Jesus: the most dominant figure in history?

antiskeptic

From a book by John Blanchard entitled "Does God believe in atheists" (pgs 556-557)

We have no record of his date of birth, yet all the worlds chronology is linked to it.

He never wrote a book, yet more books have been written about him than about anyone else in history, and the output is still accelerating. The nearest thing we have to his biography has now been translated in whole or in part into over 2000 languages.

He never painted a picture or composed any poetry or music, yet nobody's life and teaching have inspired a greater output of songs, plays, poetry, films, videos and other art forms. One film, based on his recorded words, has been produced in over 100 languages and has already been seen by more people than any other film in history.

He never raised an army, yet millions of people have laid their lives down in his cause, and every year thousands more do so.

Except for one brief period during his childhood, his travels were limited to an area about the size of Wales, but his influence today is world-wide, and his followers constitute the largest religious grouping the world has ever known.

He had no formal education, but thousands of universites, seminaries, colleges and schools have been founded in his name.

His public teaching lasted just three years, and was restricted to one small country, yet purpose-built satellites and some of the worlds largest radio and television networks now beam his message around the globe.

He set foot in just two countries , yet an organisation committed to his cause claims to make regular flights to more countries than any commercial airline.

He was virtually unknown outside his native country, yet in the current issue of Encylopedia Brittanica the entry under his name runs to 30,000 words.

He is by far the most controversial person in history. Nobody has attracted such adoration or opposition, devotion or criticism, and nobody else's teaching has ever been more fervently received or more fiercely rejected. For centuries, every recorded word he spoke has been relentlessly analysed by theologians, philosophers and others. On the day this sentence is being written (and read), millions of people are studying what he said and did, and trying to apply the significance of his words and actions to their lives.

Even the most dyed-in-the-wool sceptics must acknowledge that this man was something special, and any open minded student of human history should agree that he deserves meticulous attention.

His name is Jesus, who lived and died about 2,000 years ago.

The writer H.G. Wells said of him

I am a historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history...

..Christ is the most unique person of history. No man can write a history of the human race without giving first and foremost place to the penniless teacher of Nazareth."

Would you, as an atheist agree with this assessment of Jesus' foremost place in history? If not (for I suspect that many won't) could you suggest an alternative?

iUseVi

There is no single dominant figure in history, what a laughable idea tbh. There have been many great men and women but only a theist would single out a person like this.

EDIT: obviously not only theists, that was a silly thing to say, but its still ridiculous

strobe

By foremost place in history you mean most famous person in history? Yeah, he'd be well up there. I don't see why you suspect many here won't agree with that. If that is what you mean?

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

There is no single dominant figure in history, what a laughable idea tbh. There have been many great men and women but only a theist would single out a person like this.

Which is why I quoted H.G. Wells - who isn't a theist. Your position would be assisted by suggesting someone who you think supercedes Jesus in terms of historical impact? Or who comes close.

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

By foremost place in history you mean most famous person in history? Yeah, he'd be well up there. I don't see why you suspect many here won't agree with that.

Although being well known is one part of it, I was thinking more of impact - as per OP.

hiorta

Recorded history has no mention of such an individual - apart from Josephus, whose falsified entry has been totally rejected by scholars.
Philo and other contemporaries do not even mention him in passing.

This is astounding considering this individual was said to have got up the noses of Jew and Roman alike, preached contrary to current Law, performed 'miracles', raised the dead who then wandered around the place willy-nilly, yet no contemporary historian felt it worth even a footnote.

Perhaps: www.jesusneverexisted.com/ might help

antiskeptic

hiorta wrote: »

Recorded history has no mention of such an individual - apart from Josephus, whose falsified entry has been totally rejected by scholars.

Record of his existance isn't the question. His position as preeminent in history in terms of impact on history is. We can say the IPU has had an impact on history - even though most agree the IPU doesn't exist (although the IPU's impact on history can be say to actually be the impact of Jesus - given that the IPU is usually deployed in response to Jesus )

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Although being well known is one part of it, I was thinking more of impact - as per OP.

Impact? Ah I misunderstood. Well in countries that would become predominantly Christian I can't really think of any one individual who has had more impact. Outside of those countries his impact was very minimal.

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is why I quoted H.G. Wells - who isn't a theist. Your position would be assisted by suggesting someone who you think supercedes Jesus in terms of historical impact? Or who comes close.

Yeah I conceded that point with a tardy edit.

But its not so much Jesus but his followers who have impacted the world. Yes of course Jesus was necessary for there to be followers but its not like he had any say in the way the church has proceeded.

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

Impact? Ah I misunderstood.

No worries.

Well in countries that would become predominantly Christian I can't really think of any one individual who has had more impact. Outside of those countries his impact was very minimal.

Then the question of the OP remains open to you.

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

Yeah I conceded that point with a tardy edit.

Noted.

But its not so much Jesus but his followers who have impacted the world. Yes of course Jesus was necessary for there to be followers but its not like he had any say in the way the church has proceeded.

His followers would disagree with you on that. Besides, the impact of anyone usually involves the assistance of followers/opponants in some way shape or form.

Only a large meteorite could hope to have a large impact totally of it's own accord otherwise.

The question of the OP stands for you.

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question of the OP stands for you.

Mohammed, Buddha, Hitler. But like I said I don't think we can single out one person in ALL of history that is important. Jesus was important for a section of history, in the past he was not important and in the future I suspect (and hope) less he will be not important.

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

Mohammed, Buddha, Hitler. But like I said I don't think we can single out one person in ALL of history that is important. Jesus was important for a section of history, in the past he was not important and in the future I suspect (and hope) less he will be not important.

Could you elaborate on one of these?

The points made about Jesus attempted to illustrate the enormity and breadth of his impact over the course history has taken. For example: education in the West is something that is founded in Christianity and so the very shape of the world today (based as it is so largely on mass-education and the spread of Western influence) arises out of his impact in this area.

Mohammed, on the other hand doesn't seem to have anything like the same world-shaping impact (and certainly not in the area of education). Buddha even less so. And Hitler is barely a drop in the ocean in comparison.

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mohammed, on the other hand doesn't seem to have anything like the same world-shaping impact (and certainly not in the area of education). Buddha even less so. And Hitler is barely a drop in the ocean in comparison.

Alright lets go with Mohammed for a bit. September the 11th. The billions spent on fighting "terrorism" around the world every year. 1.7 billion plus Muslims in many Islamic countries and around the world.

At the end of the day we are talking legacies. Indeed Christianity has a big effect on education but it doesn't anymore. Islam had a big influence on science and mathematics, but not anymore.

The most common name in the world is Mohammed, now thats a legacy. How you can say Mohammed did not have a world-shaping effect while watching the news about Islamic extremists causing chaos is beyond me.

Galvasean

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mohammed, on the other hand doesn't seem to have anything like the same world-shaping impact

Tell that to the many Muslims of the world.

rccaulfield

Depens what part of the planet your on? Hundreds of millions will have never heard of him! Do you believe he was fatherless btw?

Zombrex

How are you defining "impact" here?

Jesus himself had very little impact on the wider world. He preached in a local region mostly though speech to small crowds.

I think Jesus' followers had much wider impact, particularly Paul.

And then after that I think the Roman Emperors who embraced Christianity, and the European kings who came after them, and of course the Popes had wide and more lasting impact as well.

So are we defining Jesus' having impact because others spread a message that had him at the center?

If that is the case would it not be more reasonable to say that Abraham is the most dominant person is history, or at least far more influential than Jesus, since both Jews, Christians and Muslims all follow religions that stemmed from him (assuming he actually existed)

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would you, as an atheist agree with this assessment of Jesus' foremost place in history?

Depends what you mean by 'foremost'. Certainly, the bible is the most widely disseminated book on this earth, but the interpretations and views of Jesus that this has inspired within individuals are so varied that it's arguable that Jesus isn't just one person, but perhaps thousands or millions.

I'd certainly say that Jesus -- at the time, I believe, unique -- instruction to go out and convert the world has probably seen more use by more political operators than any other single specific human idea. And the inevitable effects of this have probably influenced more people than any other idea too, but the influence has (imho) rarely been to their benefit.

But so what if Jesus is the most famous guy whoever lived? McDonalds and the Common Cold are foremost within their areas of endeavour, and I can't say the world is a better place for them being there.

philologos

Nice try OP.

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

Nice try OP.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

I imagine he has a particular view of how this thread should go

Christian - Here is something we believe which we think is blindingly obvious to everyone, what do you think?
Atheist - Well, it is an interesting question but with a few flaws. Have you thought about these points or considered this? What do you mean by this here?
Christian - Man, we tried with you guys, but clearly you are so indoctrinated with your hatred of Christianity there is simply no point talking to you
Atheist - Er, I thought you wanted us to consider and discuss your position?
Christian - No, not really. We just wanted you to find holes in it so we can dismiss you as biased and anti-theist
Atheist - Oh right, sorry, why didn't you just say so ... Er, Jesus never existed!!! ... that help
Christian - Yes, thank you
Atheist - No problem

:P

Flamed Diving

antiskeptic wrote: »

From a book by John Blanchard entitled "Does God believe in atheists" (pgs 556-557)

Reason upon reason giving genuine doubt as to whether he actually ever existed...


Even the most dyed-in-the-wool sceptics must acknowledge that this man was something special, and any open minded student of human history should agree that he deserves meticulous attention.

No, he wasn't something special, because he probably didn't exist.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

If that is the case would it not be more reasonable to say that Abraham is the most dominant person is history, or at least far more influential than Jesus, since both Jews, Christians and Muslims all follow religions that stemmed from him (assuming he actually existed)

I think this is an excellent point. Assuming that Jesus did exist, he was nothing more than one link in many that formed Christianity as it is. I think from a Christian perspective Adam should be most influential, after all in the myth of the garden of eden he is supposed to be the father of all mankind! Oh, and hes also meant to have brought sin into the world, a pretty influential act, if only it were true of course.

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

I think this is an excellent point. Assuming that Jesus did exist, he was nothing more than one link in many that formed Christianity as it is. I think from a Christian perspective Adam should be most influential, after all in the myth of the garden of eden he is supposed to be the father of all mankind! Oh, and hes also meant to have brought sin into the world, a pretty influential act, if only it were true of course.

Yeah that's a good point.

Adam, if we assume he exists, is probably the most dominant figure in history, since he made us all want to eat babies among other things.

Flamed Diving

Wasn't it Eve who messed things up?

strobe

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah that's a good point.

Adam, if we assume he exists, is probably the most dominant figure in history, since he made us all want to eat babies among other things.

If we are going down that road then it would be Eve rather than Adam, she was the apple muncher.

*Edit* Blast! Too quick for me Flamed.

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

If we are going down that road then it would be Eve rather than Adam, she was the apple muncher.

Good point.

Eve is the most dominant figure in history, given that there is not a single human in history who has not been effected by her actions and will not be continued to be effected by her actions.

I'm curious what the Christians will make of that conclusion.

Flamed Diving

Wicknight wrote: »

Good point.

Eve is the most dominant figure in history, given that there is not a single human in history who has not been effected by her actions and will not be continued to be effected by her actions.

I'm curious what the Christians will make of that conclusion.

Not to mention all the people affected by her before Jesus showed up.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm curious what the Christians will make of that conclusion.

Hey we are just following where logic leads, I'm sure they'll agree immediately.

strobe

Hmmm, just reading back over the OP and it says "most dominant figure", doesn't specify human. In that case I'm changing my choice for the most influencial figure to ever walk the earth to the one that got Eve to eat the apple; The Glorious Satan, Mahook! Our Dark Lord.

Flamed Diving

strobe wrote: »

Hmmm, just reading back over the OP and it says "most dominant figure", doesn't specify human. In that case I'm changing my choice for the most influencial figure to ever walk the earth to the one that got Eve to eat the apple; The Glorious Satan, Mahook! Our Dark Lord.

Does burning as a bush count as walking on Earth?

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

Hey we are just following where logic leads, I'm sure they'll agree immediately.

I don't know, Christians really seem to cling to this idea that Jesus was THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSON EVER!

It is hard to discuss reasons for why Christianity is true with out the idea that if it wasn't true how come so many believe coming up.

I often wonder how 1st century Christians would have viewed such an idea? Would they have been sitting around thinking that hardly anyone in the world believes in Christianity, we meet in secret underground churches, I wonder does this mean Christianity is nonsense?

Calibos

Is David Koresh of the Branch Davidian and Wacko fame the most influencial person in History? No.

In 2000 years will he have been the most influencial person in History? Who knows!

Canis Lupus

strobe wrote: »

Hmmm, just reading back over the OP and it says "most dominant figure", doesn't specify human. In that case I'm changing my choice for the most influencial figure to ever walk the earth to the one that got Eve to eat the apple; The Glorious Satan, Mahook! Our Dark Lord.

Yeah exactly.

Surely the devil can count seeing as christians are always going on about how he is tempting them and how hard it is to walk in the light. So...... using very loose logic even when they follow their god it's because of the influence of satan so satan must be more influential than Jesus.

robindch

Calibos wrote: »

Is David Koresh of the Branch Davidian and Wacko fame the most influencial person in History? No. In 2000 years will he have been the most influencial person in History? Who knows!

Quoth the great Robert Sapolsky:

Sapolsky wrote:

Western religions, all the leading religions, have this schizotypalism shot through them from top to bottom. It's that same exact principle: it's great having one of these guys, but we sure wouldn't want to have three of them in our tribe. Overdo it, and our schizotypalism in the Western religious setting is what we call a "cult," and there you are in the realm of a Charles Manson or a David Koresh or a Jim Jones. You can only do post-hoc forensic psychiatry on Koresh and Jones, but Charles Manson is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. But get it just right, and people are gonna get the day off from work on your birthday for millennia to come.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Quoth the great Robert Sapolsky:

+1

I love the last bit of the quote.

irishconvert

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mohammed, on the other hand doesn't seem to have anything like the same world-shaping impact (and certainly not in the area of education).

Only if you don't look outside of your own version of the world

19.2% of world's population are Muslims
30% of world population are Christian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/31/religion

Pompey Magnus

I remember a few years back there was a survey among historian academics on this very question, Jesus finished joint fifth with St Paul, Alexander the Great finished well ahead of them though in first place. Without Alexander there would never have been the extensive Hellenic culture necessary for Christianity to succeed and without Paul Christianity would have remained a small fringe movement within Judaism which would have soon fizzled out after a few decades.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would you, as an atheist agree with this assessment of Jesus' foremost place in history? If not (for I suspect that many won't) could you suggest an alternative?

Do you actually agree with this assessment, considering the other religious alternative put forward, such as Moses Abraham or even Eve herself?

monosharp

I find it quite impossible to choose 'one' figure but personally I would put Caesar there. And my favourite quote from the man himself which I think our Christian friends should read and think about.

"Men willingly believe what they wish." Gaius Julius Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Gallico.

Which incidentally is also a much better read then any book about Jesus.

edit: Oh I want that as my new sig.

Blackhorse Slim

My suggestion for an alternative is Aristotle. His work on natural philosophy and logic - among other subjects - laid the foundation for western philosophy and science, logic, and the scientific method itself. Science has had a far larger impact on human civilisation (in the last 2000 years or so) than religion, so that puts him well ahead of Jesus in my view. He also had a huge influence on Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

The way the we think about the world around us owes more to Aristotle than anyone else.

Western culture has become the dominant force on the planet because of scientific advances, and Christianity has piggy-backed on that domination, rather than being a cause of it. And Aristotle was around long before the late JC.

I'd put Jesus on a similar level to Abraham, Siddartha Gautama and Mohammed.

Tim Robbins

One cannot forget Mr. Darwin surely.

Ickle Magoo

If all you are looking for is who's reputation has been the most dominant then JC wins hands down; if you are looking for the person who made the greatest or most significant contribution to the whole of mankind then then I'm not sure he'd even make the top 10...

Glenster

monosharp wrote: »

Gaius Julius Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Gallico.

Which incidentally is also a much better read then any book about Jesus.

Embarrasing to say something so wrong.

de Bello Gallico is the 1st Century equivalent of See Spot Run. Or The Da Vinci Code.

A book for the simple. For the unwashed masses.

old_aussie

iUseVi wrote: »

Alright lets go with Mohammed for a bit. September the 11th. The billions spent on fighting "terrorism" around the world every year. 1.7 billion plus Muslims in many Islamic countries and around the world.

WTF does that mean?

wasn't he a pedo?

Pompey Magnus

Glenster wrote: »

Embarrasing to say something so wrong.

de Bello Gallico is the 1st Century equivalent of See Spot Run. Or The Da Vinci Code.

A book for the simple. For the unwashed masses.

Whether this is right or wrong, how exactly is monosharp wrong in stating that it is "a much better read then any book about Jesus", stories which include demons, wizards and men walking on water.

What is your justification in arguing that a book written by the hand of the most important figure in 1st Century BC late Republican Rome on his time in Gaul leading up the civil war which ripped apart the Republic, a book which historians today still refer back to in order to gauge the character of the man and his relationship with the intended listenership, is inferior to a poorly written book full of contradictions, fanciful miracles and plagarism, focusing on some peasant preacher in Galilee?

monosharp

Glenster wrote: »

Embarrasing to say something so wrong.

de Bello Gallico is the 1st Century equivalent of See Spot Run. Or The Da Vinci Code.

A book for the simple. For the unwashed masses.

And what makes you think anything written about Jesus is better ?

I actually also read de Bello Gallico in latin learning the language so it wasn't exactly easy for me. I know its simple, thats why its a great learning tool. Also de Bello Gallico was written in the 1st century B.C.E.

Glenster

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Whether this is right or wrong, how exactly is monosharp wrong in stating that it is "a much better read then any book about Jesus", stories which include demons, wizards and men walking on water.

What is your justification in arguing that a book written by the hand of the most important figure in 1st Century BC late Republican Rome on his time in Gaul leading up the civil war which ripped apart the Republic, a book which historians today still refer back to in order to gauge the character of the man and his relationship with the intended listenership, is inferior to a poorly written book full of contradictions, fanciful miracles and plagarism, focusing on some peasant preacher in Galilee?

Generals>Peasants? Reductive.

It's a crap read, it's a shockingly simplistic book, you feel stupider after reading it.

There's some great info in it without doubt, but you'd hardly call the purchase ledgers of William of Tyre 'a great read', they have info but are still snoozeville.

The gospels are a great read, I wouldn't try to force you to believe it, but the imagery at least is spellbinding, not to mention the overall narrative arc of it, I thought it was really good. 9/10

The Gallic War is a dirge, a slog, a 'what I did on my holidays', Roman Literature can be great, but not this one.

Glenster

monosharp wrote: »

And what makes you think anything written about Jesus is better ?

I actually also read de Bello Gallico in latin learning the language so it wasn't exactly easy for me. I know its simple, thats why its a great learning tool.

1. See spot run would be hard for someone who didn't speak english. It's still a book no adult would claim to be a great read.

2. The alphabet is a great learning tool, this does not make it a great read.

3. "I actually read de bello gallico", I doubt it, you would never have championed it as a great read if you had. I know there's nothing we can do about it. I just though I should let you know.

De Bello Gallico is patently lame as a piece of literature. Why argue for it?

monosharp wrote: »

Also de Bello Gallico was written in the 1st century B.C.E

Last time I checked that's what I said.

Correctfail.

kowloon

In 2000 more years my money's on Oprah.

robindch

Glenster wrote: »

The gospels are a great read, I wouldn't try to force you to believe it, but the imagery at least is spellbinding, not to mention the overall narrative arc of it, I thought it was really good. 9/10

As first-century speculative fiction goes, the authors certainly get marks for getting their words, and their many subsequent edits, read 2,000 years later, but not much else. I wonder would they all have been as enthusiastic rewriters and reinterpreters of Jesus' life had they know the number of people who would end up dead on his account? Perhaps, but perhaps not too.

But I digress. From the literary point of view, Matthew, Mark and Luke are third-rate, embarrassingly wooden texts, at least in the original Greek before they were spun by later translators way beyond their simplistic, low-brow origins. They make Caesar's mediocre prose seem to sparkle in comparison. The least rude thing that can be said about John's much more literary-level outing is that it's derivative, but at least he could turn a phrase. Paul, who never met Jesus, reworked his life so deeply, that there are few similarities between the "message" of the gospels and the "message" of the later stuff. But, as one would expect, that rather basic fact seems to concern few believers.

If you're looking for entertaining prose from the ancient world, then Plato's where it's at: the characterization is splendid, the prose is excellent and the ideas are as deep and fresh and funny today as they were when Plato wrote them. It's a pity that a religion never formed around Socrates and his heroic death -- unlike Jesus, Socrates had many smart things to say about the world and the people in it. Though, unlike Jesus' pedestrian and self-serving thoughts, it's difficult if not impossible to turn Socrates' into a motivational tool with which one can gainfully control other people.

Seems to explain quite well why Jesus is so popular.