When does biblical history begin ?

[Harry Nevis]

[quote='possibletarian' pid='1659211' dateline='1511043859']

I take it then that you believe the bible is history

In a sense I do. It gives a history of a chosen people (Israelites) and it gives us a history of God's dealings with a sinful people (world).

So, in a bigger sense, you don't.

[Minimalist]

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.

Imbecile.  

The link was all about showing that there is historic evidence that Jesus really exist.

That's all but a gnegno clown of your kind mix different things in the argument that I did not mention or argue about it.

Didn't I said that you will be a fool until your last breath?  

There is no "historical" evidence for your fucking godboy, shithead.  There may be hysterical evidence cribbed up by much later believers but that hardly counts.  But I put no stock in hysteria.... anymore than I consider the theological opinions of morons like you to be worthy of consideration.

Produce real evidence or fuck off.

[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.

 Atheist are clueless to the spiritual world of God. You think because you can't understand it ti doesn't exist. One day you  will find out the Christians are right.

GC

Or Muslims.

[Godscreated]

In a sense I do. It gives a history of a chosen people (Israelites) and it gives us a history of God's dealings with a sinful people (world).


 I asked you for your definition and what you might call it, anyone who is lazy can go to a dictionary or web site and give an answer, that by no means tells me what you believe it is.

GC

Well that's pretty much the definition I would give it too, do you have a different one ?

 Self pride.

GC

[possibletarian]

Well that's pretty much the definition I would give it too, do you have a different one ?

 Self pride.

GC

A dictionary definition is self pride ? or original sin (defined by you) is self pride ?

[Whateverist]

Biblical history begins all over again every time another Christian child is indoctrinated.

[Godscreated]

 Self pride.

GC

A dictionary definition is self pride ? or original sin (defined by you)  is self pride ?

 Self pride is the original sin, they decided they wanted to be like God and willfully disobeyed Him. The bold is the what caused them to sin, not God nor Lucifer, their pride got in the way of their good sense. They walked with God in the Garden every evening talking with Him and learning from Him, they knew they had all the could ever need, yet they decided they wanted more and of the wrong thing.

GC

[possibletarian]

A dictionary definition is self pride ? or original sin (defined by you)  is self pride ?

 Self pride is the original sin, they decided they wanted to be like God and willfully disobeyed Him. The bold is the what caused them to sin, not God nor Lucifer, their pride got in the way of their good sense. They walked with God in the Garden every evening talking with Him and learning from Him, they knew they had all the could ever need, yet they decided they wanted more and of the wrong thing.

GC

Yes, but what's your point insofar as it relates to the O.P. it does not change the definition of original sin?
You believe there actually was an Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago, who were the first man and woman despite all the evidence to the contrary about human history is the point.

[Godscreated]

 Self pride is the original sin, they decided they wanted to be like God and willfully disobeyed Him. The bold is the what caused them to sin, not God nor Lucifer, their pride got in the way of their good sense. They walked with God in the Garden every evening talking with Him and learning from Him, they knew they had all the could ever need, yet they decided they wanted more and of the wrong thing.

GC

Yes, but what's your point insofar as it relates to the O.P. it does not change the definition of original sin?
You believe there actually was an Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago,  who were the first man and woman despite all the evidence to the contrary about human history is the point.

 I wasn't trying to change the definition, I gave it a name that describes the sin it's self. 

  Of coarse I believe that Adam and Eve were real people that live some 6000 years or so ago. Evidence, what evidence? Are you referring to the dating systems used, surely you know the flaws in those systems. There is no evidence that man evolved either, only the opinion of people who want to write their own versions of history.

GC

[possibletarian]

Yes, but what's your point insofar as it relates to the O.P. it does not change the definition of original sin?
You believe there actually was an Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago,  who were the first man and woman despite all the evidence to the contrary about human history is the point.

 I wasn't trying to change the definition, I gave it a name that describes the sin it's self. 

  Of coarse I believe that Adam and Eve were real people that live some 6000 years or so ago. Evidence, what evidence? Are you referring to the dating systems used, surely you know the flaws in those systems. There is no evidence that man evolved either, only the opinion of people who want to write their own versions of history.

GC

All I can say GC, is that I'm truly staggered by your response, but not in an awesome way !
But at lest you are consistent.