Only 1 of world's top 7 most influential people is European

1)Muhammad (570 – 632 AD) Prophet of Islam.
2)Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727) – British mathematician and scientist.
3)Jesus Christ (c.5BC – 30 AD) Spiritual teacher and central figure of Christianity.
4)Buddha (c 563 – 483 BC) Spiritual Teacher and founder of Buddhism.
5)Confucius (551 – 479 BC) – Chinese philosopher.
6)St. Paul (5 – AD 67) – Christian missionary and one of main writers of New Testament.
7)Ts’ai Lun (AD 50 – 121) Inventor of paper.

Other urls found in this thread:

biographyonline.net/people/100-most-influential.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Wew, what a shit list.

what are you trying to say?

Source?
Big if true.

nice source

Buddha was European

Sourced if not, it's not like you can make objective lists about topics like these.

>the queen is a descendant of Muhammad
newton is British
>Jesus was roman so in turn British
>buddha is British since his followers helped us kill chinks
everyone else is irrelevant

>Jesus Christ
>St Paul
>not European

They were part of Europe when they were alive and their influence is present in Europe more than in any other place.

And the Jews got subsequently purged from their lands and they spread all throughout Europe.

How can they not be considered European?

>They were part of Europe when they were alive
lol no

>Jesus
Literally made up by Roman noble families to seize power and pacify Palestine.

muhammad, jesus and Paul are the only ones there who were really influential
Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Augustus, napoleon are all more influential than those other names

There is no proof that jesus existed

The Roman Empire was defacto "Europe" at the time.

checkmate atheist

>pacify palestine by creating a new sect that would cause even more rift and controversy among the jews
wew

biographyonline.net/people/100-most-influential.html

>Muhammad more influential than Jesus
In your fucking dreams Abdul.

No it wasn't

>muhammed
>not european

Yes it was.

>chosen by whothefuckisthis
Very legit.

>buddha is British since his followers helped us kill chinks
The guy had blue eyes and white skin.

Europe is Europe, the Roman Empire is not Europe.

Post any semblance of proof that Israel was ever included into the definition of Europe.

Attending Eurovision doesn't count.

You've got testimonies right there in the Bible.

Nice list faggot.

Use MIT Pantheon instead.

Ishao(ܝܫܘܥ) was an Aramaic speaking Palestinian

Paul was a Turk

that's like saying Harry potter books are proof that Hermoine exists

>1)
>Muhammed

harry potter books aren't historical documents
>flag
think I'm getting memed 2bh

Ah, wait. Found this guy, who done the list.

>At the 2006 American Renaissance conference, Hart, who is Jewish

Thread should be closed from now.

Geographical borders change with time, but what gets preserved from one generation and passed towards the next generation is culture.

The Roman Empire was the precursor to medieval Europe. It's were they go their culture from. That culture that included Christianity, that was spread throughout the Roman Empire by people within the Empire, called "Christians".

The area wasn't known as Palestine during Jesus' day, the Philistines were a different people that inhabited the region, Paul was a Greek from what is now Turkey, not a Turk. Dumb Jap.

Harry Potter books are fictional novels. The Gospels are massively accepted testimonies.

Turks weren't around back then

2-7 were pretty much nordic aryans

That's a pretty loose definition of Europe that no one besides you uses...

>The Gospels are massively accepted testimonies
Theory of flat earth was massively accepted back then. Your argument is shit.

Israel was foreign and Asian to the Romans.

>Jesus in 3rd place

The most influential people in the world were Afonso Henriques the Conqueror(Portugal) and Sancho II The Strong(Castille) for they are the founders of the countries responsible for assuring the hegemony of christianity all over world

so what information in the gospels has been proven wrong?

>Post any semblance of proof that Israel was ever included into the definition of Europe.

The point is that they were all under one empire during the time when this happened. Jesus and St Paul were no different from some random Greeks or whatever.

With your logic, the continent of America is Europe

How is Muhammad the most influential person in history?

What is the largest religion in the world: Islam, or Christianity?

What Calendar system is the world using - The Christian Gregorian Calendar, or The Islamic one?

Which is the most widely celebrated holiday in the world: Eid, or Christmas?

On every objective measure, Jesus was more influential. The only difference was Muhammad was more relevant during his lifetime, but in the full light of history, the influence Jesus had was far greater.

>Theory of flat earth was massively accepted back then
That Earth is a sphere was known since ancient times. The whole "muh dark ages flat earthers" story is Enlightenment propaganda.

>Muhammad is more influential than Jesus
>Abraham, founder of all Abrahamic religions, nowhere to be seen

No offence irmao, but Iberian Kings were nowhere near as important as Emperor Constantine.

>so what information in the Lord of the Ring has been proven wrong?
None, of course.

I cant believe you retards look at any list and treat it seriously

Ah yes,the guy that moved the capital right next to their enemies and ensured the fall of the western roman empire

retard

I'm not saying Israel or America are Europe.

I'm saying that Americans and Europeans are the descendants of the people amongst which Jesus and St Paul lived and preached.

>Jesus and St Paul were no different from some random Greeks or whatever.
Now that's just bullshit. Give the Gospels a read. The Jews and Jesus are clearly perceived as foreigners that the Romans rule over. The Roman Empire wasn't that cosmopolitan.

What pacified Palestine was the The Siege of Jerusalem in 70AD.

>Most of the Middle East speaks Arabic now
I don't think Jesus had lingustic impact

>Caused the fall of the Christian-Roman Mediterranean and the Zoroastrianism Persians

Pretty influential mate

There is as much proof of Abraham as there is for Krishna

>WU WUZ PHARISEES, SENATORS N SHIET

and buddha for that matter

Old fiction can't become non-fiction just because it's fucking old, my little nigger.

Constantinople was not "surrounded by enemies" at the time. It was a logical choice to move the seat of power to the wealthiest part of the empire. Rome would rule over Christian subjects in Egypt, Anatolia and the Levant for centuries before the Islamic invasions.

The real enemies to the empire in the 4th century were the Germanic barbarians in the west. The real redpill is that they still are the enemies of Europe.

I agree
irrelevant. answer the question I asked retard

>Muhammad is #1
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Fact: The first account of Jesus is written in Greek.

I'd say Augustus Caesar is more influencial than Costantine by far

There's more proof for Abraham and Jesus than there are for many ancient figures who are considered historical yet are only barely referenced once in some obscure text. If people used the same critical standards for the rest of history as they do for history related to religion, we'd probbly end up erasing a third of what we claim to know about ancient and early medieval history.

You have logical fallacy. Let's start from scratch - what information has been proven right?

As an Emperor, certainly. He is likely the most important Roman figure of all. But he played no role in facilitating the spread of Christianity.

>Pacify Palestine by changing the core tenets of a racially exclusive, tribalist religion
>At the same time weakens the Jewish people by drawing away followers
wew. The threat in Palestine wasn't sects or divisions of Jews, it was the Jews working together.

And the peoples of North and South America speak European languages. That doesn't mean that you're European.

What do you mean influential?Only 2 of this have created empires of some sort.Newton stole some shit from Leibniz

Eh I wouldn't put Muhammad as number 1. Jesus should be number 1. Or just replace everyone on this list Abraham.

Stop taking Zeitgeist seriously.

>whitoids WEWUZing

Unsurprising.

that isn't how the historical method works
Luke was written citing eye witness testimony. now YOU give evidence why Luke would be incorrect or dishonest regarding what hes seen. thats how it works. if we don't have anything that contradicts Luke, then we have to presume thats how the history went down. the only reason people claim otherwise is because Luke is making miraculous claims

Number one should be Plato, number 2 - Karl Marx.

>Luke
It's easy, just basic source analysis. Who is Luke? How relevant is he? How many independent historic sources mentions him? Can he be also figure of fiction? Answer plz.

What? Yeah it totally makes sense that Jesus was first recorded thousands of miles away from where he supposedly lived and that no accounts of Jesus appeared in Hebrew until much later.

Jews only white when it's convenient for you.

Salvador Allende and Pablo Neruda were also Europeans. We were Chileans and so forth.

Luke was a Roman physician who wrote in a formal historian prose. He is mentioned by Paul, Marcion, Irenaeus, Origen and Athanasius. theres nothing to support the idea that he is a figure of fiction or dishonest

Jesus is more famous than both of them put together

Lucius Apuleius was Roman citizen and priest. In his books he describes a man, who became an ass and then met goddess Isis. Should we accept his writing as credible also?
It said "influential", not famous. Can't think of no one more influential in Western Civilization than Plato.

the difference is he didn't face persecution for his belief, and even if he did, there weren't 500 independent witnesses who also viewed it (1 corinthians 15:6)

>Jesus was first recorded thousands of miles away from where he supposedly lived
The fuck are you talking about?

Greek language, names and philosophy were all present in the Middle East and Egypt after Alexander.

>he didn't face persecution for his belief,
Cult of Isis faced severe persecution and destruction by ravaging christians. It is widely known.
>1 corinthians 15:6
Irrelevant.

thats not irrelevant, we are talking about evidence of Jesus are we not

>Should we accept his writing as credible also?
He was writing a novel, not a historical account.

>He was writing a novel, not a historical account.
Prove it. Also prove it that Luke was writing a historical account, not a fast-composed tale for rich greek fools that were craving for any oriental exotic.

jesus was from europe, but in the past thousand years the continents have shifted

It's quote from the source of which credibility we are now talking. Hence irrelevant.

Hurr, prove that Lucius existed and was not just an imaginary character.

I brought up another source that directly references Luke. you bring up some source from hundreds of years later. mine is more relevant than yours

A English man in the 18th century came up with that list

Copious amount of mentions of him by contemporaty authors. Including christian ones (secondary unaffiliated sources).
>another source that directly references Luke
The same New Testament, not another source.

you realize the whole new testament is a collection of different sources? they aren't written by the same person

There's copious mentions of contemporary sightings of St. Mary as well.

The Pangeia happened thousands of years before the humans, even because if it happened in our living time, there would be no one alive, retarded. You are literally fucking with volcanic cores and tectonic plates, also moving a fucking continent among locations, do you think this is like moving a ship between two points?

I thought this thing of dumb Americans was just a meme.

Pretty sure he was joking.

You shouldn't take everything people write here seriously.

Still they are highly affiliated, hence cannot be observed as independent or reliable. Plus all of them also of some opaque origin and near-legendary author.