Replies

Your reply is off the mark. The Seti in my "screen name" was the name of an Egyptian pharoah and not a reference to extra you-know-whats. I had been reading Egyptian history just before I chose it and it was about the fourth try. I just figured no one else had chosen it.

We have no records of anyone who was an "eyewitness" to the Resurrection. Even the gospels were written a couple of generations later and repeated and recopied for several centuries before being put down in any form existing today.

Certainly many people believe in Christ but a great many more do not so if we are voting, you lose.

Even the gospels were written a couple of generations later and repeated and recopied for several centuries before being put down in any form existing today.

Close, but not exactly. Historical evidence exists that point to the Gospels being written within 30+ years of the death/resurrection of Jesus.

The books of the New Testament do not appear in chronological order. The Apostle Paul wrote the Epistles (books of the NT that come after the book of Acts) before the four Gospels were written. Acts was finished before Paul died in A.D. 62. So the Gospels were written after the Epistles, but before Acts. This means that the gospel of Mark was probably written in the late 40s, Matthew and Luke in the early-mid 50s, and John in the late 50s.

The sheer magnitude of subjects that could be discussed regarding the Gospels and historical accuracy of the Bible prevents me from writing much more about it. I recommend Craig Blomberg's book The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, or Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ. Both are good reads.

The search for truth is often a life-long one. Good luck on your journey.

OK then, let's compare the historocity, as actual persons, of the Egyptian god seti with that of Jesus Christ. Either way, the evidence for Jesus is far superior. So much so that as we span the scope of human history and ask ourselves,"If God ever did come down to Earth and show Himself to us, when in history did He do it?" the clear answer is in the person of Christ. His life had more impact on human progress than any other person.

Furthermore, we are not voting. If voting is what makes something true, then Clinton was a better man than Bush I. Something can be true even when the majority declares, for motives of their own, that it is false.

I also take issue with your claims for the dates. We have scrapes and fragments of the gospels from the first century, or at worst the beginning of the second. That would be within one lifetime of the recorded events. Mark was likely written by about 60 AD by a man who was Peter's confidant. John was written by an eyewitness apostle. I don't want to stop to look it up now, but I remember the other two gospels were written by an eyewitness and the "secretary" of an eyewitness (Luke).

Josh McDowell's The new Evidence that Demands a Verdict" goes into great detail about the truth of this, if you care to know it.

Only Gods vote counts. Not yours, not mine. When the time comes to face God, our vote won't mean a thing, only or belief. If all this belief in God is for nothing and we just turn back to dust, what does it matter, but what if God truly is? Where do you want to stand when you stand before God? Dust or God? What do you hope for?