I just gave a lecture on the resurrection of Jesus and I used Alexander the Great as an example for how [most] people don't question the authenticity of the records of his life that came 400 years after his death, but with Jesus, a LOT of people do, although our records of Jesus' life are less than 50 years [within the lifetime of eyewitnesses].
Why is this?
I keep hearing things like:
"So much is at stake."
"Jesus is claiming to be God."
"Alexander the Great didn't make the claims Jesus made."
As you can [hopefully] tell, there isn't too much logic in these arguments--these assessors of history are not utilizing the evidence in consistent ways.
Now, I'm not trying to say I'm perfect or all-knowing [Ha! FAR from it!!!], but I admit I have some reading to do. I am interested in why Muslims claim Alexander the Great is considered a prophet. Now, I realize he went to Babylon and took a wife there, but prophethood is something entirely different. If you know, let ME know! : )
Anyways, ever since I started studying history [for REAL], in college, I heard about how he paved the way for the Gospel of Jesus to be spread MUCH easier across the Koine Greek-speaking world [the "English" of their day]. I thought that was pretty cool--even though I was JUST learning about Christianity. It made it seem that God was somehow involved in HIS-STORY.
Anyways, this was an easy read that included the reminder that power corrupts [I WAS impressed by how he tried to check on his soldiers and people in the beginning, but, again, it seemed he let the power get to his head at some point.]
I was also surprised to see he used the phrase "King of kings" as a self-proclamation. Interesting, Dear Watson. Very interesting...