It's amazingly incredible to keep seeing threads over threads arguing about fictional characters which only purpose is to convey a theological principle.
The only way to read the first eleven chapters of the genesis is as alegories that the sacred writer chose among several semitic tales that were part of the tradition of the middle east from several centuries before the genesis was written in order to convey a divine teaching that could be comprehended for people 6,000 years ago.
From Abraham and on we can start talking about historical characters.
It seems that Genesis is just amazingly fruitful to create worthless arguments, and to incite the fundies to attack the other fundies.

TLW

Though I agree with you for the most part......are you entirely certain that anyone who is referenced in the Bible is fictional? And are you certain beyond a doubt who was fictional and who wasn't? And if you are, please tell me how you arrive at your degree of certainty?

dear then we will come down to the eternal polarization in which christians believe what we believe, and that what non-christians assert as the biggest lie ever told.

Ok, when you refer to this eternal polarization...whose polarization are you referring to? It isn't mine. Is it yours? And if it isn't mine or yours, what significance does it have?....as you and I are the only ones in this discussion. And....it also doesn't answer the question I just asked you.

Ok you win.

there are historical events which are told along the Bible can be proven through archeology and cross-reference with other contemporary cultures which were around the same geographical area.

It also makes sense that there are persons and events referenced in the Bible, the existence of which cannot be confirmed. I don't know for sure. But my conclusion is this: The lack of confirmation of the existence of a thing doesn't necessarily confirm its non-existence.

Thanks for the mental warm-up!! Have an outstanding morning!

you too

So why do you think Genesis is allegorical?

Only fools are positive. But I have concluded that the New Testament and all its characters are fictional. There are other fictional characters in the Bible as well, and Abraham is one of them.

The New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional. The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictiotional!) characters.

So what is your criteria for determining who is fictional and who is not in scripture?

Much of history was covered up for some reason. I look at agendas, wars, historians, etc. And I like to simplify things.

The old testament (or what is referred to as the old testament after the new one was written)... is Judaic law and fables having to do with that religion. I'm not Jewish so it does not really apply to me anyway. (There is a reason "Abraham" was invented ~~and it was to cover up certain bloodlines.)

The New Testament was pure fiction and plagiarism so that makes Christianity itself completely moot. I came to this conclusion from several sources, and common investigative sense.

I have posted many posts dealing with this subject to include about the true authorship of the new testament, who Flavius Josephus really was officially, and who I think he really was, etc. Did you miss them?

JB