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
chriscox1121 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. 


so then you are retracting your initial statements then.




Around the Network
chriscox1121 on 11 April 2013
chriscox1121 said:
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. 


so then you are retracting your initial statements then.


The council focused primarily on ομοιουσιος and ομοouσιος which Constantine did not understand.

To summarize your statements you have went from....he wrote it, then to he compliled it, then to noone knows.




Mazty on 11 April 2013
chriscox1121 said:
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. 


so then you are retracting your initial statements then.


Clarifying, not retracting. No need to be pedantic. 



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


so then you are retracting your initial statements then.


Clarifying, not retracting. No need to be pedantic. 


well I'm glad you have finallly given me your position, but I must say its a far cry from the one you initially stated; language does have meaning.  




Slimebeast on 11 April 2013
Mazty said:
Slimebeast said:

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.

Not sure where you got that, but it's not right:
 For many reasons scholars today believe otherwise—for example, the gospel is based on Mark, and "it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry, such as Matthew, would need to rely on others for information about it"[7]—and believe instead that it was written between about 80–90 AD by a highly educated Jew (an "Israelite", in the language of the gospel itself), intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values.[1]

Can you please respond to the issue we're discussing?

The thing you're quoting about the gospel of Matthew doesn't put in question anything I said. Instead it's another confirmation that the New Testament is written <50 years after the event instead of the 300 years like you ridiculously claimed.



Around the Network
Mazty on 11 April 2013
Slimebeast said:
Mazty said:

Not sure where you got that, but it's not right:
 For many reasons scholars today believe otherwise—for example, the gospel is based on Mark, and "it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry, such as Matthew, would need to rely on others for information about it"[7]—and believe instead that it was written between about 80–90 AD by a highly educated Jew (an "Israelite", in the language of the gospel itself), intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values.[1]

Can you please respond to the issue we're discussing?

The thing you're quoting about the gospel of Matthew doesn't put in question anything I said. Instead it's another confirmation that the New Testament is written <50 years after the event instead of the 300 years like you ridiculously claimed.


Dear oh dear oh dear....

First of all the Bible wasn't "written" 300+ years after the events as the Bible is a collection of books rather than a book itself. The Bible however was composed, as in all the books, were put together 300+ years later meaning that various accounts in various forms had been floating around. When we mix that fact in with the fact that a lot of the books were not written by eye witnesses, go figure how valid the accounts in it are. 

This thread is just fucking rediculous. It's amazing the level of ignorance surrounding the creation of the Bible - are you religious by any chance? Because very few people seem educated in anyway as to the origins of the New Testament. 



Mazty on 11 April 2013
chriscox1121 said:
Mazty said:

Clarifying, not retracting. No need to be pedantic. 


well I'm glad you have finallly given me your position, but I must say its a far cry from the one you initially stated; language does have meaning.  

No it's not. Also FYI i'm not here to be your teacher so go and do some research before trying to argue a topic - you can't criticise me for not being 100% clear when you are the one that is horribly ill-informed. 



Max King of the Wild on 11 April 2013

Mazty give it up. You've lost



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

Clarifying, not retracting. No need to be pedantic. 


well I'm glad you have finallly given me your position, but I must say its a far cry from the one you initially stated; language does have meaning.  

No it's not. Also FYI i'm not here to be your teacher so go and do some research before trying to argue a topic - you can't criticise me for not being 100% clear when you are the one that is horribly ill-informed. 

Luckily everyone here can go back to and read what you have written and they can judge for themselves on who is ill-informed and might I add inconsistent.




Mazty on 11 April 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
Mazty give it up. You've lost
chriscox1121 said:

Luckily everyone here can go back to and read what you have written and they can judge for themselves on who is ill-informed and might I add inconsistent.

Are either of you religious? Because currently you are both trying to fight generally accepted historical theories:

- The Bible was not written by eye witnesses
- The Bible was put together over 300 years after the events of the New Testament
- Key ideas of the Christian faith were put together at the first council of Nicea
- No one knows how much of what is in the NT is actually what was said by a person called Jesus.