By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Real or not, Jesus is the most influencial Human in history! If you deny that you are lying to yourself-

 

Most influencial?

Obama 10 3.82%
 
Greg Johnson 2 0.76%
 
Elvis 6 2.29%
 
Karl Marx 12 4.58%
 
Benji Franklin 5 1.91%
 
Jesus 140 53.44%
 
Shakespear 6 2.29%
 
Mel Gibson 11 4.20%
 
Islam God, do not want to... 25 9.54%
 
Other ( Post below fake internet friends!) 43 16.41%
 
Total:260
JakDaSnack on 10 April 2013
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:

Then why do "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

If what your saying is true and their is no "contempory evidence" then why is it that almost all modern scholars (both non-Christian and Christian) agree that he existed?  Either A) all of these professionals should be fired, or B) You are missing something.

Quoting the same source over and over again isn't advancing this argument. Stop it.

I'm not sure what is difficult to understand here. And what do you mean "if what your saying is true?" It's absolutely true. The scholars don't have any secret information. They are making a conjecture about Jesus' existence. I disagree with their conjecture as no such source exists of contemporaneity.

They are using sources from 50+ years AFTER his alleged resurrection. Where is the data from DURING his life? No where to be found. Astonishing, no?

please, define contempory for me, you keep saying 50 years, are you saying that their has to be credible sources within 50 years for it to be contemporary?  Does it have to be during his ministry?  Please, enlighten us with your definition of contemporary.  This may solve a lot of problems.



Something...Something...Games...Something

Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 10 April 2013
JakDaSnack said:
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:

Then why do "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

If what your saying is true and their is no "contempory evidence" then why is it that almost all modern scholars (both non-Christian and Christian) agree that he existed?  Either A) all of these professionals should be fired, or B) You are missing something.

Quoting the same source over and over again isn't advancing this argument. Stop it.

I'm not sure what is difficult to understand here. And what do you mean "if what your saying is true?" It's absolutely true. The scholars don't have any secret information. They are making a conjecture about Jesus' existence. I disagree with their conjecture as no such source exists of contemporaneity.

They are using sources from 50+ years AFTER his alleged resurrection. Where is the data from DURING his life? No where to be found. Astonishing, no?

please, define contempory for me, you keep saying 50 years, are you saying that their has to be credible sources within 50 years for it to be contemporary?  Does it have to be during his ministry?  Please, enlighten us with your definition of contemporary.  This may solve a lot of problems.

1con·tem·po·rary

 adjective kən-ˈtem-pə-ˌrer-ē, -ˌre-rē

Definition of CONTEMPORARY

1
: happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time
There is no historical evidence for Jesus' from his lifetime. Resurrection in 30 AD, no documents until the close of the first century, and AT BEST 30 years post hoc using a bit of contrived arguing. 

chriscox1121 on 10 April 2013
Mazty said:
spurgeonryan said:

Would there be Catholics or any form of Christianity without this Guy right up there? His might has been felt all over the world. Crusades, Wars, gay rights, abortion, Religion as we have it today, etc. That is just the tip of the iceberg that sunk the Titanic. If it was not for Jesus making his religion more liberal, his religion would still be a horrific nightmare that we saw in the Old Testament.

This has been both good and bad. Bad because we have the Catholic church trying to keep the human race in the dark ages for centuries, but it is also good because we would have all been wild blood thirsty killers by now. No one would want to sacrifice lambs on a regular basis besides Isrealites and everyone else would go on to be Pegans. Eventually either worshipping evil enities or just becoming Athiests when Charles Darwin came along.

 

I guess second place would go to Karl Marx. China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, etc. His ideas that were forged by Satan helped destroy the World. So in actuality Satan is the most influencial person in human history behind God, but they are not and were not men, even though in many Christian Religions Jesus is God. Even though he is the Son of god, and at one point, a Holy Spirit Zombie that walked among men.

This is so wrong....

Your first and crucial mistake is pinning a set of beliefs and works (The Bible) on a guy called Jesus. He didn't write the Bible. Most of the stories are either nonsense or hear say written decades and centuries later. 

This guy, Constantine the Great, was the guy who actually organised the Bible to be written, ergo he is the most influential person if you believe Christianity is what has formed most of the last two millenia of morality. 

And then we can easily just as well argue that who actually created Christianity wasn't the above guy, but this one:

Plato. It's often said that his take on morality was the foundational ideas of Christianity. 

Education over. 


LOL, Constantine did not organize the bible to be written.




chriscox1121 on 10 April 2013
Frank_kc said:
Muhammad is definitely the most influential human in the history of mankind. He is the last messenger from god and his message was comprehensive to all religions prior to him.


claiming corruption of the Christian texts which he never read? or had proof of?  




chriscox1121 on 10 April 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
spurgeonryan said:
perpride said:
people who are more influential from the top of my head:

Michael Jackson
Walter White
Jay-Z
Michael Jordan
Wayne Gretzky
Hironobu Sakaguchi
John Locke


James Marsden, Craig Snow, Brett Walton, Sam  Cassel, Sam Neil, Dr. Moreaux, Helen Hunt, Tim Allen ( pre- Toy Story), Wilford Brimley.

 

@ Guy who is arguing with me. umm..........Who wrote the first five books of the bible then? God?


Jahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Dueterotomists. (JEDP) wrote the Pentateuch/Law/Torah

or so the theory goes.  The documentary hypothesis has had it's ups and downs considering how many redactors the scholars can agree upon.




Around the Network
chriscox1121 on 10 April 2013
Mazty said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Mazty said:

You got proof that Moses wrote part of the Bible? No? Thought as much. And no, King James did not create the Bible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bibles_of_Constantine

You clearly are mixing religious belief with reality. Fact is the Bible was written not by Jesus, and whether any of it is true or not is unknown. What we do know is that in 325AD a council near enough created modern day Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

You can still be a Christian and accept how it was made btw.

There is clear indication that Moses wrote parts of the Bible. There is as much proof for that there was a person named Socrates who lived in Greece

............It's widely known that Socrates didn't write anything and we can only presume that Plato's works are based on Socrates ideas. Where is the evidence that Moses wrote parts of the Bible?

define created christianity.  Taken at face value, you couldn't be more wrong.




chriscox1121 on 10 April 2013
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:

"Since the 18th century a number of quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, and historical critical methods for studying the historicity of Jesus have been developed. Various Christian and non-Christian sources are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus, e.g. Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared and contrasted to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels to determine the historicity of Jesus. These sources are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.[27][28]"

Not trying to be rude here, but you are failing to understand my point.

All references to Jesus/Yahwey/The Messiah whatever you want to call him are not contemporary. They are from 50+ years after his crucifixion. 

Don't you find it a bit odd that nothing was written about him from his time period? No one alive during Jesus' life wrote of him. 

There were many men named Jesus, it's no different from Adam, or any other name. I'm sure there was a Jesus, but not the Jesus of the Bible.

so you don't believe anything about history unless there was a contemporary author at that time writing it down as it happened?




JakDaSnack on 10 April 2013
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:

Then why do "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

If what your saying is true and their is no "contempory evidence" then why is it that almost all modern scholars (both non-Christian and Christian) agree that he existed?  Either A) all of these professionals should be fired, or B) You are missing something.

Quoting the same source over and over again isn't advancing this argument. Stop it.

I'm not sure what is difficult to understand here. And what do you mean "if what your saying is true?" It's absolutely true. The scholars don't have any secret information. They are making a conjecture about Jesus' existence. I disagree with their conjecture as no such source exists of contemporaneity.

They are using sources from 50+ years AFTER his alleged resurrection. Where is the data from DURING his life? No where to be found. Astonishing, no?

please, define contempory for me, you keep saying 50 years, are you saying that their has to be credible sources within 50 years for it to be contemporary?  Does it have to be during his ministry?  Please, enlighten us with your definition of contemporary.  This may solve a lot of problems.

 

1con·tem·po·rary

 adjective kən-ˈtem-pə-ˌrer-ē, -ˌre-rē
 

Definition of CONTEMPORARY

1
: happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time
There is no historical evidence for Jesus' from his lifetime. Resurrection in 30 AD, no documents until the close of the first century, and AT BEST 30 years post hoc using a bit of contrived arguing. 

 

As soon as I asked you that I realized that my next point has nothing to do with it, so sorry about making you answer that.

Anyways, lets flash forward 1500 years, we are now in the year 3500, now in regards to the existence of Christ what are they gonna find from people during our generation?  they will find that their was debate, some people agreed that he existed, other disagreed, but the issue is that they are using sources from almost 2000 years prior. 

Now, lets flash back 1700 years, what does everyone (that made mention of him) say about Jesus.  They say he existed, in fact their is no dispute from any non-Christian sources that a man named Jesus walked the earth.  Now why is that?  Because back then, they actually had credible sources, over time, those sources obviously dissappeared, but up until around the 18th centuary, no one disputed the existence of God. 

Now look,you can argue all you want, and make excuses as to why this is, but arguing that the absense of contemporary evidence that Jesus existed proves that Jesus did not exist, is probably the worst argument someone can make, as I can use the same argument that there is no contemporary evidence that suggests that Jesus did not exist.

Sure, everything recorded is likely second hand sources, but back then, no one disagreed that Jesus existed.  



Something...Something...Games...Something

chriscox1121 on 10 April 2013
chriscox1121 said:
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:

"Since the 18th century a number of quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, and historical critical methods for studying the historicity of Jesus have been developed. Various Christian and non-Christian sources are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus, e.g. Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared and contrasted to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels to determine the historicity of Jesus. These sources are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.[27][28]"

Not trying to be rude here, but you are failing to understand my point.

All references to Jesus/Yahwey/The Messiah whatever you want to call him are not contemporary. They are from 50+ years after his crucifixion. 

Don't you find it a bit odd that nothing was written about him from his time period? No one alive during Jesus' life wrote of him. 

There were many men named Jesus, it's no different from Adam, or any other name. I'm sure there was a Jesus, but not the Jesus of the Bible.

so you don't believe anything about history unless there was a contemporary author at that time writing it down as it happened?




dsgrue3 on 10 April 2013
JakDaSnack said:

As soon as I asked you that I realized that my next point has nothing to do with it, so sorry about making you answer that.

Anyways, lets flash forward 1500 years, we are now in the year 3500, now in regards to the existence of Christ what are they gonna find from people during our generation?  they will find that their was debate, some people agreed that he existed, other disagreed, but the issue is that they are using sources from almost 2000 years prior. 

Now, lets flash back 1700 years, what does everyone (that made mention of him) say about Jesus.  They say he existed, in fact their is no dispute from any non-Christian sources that a man named Jesus walked the earth.  Now why is that?  Because back then, they actually had credible sources, over time, those sources obviously dissappeared, but up until around the 18th centuary, no one disputed the existence of God. 

Now look,you can argue all you want, and make excuses as to why this is, but arguing that the absense of contemporary evidence that Jesus existed proves that Jesus did not exist, is probably the worst argument someone can make, as I can use the same argument that there is no contemporary evidence that suggests that Jesus did not exist.

Sure, everything recorded is likely second hand sources, but back then, no one disagreed that Jesus existed.  

They will find the same information that we have today - the 50 years post hoc information. You think that simply disappears or what? I'm not sure what you're arguing here. It certainly isn't logical.

Back in Roman times no one disagreed that Zeus existed. Your argument is stupid. 

And I don't have to DISPROVE anything; I'm so sick of hearing this retarded statement. I am simply saying there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus, and that is enough to doubt his existence. You are claiming he existed, you prove your claim. I'm simply rebutting it; don't shift anything on me.

chriscox1121 said:

so you don't believe anything about history unless there was a contemporary author at that time writing it down as it happened?

Manifesting a Messiah 50 years later out of thin air is not evidence of anything. We have documents from before 4 BC and during Jesus' life. And none of them; NONE of them, contain any mention of Jesus.