Slimebeast said:
Yes, the definitive compilation of the Christian books (= The Bible) was complete in the 4th century. Everybody knows that. But what implication does that have on the authenticity of the original accounts if the compiled books themselves had been unchanged since their writing in the first century? Yes, I'm religious. But you seem to be the one who is uneducated on the origins of the NT (or misunderstood it gravely). |
The original accounts weren't by eye witnesses. Therefore how reliable a source is it? The answer obviously is "not very". When you tie in the fact that Luke used Mark as a source, same goes for Matthew, then it gets complex as we realise that Mark is probably the most accurate source. However, there are possibilites that Mark tied in Homer's Odyssey to what was written, as well as stories that had been passed down orally.
If we were to approach that source as rational human beings with knowledge of the scientific method, it's validity is sketchy at best. So to then attribute Jesus as the most influential human being in history is rediculous as we don't actually know with any conviction what Jesus said.
No dude, you clearly are letting religion dictate it's origins rather than history, and are not approaching this rationally.