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".
Please quote any and all statements “proving” your accusations.
***I just did. What are you, in copy & paste mode, not even reading the post? It wouldn’t surprise me.
FRiend, everything in the Bible is religion, period.
***bzzzt, wrong. When Romans 16 mentions Erastus as the city Treasurer and we can see for ourselves an inscription that says exactly the same thing, it is an intersection with undeniable historicity. There are thousands of such intersections with mundane things in the bible, but that would be far, far above your head. Especially since you’re here to push a heretical idealogy and the historicity gets in your way. Why I even bother educating you is actually what’s crossing my mind at this time, it’s throwing pearls after swine. You’re no historian, your just a simple heretic.