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

 

 



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

Around the Network
drkohler on 10 April 2013
Mazty said:

 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 ..

Constantine did nothing of that sort. He ordered copies of what has probably survived as CODEX VATICANUS and CODEX SINAITICUS (parts of the old testimony). "The bible" is a selection of stories and letters bundled into a book. These selections usually differed wherever you happened to live on the map,  and how often the texts changed due to transcription errors and "beautifications" by the transcribers. When people talk about "the bible", they usually mean something that was compiled in the middle ages...



Mazty on 10 April 2013
chriscox1121 said:
Mazty said:

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?


Did he write is, as in J Smith, no. Did he compile it? No one knows. We do know that without the first council of Nicea, that we wouldn't have the established relationship between Jesus and God. Considering how big of a concept that is in Christianity, go figure how much else of the Bible may have been fabricated. 



Mazty on 10 April 2013
drkohler said:
Mazty said:

 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 ..

Constantine did nothing of that sort. He ordered copies of what has probably survived as CODEX VATICANUS and CODEX SINAITICUS (parts of the old testimony). "The bible" is a selection of stories and letters bundled into a book. These selections usually differed wherever you happened to live on the map,  and how often the texts changed due to transcription errors and "beautifications" by the transcribers. When people talk about "the bible", they usually mean something that was compiled in the middle ages...


Lolkdude.

" Current scholarship considers the Codex Sinaiticus to be one of the best Greek texts of the New Testament"

"The Codex Vaticanus (The Vatican, Bibl. Vat., Vat. gr. 1209; no. B or 03 Gregory-Aland, δ 1 von Soden), is one of the oldest extantmanuscripts of the Greek Bible (Old and New Testament)"

Looks like your argument just went *bang*. 



DaRev on 10 April 2013

Jesus was an awesome fellow.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

Around the Network
Fifaguy360 on 10 April 2013

There's actually a book on the subject:
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael H. Hart

Top 3 were: 1. Muhammad 2. Isaac Newton 3. Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100:_A_Ranking_of_the_Most_Influential_Persons_in_History#Hart.27s_Top_10_.28from_the_1992_edition.29



dsgrue3 on 11 April 2013
allenmaher said:

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.

 

I tried to tell them. For some reason they think that Jesus' existence is a fact and people who refuse to accept it are "ignorant". It's hilarious, truly.

"What? You don't believe me? You're ignorant then."

Yeah, great argument. Very compelling. So tired of these Jesus' shills spouting nonsense. 



Slimebeast on 11 April 2013
Mazty said:
chriscox1121 said:
Mazty said:
chriscox1121 said:

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

Sure?

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

L2research. 

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.  


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. 

Where on earth did you read that nonsense?

The New Testament

The following table gives the most widely accepted dates for the composition of the New Testament books, together with the earliest preserved fragment for each text.

Book Dates determined by scholars Earliest Known Fragment
Gospel of Matthew 60-85 CE[10] 𝔓104 (150–200 CE)
Gospel of Mark 60-70 CE 𝔓88 (350 CE)
Gospel of Luke 60-90 CE 𝔓4, 𝔓75 (175–250 CE)
Gospel of John 80-95 CE 𝔓52 (125–160 CE)
Acts 60-90 CE 𝔓29, 𝔓45, 𝔓48, 𝔓53, 𝔓91 (250 CE)
Romans 57–58 CE 𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE)
Corinthians 57 CE 𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE)
Galatians 45-55 CE 𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE)
Ephesians 65 CE 𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE)
Philippians 57–62 CE 𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE)
Colossians 60 CE +[citation needed] 𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE)
1 Thessalonians 50 CE[2] 𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE)
2 Thessalonians 50-54 CE[11][12] 𝔓92 (300 CE)
Timothy 60-100 CE[citation needed] Codex Sinaiticus (350 CE)
Titus 60-100 CE[citation needed] 𝔓32 (200 CE)
Philemon 56 CE[citation needed] 𝔓87 (3rd century CE)
Hebrews 63-90 CE[citation needed] 𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE)
James 50-200 CE[citation needed] 𝔓20, 𝔓23 (early 3rd century CE)
First Peter 60-96 CE[citation needed] 𝔓72 (3rd/4th century CE)
Second Peter 60-130 CE[citation needed] 𝔓72 (3rd/4th century CE)
Epistles of John 90-110 CE[13] 𝔓9, Uncial 0232, Codex Sinaiticus (3rd/4th century CE)
Jude 66-90 CE[citation needed] 𝔓72 (3rd/4th century CE)
Revelation 68-100 CE[citation needed] 𝔓98 (150–200 CE)

As you can see, the majority of NT books were written 30-60 years after the death of Jesus, and the apostle Paul even started to write his letters to the young Christian churches around the world in less than 20 years after Jesus. About this there is no debate, science is settled on this matter.

The canon and its development - namely the question of which already existing Christian writings were seen as inspired or not is an entirely different thing. But the canonization process was quite robust long before emperor Constantine, as evident from the writings of the first Christian Church fathers around 150-200 AD that show that there was agreement about the majority of the books, but at that time there was still some dispute about a few of the books on wether they could be considered authentic and/or inspired (and for those particular books there still is dispute to this day about their authenticity).

Constantine had little, if any, influence on the canonization process.



Slimebeast on 11 April 2013
Mazty said:
chriscox1121 said:
Mazty said:

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?


Did he write is, as in J Smith, no. Did he compile it? No one knows. We do know that without the first council of Nicea, that we wouldn't have the established relationship between Jesus and God. Considering how big of a concept that is in Christianity, go figure how much else of the Bible may have been fabricated. 

Flawed logic.

The council was about interpretation of already established written material.

If anything, the council of Nicea is just another example of how much respect and humbleness the early Church had for the soon-to-be-finally-canonized inspired Christian books that were in circulation and how they could not be tampered with.



Jay520 on 11 April 2013

Guys, the OP said "real or not." For the sake of a more intriguing argument - whether Jesus was the most influential person - let's just assume he exists. The Jesus existence debate is pretty boring imo. If you don't believe Jesus existed, then just pretend the thread is a hypothetical situation in which he did exist. From that point, we can assess whether such a man would have (hypothetically) been the most influential versus other religious figures, physicists, mathematicians, etc. That would make a much more interesting debate. Who agrees?