Anothony gets it. Not sure why matzy cant

There's no debate. You shouldn't read conspiracy theories and myths on the internet.

I'll make it simple and quote Wikipedia:

In the synoptic gospels Jesus uses the word Gehenna 11 times to describe the opposite to life in the Kingdom (Mark 9:43-48).^[27] It is a place where both soul and body could be destroyed (Matthew 10:28) in "unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43).

Gehenna is also mentioned in the Epistle of James 3:6, where it is said to set the tongue on fire, and the tongue in turn sets on fire the entire "course" or "wheel" of life.

The complete list of references is as follows:

• Matthew 5:22: "....whoever shall say, "You fool," shall be guilty enough to go into the, 'Gehenna.'"
• Matthew 5:29: "....it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into, 'Gehenna.'"
• Matthew 5:30: "....better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into, 'Gehenna.'"
• Matthew 10:28: "....rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in, 'Gehenna.'"
• Matthew 18:9: "It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than with two eyes to be thrown into the, 'Gehenna.'"
• Matthew 23:15: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you... make one proselyte...twice as much a child of 'Gehenna' as yourselves."
• Matthew 23:33, to the Pharisees: "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you to escape the sentence of, 'Gehenna'?"
• Mark 9:43: "It is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into, 'Gehenna,' into the unquenchable fire."
• Mark 9:45: "It is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into, 'Gehenna.'"
• Mark 9:47: "It is better for you to enter the Kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into, 'Gehenna.'"
• Luke 12:5: "....fear the One who, after He has killed has authority to cast into, 'Gehenna;' yes, I tell you, fear Him."
• James 3:6: "And the tongue is a fire,...and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by, 'Gehenna.'"

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

No one denies that Gehenna also was an actual place outside of Jerusalem, where people centuries back had been sacrificed and which by the time of Jesus was mostly used as a place to burn trash, but during those hundreds of years Gehenna had gotten an additional meaning, an allegorical name for a place in the spiritual realm where the wicked shall be punished.

So when Jesus says "Gehenna" he means a spiritual place like Hell.

Knowing the scientific method and not swallowing religious rhetoric like a flagellant doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist ;)

None of that proves what I said wrong. L2theology. Again it backs up the taught idea that Jesus wasn't talking about magical places, but was being more relevant to the real world. You really don't know what you're talking about...Hellfire? No, just the fires in Ghenna. The wicked etc? He (apparently he) was talking about the shit existance that an immoral life would take you down and you'd end up there. Only later on did the Church turn Ghenna into a magical land that you magically go to when you die. 

Because you have fuck all proof that a guy called Jesus actually said any of what is in the Bible. Why can't you get that? It's simple. If I write a book and then claim "OMG JESUS WROTE IT" it doesn't make it so, does it?
Are you relgious by any chance as I feel that you would prefer not to see what I am saying rather than not being able to see what I am saying. 

First you make an assertion that Jesus was a human.  This is not a proven fact.  Of the contemporay scholars living at the time (in revisionist later estimation) 0 of them mention Jesus.   The frist mention of Jesus historically is a highly contested Josephus' line was unknown before the 4th century AD even by early christian scholars (e.g. Origen) and experts in the works of Josephus in the second century does not know of the reference despite having the definitive collection of his works (Likely a revision to the works of Josephus after the christian ascendancy in the Constantine period where the paulines where flexing thier muscles).  The historicity is questionable at best, non existant at worst.  Asserting personhood from available sources is like asserting personhood for Zeus or Thor.

If he is a myth then you need to compare him to other mythical figures, like romulus and remus, bhuda, oden and others.  And there I will let you argue over which sky god is best, frankly I don't care.

You haven't given any "proof" that Jesus DID NOT say any of what is in the bible.  It goes both ways, everything you have given us is just theories and myths, Constantine commissioning 50 bibles, and Plato having similar morals doesn't disprove the authenticity of the bible.  Do you understand that?  Are you against religion by any chance, I kinda feel you are distorting "fact" and "theories"

you send me a wikipedia link and tell me "L2research"? OK.  Anyways, your wikipedia source is only claiming that he ordered 50 copies to be produced from the copies that were already in existence.  According to the one source (Eusebius) it was for the use at constanople and the other new churches that were being established.  It doesn't have anything to do with him writing the bible as you claimed.  The "bible" was not even canonized at the time.  You made a very big claim that he wrote the bible, which is completely false.  

Lol brah that's a fallacy. If you are claiming that Jesus did say what is in the Bible, then the burden of proof is on you, not me ;)

It doesn't go both ways, that's not how science works. I'm not against religion, I'm just against bs so when people act as if the Bible was written by a bloke called Jesus or his bestest friends, I'm going to call them out on it. 

If you don't know how to use a referenced page, than that is your problem, not mine. If you find issues with those reference, then fair enough. But until you do, then it's a good source for an online debate. By writing the Bible I mean he compiled it (him and others) - he didn't go Joseph Smith on it. The fact is though that the first Bible's weren't recorded until about ~300 years after the given events so that should bring into doubt the validity of the stories which would have changed as they had been passed on generation to generation. 

The comment was made in jest in light of your comment "learn2resarch" and then quoting wikipedia, the irony of what you said is laughable.  Anyways, by saying "writing" you implied that he edited or redacted its contents, which i think is easily seen to be false and you are stepping away from your statement or perhaps you weren't clear enough on to begin with.  The source you quoted didn't say anything about compiling the bible, it only mentions him wanting to make copies of what was already in existence.  You are reading into what the source says.  Do you have any evidence that he compiled, edited, redacted its actually contents? or are you just making stuff up?