re: OTD 2022 or 1992 years ago, Christ was murdered.

quote:

---

There is no original documentation from the time of Christ's death/resurrection.

---

There is also no original documentation from the time of Alexander the Great's death or that of Julius Caesar's. The oldest known copy of a biography of both dates to the ninth century AD.

quote:

---

There is also no original documentation from the time of Alexander the Great's death or that of Julius Caesar's. The oldest known copy of a biography of both dates to the ninth century AD.

---

The claim was there are "Hundreds of first hand accounts to back up their claims" (for Christ), which isn't true.

Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar aren't germaine to this particular piece of the debate.

Julius Caesar wrote books and there was money with his image printed on it. I don't know much about Alexander the Great but I'd suspect there is a lot of corroborating evidence from various sources which gives little doubt to his existence. Same with Caesar. That simply isn't the case with Jesus of Nazareth.

quote:

---

The claim was there are "Hundreds of first hand accounts to back up their claims" (for Christ), which isn't true.

---

I mean...we have St. Paul, St. Matthew, and St. John in the New Testament. We also have the words of St. Paul who tells us that there were over 500 eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection on top of St. Peter and St. James.

quote:

---

Julius Caesar wrote books

---

The oldest manuscripts (of which there are only 12) date from the ninth century AD. So how can we say with any exactitude that those are the true writings of Julius Caesar?

quote:

---

there was money with his image printed on it

---

Which only tells us that he existed at one point.

quote:

---

I don't know much about Alexander the Great but I'd suspect there is a lot of corroborating evidence from various sources which gives little doubt to his existence.

---

The oldest of which we have was written 500 years after his death. The oldest manuscript we have of that particular biography also dates to only the ninth century AD. Once again...just about everything we have on those two historical figures have manuscripts that were either written centuries after their deaths or copies of manuscripts (purportedly written by them) which date to centuries after they were written.

quote:

---

The claim was there are "Hundreds of first hand accounts to back up their claims" (for Christ), which isn't true.

---

Yes it is.

quote:

---

Do you?

---

I am as certain as you are.

Or the author of the Gospel, which was written years and years later, tailored his account of the crucifixion to that well known Psalm. Not saying I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but I do have doubts about the accuracy of the Bible.

quote:

---

And to this day they believe Jesus is in hell eternally suffering in a vat of hot boiling human excrement

This is what they believe about Christ

This is what they think about Christians

---

Nope

quote:

---

The gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't actually written by those people. That is a scholarly/historical consensus. That's why in many Bibles (depending on translation) you will see "The Gospel according to Mark" or "The Gospel according to Matthew." These books were written well after Christ's death. Mark is the earliest book which dates around 70 years after Christ died. John is dated around 100 years after Christ's death.

---

I enjoy a good poorly thought out work of fiction.
This means you have accepted the work of Liberal Theologians. Theologians that don't follow the history or the Bible at all. The pendulum has swung in the other direction. The Bible believing Theologians are venturing into the realm of "COMMON SENSE" versus "FICTION"
The belief is the entire New Testament was written within the lifetimes of the Disciples and prior to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. John Mark and Luke are hardly illiterate Jews. Luke a confirmed Doctor and John Mark a scribe. Peter and Paul are martyred by Nero. Both before 67 AD. There is not word one of the destruction of the temple in the New Testament.

Now for a little history lesson aside the end of the lives of Peter and Paul. By the way, both recorded in Roman history. All Christians had left Jerusalem by 66AD. The persecution by the Romans and Jews was just too much.
That is why the Christians survive the destruction from late 66AD to 76AD. The end of the temple was not the end of the siege.

I had to laugh about the liberal mindset. They tried to make a connection that the writers connected the conversation between Jesus and his disciples on the temple being destroyed ....when the prophecy was the destruction and not one stone left unturned.

The dating of transcripts ....are based on what complete works and fragments are in hand. That disregards the original and subsequent copies. These were letters not books. No letter started the "Gospel of Mark" "of Mathew"

This is the difference between collegiate study and article reading.

quote:

---

There are thousands of first hand accounts on the events. But whatever man, keep up with that Karl Marx "opiate of the masses" nonsense. That turned out well for everyone

---

I will.
You keep up with the “magical man floating in the sky” idea. That’s turned out well for everyone.