Replies

When you supply proof that Moses parted the Red Sea, or delivered the plagues upon Eygpt. While your at it, provide proof of the Great flood.

The exisitence of Moses is not as crucial to us as the existence of Jesus to you. We do not worship Moses. We do not make graven images of Moses.

The year is not important, the event is.

The crucifixion is supposed to have happened in an era when record-keeping was much better than it was in the time of Moses. We have documentation for the year of the death of Herod the Great but not that of Jesus. Luke knows the year in which John the Baptist began his ministry but he does not know the year of the crucifixion.

The year, in itself, is not important but, if it had actually happened, the early church would have remembered when it happened and commemorated that date. As it is, the church merely celebrates Jesus' resurrection on the pagan fertility holiday of Easter (Ashtoreth) when pagans believed nature was resurrected.

"The existence of Moses is not as crucial to us as the existence of Jesus to you. We do not worship Moses. We do not make graven images of Moses."

Untrue for Jew and Christian alike. If Moses did not exist, or any of the great prophets of the Old Testament, than the Jewish faith is built on falsehoods on which the Christian beliefs were full filled through Christ's birth, death, and Resurrection.

Through the the written word (the Bible), people witnessed to the accounts that occurred during those times. Therefore, you base faith in those who transcribed that certain persons existed, and that certain events occurred, without concrete evidence in many cases. That is the very same principle that supports my faith that Christ existed, that Christ died, that Christ rose from the dead.

The four Gospels were written as a witness to these events; just as were the books of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the actions of these men after the resurrection indicate that something overwhelming and powerful transformed their lives. Some event occurred that turned simple, scared fishermen and laborers into brave and courageous leaders willing to risk death at any moment. This occurred after cowering and running for their lives.

Unlike your assumed accounts, the Apostles (after the resurrection) did not live a life full of pleasure and plenty. Their remaining days were filled with poverty, misery, and loneliness. Again, they all died, with few exceptions, very horrifying deaths; deaths that could have been avoided if they only recanted what they had stated to be truth. Not one denied what they witnessed. They didn't because they witnessed what they stated; they believed they saw Christ alive after his death. They did not fear the horrors that befell them because they saw death conquered. Your explanations give no support to the actions of these men after the resurrection.

So Luke does not record a date that is acceptable to you. Would that not work against your theory that this Jesus was contrived and really did not exist. If this was a hoax you would think the conspiring Apostles would have at least got all their stories straight before beginning their con game with the public.

As to other timeliness, are you stating that the Old Testament has no ambiguity with regard to historical events? Do any of these apparent contradictions and/or unknowns weaken your faith?