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).

WHAT?????????????????????????? It is general knowledge amongst historians that by the middle ages, there were HUNDREDS of NT variants floating around. Martin Luther himself changed a few key things that made it then into the KJ bible (either he was not fluent in old greek - likely - or made intentional changes). Comparing the many variants actually helps researchers figuring out which varieties are more likely "correct" (whatever correct means) than others...

Variants as in translations that only differ in minor details, with the exception of a couple of famous forgeries like the added sentence in the end of chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew, that aimed to strengthen the doctrine about the Trinity.

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. 

Let's say your right Matzy. That we don't have an accurate account of what Jesus said. You are still wrong that he isn't the most influential man.

Also, isn't Herodotus an accurate account of the wars that he wasn't an eye witness to? Sounds like double standards to me

Lol dude think about what you said. If everyone started trying to emulate Harry Potter, is Harry Potter the most influential person ever, or J K Rowling?

Im guessing you are religious because you are not approaching  this rationally as a historian. 

Rational historians have been posted in this very thread talking about the validity of jesus. You are the one who is approaching this irrationally. Harry Potter is a fictional character. Jesus, however, is not. His story may be embelished by the writers of the bible but there is no doubt in credible historians minds of the historical jesus.

Now give up. Its a losing battle for you. I already answered your question if I'm religious in an earlier post to dsgue.

Even if we ignore written sources as evidence of him being the most influential you still would need to name me someone who has been more influential that we base our dates off of them

Another thought came to mind.  While Christianity has had a huge impact on Western Culture it hasn't had that same effect world wide and there are regions where it had very little effect, on the other hand you'd be hard pressed to find regions that have not been dirrectly affected by the Industrial Revolution, so I'm sticking with James Watt for the most influential person for modern life.  If you are counting influence throughout history then I think you'd probably have to go further back than Jesus.  

So be repeating the generally held views by historians on Jesus I'm being irrational. Lolwut?

Dude, l2history. Second/third/n-hand accounts passed down orally are piss-poor sources of evidence. Jesus may not be fictional, but what he is claimed to have said may be. Embelished?? Try fabricated. 

You are not understanding me. I am not saying Jesus did not exist. I am saying that we sure as anything cannot attribute the majority of what is written in the NT to a man named Jesus. 

You are quite obviously letting religion blind you to history and the scientific method. 

Let me give you an example. If I wrote a book that said that Hitler promoted love, charity and peace, history was forgotten and then 500 years later this book was found and people followed the "teachings" of Hitler, does that make him influnential? Of course not, because what was written was not what he said. This is what I am saying. Understand? Or is your faith one that you have to believe that the Bible is infallible? 

LOL! I'm letting religion blind me yeah. Okay. And yes, embellished. Not fabricated. Someone wouldn't be crucified like that for nothing. The man did something and garnered followers. He obviously was saying something. Did he walk on water or feed 4000? I don't know. But what I do know is there was a man that people claimed to be the messiah because he said some stuff

Also, second and third hand accounts have been good enough for other things (Not everything we know about Socrates came from Plato which is a second hand account anyway).