Few of these specific details qualify as “history”, they are all religious beliefs.
***There it is again, for all to see. When the gospels record a piece of history, in this case an exchange between Jesus and a crowd, there’s nothing to disqualify it as historical when it’s just describing mundane facts and no miracles. But you, for the 2nd time in this thread, have labelled historical observations contained in the gospels as a religious belief.
You are a joke, a brojoke as a historian. No wonder why you drifted into heresy.
Please quote any and all statements "proving" your accusations.
FRiend, everything in the Bible is religion, period.
To call certain texts "religious" is not an "insult" and can in no possible way be false.
Some of the Bible is considered "historical" in a non-religious, academic-standards sort of way.
Academic standards for what qualifies as "history" can vary, but one person who's applied the most stringent academic standards to the Bible is John Domonic Crossan.
Crossan's standards allow as "historical" events which have multiple attestations -- for example, that plaque, "King of the Jews" is recorded in all four Gospels.
Crossan would say that is certainly historical, as is the role of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect.
But Crossan would deny "historical" status to, for example, private conversations without witnesses.
Crossan also gives credit for events which may have only one Biblical source, but are confirmed by other non-biblical sources.
FRiend, Kevmo, that's real history -- it's how history is supposed to work.
Your religious beliefs are something different.
They require you to accept the Bible as true regardless of whatever historical or archaeological or any other scientific confirmations you might wish.
The Bible was not written or intended to be confirmed scientifically, and if you insist on scientific confirmations, then you yourself are not religious enough to believe.
Yes, it does turn out that much of the Bible can be confirmed by various tests, but those tests and any confirmations, cannot be, must not be the source or the rock of your belief, period.
What I'm telling you is that "historicity" and scientific confirmations are irrelevant to your belief.
Sure, some will go in your favor, while others do not, regardless, you still believe for reasons which have nothing to do with those tests.
Others also believe, for their own reasons, beliefs which are not identical to yours but still beliefs which do not deserve such deadly epithets as "damable heretics".