- Nov 2016
Instead of answering my question, you present again a distraction tactic easy to see through, by lining up empty phrases.What the ancients thought of as fully historical is not necessarily what you think of fully historical. Ancients defined the word differently.
What means "not necessarily"? Maybe, maybe not? That´s an all too vague statement, don´t you think? Why had the Ancients - as you boldly suggest - no idea of a difference between "true" and "false" with regard to past events and persons? Did the Christians not think that, e.g., Adam and Eve were real persons that lived about some thousand years ago? Did Paul not take Adam for a real human when he called Jesus a "Second Adam"? Did Paul not think that Adam was historical when he mentioned him in one breath with Moses?
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
So again my question to you, for the 3rd time (!):
Did the early Christians take the Bible´s content for fully historical or not?
(Aid to understanding: "Historical" means here simply "real")
Please provide precise arguments instead of empty phrases.