There were countless writings by innumerable persons foisting their opinions off as heavenly and nobody paid any attention.
True enough. However, that does not appear to have been the case with the documents of the New Testament. They were copied far and wide, very early in church history. The apostles and many of their successors became martyrs for what they believed (and the apostles would have been in a position to know if they were lying - might not be worth dying for a lie that they knew to be a lie). It's simply absurd to suggest that the original autographs were simply unimportant and discarded as of no value, and there is no historical support for such a position. Every historical record we have tells us that the early Christians were zealous in spreading the Word.
Of course you will believe what supports your own view.
Funny, that's exactly what I was thinking when I read your original post in this thread. While I often disagree with your positions, I usually expect better arguments from you.
The original tablets of Moses? Gone.
The jar of manna? Gone.
The Ark of the Covenant? Gone.
How many verifiable artifacts do we actually have from corresponding periods of history? By "verifiable," I mean artifacts that can be specifically identified with recorded events or persons? Do we have Nebuchadnezzar's old toilet paper rolls? Perhaps a salt shaker that belonged to the Buddha? It seems to me that you are imposing a standard of proof for "holy" artifacts that you would not require of any other type of artifact or area of history. Holy or not, the vast majority of artifacts do not survive for thousands of years, especially when significant efforts are made to destroy them. You may recall that the Jewish Temple was destroyed not once, but twice and was looted of its valuables on other occasions . Is it possible that that might explain the missing "holy" artifacts, and not that someone simply thought they were junk and decided to recycle them?