ever said, can you put a name to it, the Bible does.

GC

[Cod]

Okay here's my question,

These days there are many Christians who will support evolution and a very old earth 4.5 billions years old, with a universe that's along the lines of 14 billion years.

Somewhere in this period they throw humanity into the mix some believe Adam and Eve could still have existed, or be created especially during the time that humans were also evolving, others believe that Adam and Eve were just a story of man's fall from grace. Given that most biblical characters can be dated back by linage to Adam and Eve's children that gives us a period of around 6,000~7,000 years since those people existed.  When does what the bible says become real history ?

Where does it place original sin in this context ?

We, Christians are not certain when creation took place. We do understand through the scriptures it was some short time before the fall. The fall as far as we can determine happened some 6000 years ago because we can trace most of the linage back to Adam and Eve. what do you mean by original sin, I'm curious no atheist I've spoken with has ever said, can you put a name to it, the Bible does.

GC

You Christians are not certain about anything, you don't understand anything, the fall is a fairy tale, original sin is laughable, the bible explains nothing.

[vorlon13]

We, Christians are not certain when creation took place. We do understand through the scriptures it was some short time before the fall. The fall as far as we can determine happened some 6000 years ago because we can trace most of the linage back to Adam and Eve. what do you mean by original sin, I'm curious no atheist I've spoken with has ever said, can you put a name to it, the Bible does.

GC

You Christians are not certain about anything, you don't understand anything, the fall is a fairy tale, original sin is laughable, the bible explains nothing.

The rules regarding menstruation are a beacon of clarity.

[Succubus]

...As for Him having founded Christianity, I don't claim to know what the "general consensus" is there, but it is true (despite Succumbs' accusations of me lying) that this is what my World History book taught us in High school. 10th grade. I distinctly remember this because I went to a public school at the time and I thought it was cool that Jesus was being acknowledged as a real person in history, outside of anything religion related. And though Paul played a huge role in spreading Christianity and establishing it officially, it was Jesus' name that was stated as the actual founder of the new faith...

Are these are your words?

The general consensus amongst historians world wide is that Jesus was a real person who died by crucifixion under punctious pilot,

And these?

We have historical evidence of His existence, His death by crucifixion, His 12 disciples and their deaths, and the rapid spread of very early Christianity.

'Scholar' is not a protected term, anyone can, and do, call themselves scholars. As I have pointed out numerous time in the past, bible scholars are almost invariably priests and theologians, You know, people with an agenda? Now go and find me a few real historians who state unequivocally that we have historical evidence for Jesus existence. I'll give you one, Bart Ehrman.

[Cod]

You Christians are not certain about anything, you don't understand anything, the fall is a fairy tale, original sin is laughable, the bible explains nothing.

The rules regarding menstruation are a beacon of clarity.

In a sea of uncertainty. I wouldn't be happy to be labelled unclean, yeah I stink sometimes but don't document it.

[possibletarian]

Okay here's my question,

These days there are many Christians who will support evolution and a very old earth 4.5 billions years old, with a universe that's along the lines of 14 billion years.

Somewhere in this period they throw humanity into the mix some believe Adam and Eve could still have existed, or be created especially during the time that humans were also evolving, others believe that Adam and Eve were just a story of man's fall from grace. Given that most biblical characters can be dated back by linage to Adam and Eve's children that gives us a period of around 6,000~7,000 years since those people existed.  When does what the bible says become real history ?

Where does it place original sin in this context ?

We, Christians are not certain when creation took place. We do understand through the scriptures it was some short time before the fall. The fall as far as we can determine happened some 6000 years ago because we can trace most of the linage back to Adam and Eve. what do you mean by original sin, I'm curious no atheist I've spoken with has ever said, can you put a name to it, the Bible does.

GC

I take it then that you believe the bible is history

Here is the dictionary definition of original sin.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/original-sin

noun
1.
Theology.

1. a depravity, or tendency to evil, held to be innate in humankind and transmitted from Adam to all humans in consequence of his sin.
   
2. inclination to evil, inherent in human nature.
   

2.
Roman Catholic Theology. the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam.

[Minimalist]

Propaganda not history?

Are you going to be a total fool until your last breath?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Hello, fucktard.

Unless you really believe that some dead jew ascended to heaven after dying and rising to atone for your sins then I would say it is nothing more than bad propaganda.

And, if you REALLY believe that, then you are even fucking stupider than I thought you were.... and that was already pretty far up on the fucking stupid list.

Moron.