Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Jesus: the most dominant figure in history?
Comments
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59102
Interesting question. I'd say Jesus as a concept would be up there alright. Given how things have gone on a worldwide scale IE European culture* being the dominant one, then drivers of that culture would be the dominant ones too.
My list in no particular order would be Aristotle(huge European influence), Jesus/Paul(for obvious reasons), Gutenburg, Confucious, Galileo.
Closer to home(and date
) and in the European context anyway I would put Patrick's religious mission and his early followers. Without them and their preservation of earlier Roman texts of all kinds, not just religious(which raised eyebrows in what existed of the roman church), we would likely have lost much of those classical texts. The greek stuff was still around in the eastern empire, where Islam got their hands on them later and expanded on that knowledge, but the latin stuff was very thin on the ground and was reintroduced by these Irish guys.
As well as being accused of eurocentricity we can fall into the trap of historicentricity(
) There are names of great influence we can never know. EG The first to make art. The first person to attempt to track the heavens and codify that, even in a religious context. Look at somewhere like the passage tomb at Knowth(beside newgrange). That one site alone contains more than 1/3rd of the neolithic art in all of europe(and the other sites contain well over half). Including carvings that may well be the first sundial. 1000's of years before mesopotamia. Its likely that came from the hand of one person or a small group of people who we'll never know. Individual genius or influence didn't start with the Greeks or Egyptians writing this stuff down.
As for the reality of Jesus' existence historically, the jury is out as far as direct independent sources go. That said there were enough people alive in the 1st century AD who had direct contact with the historical Jesus and indeed many of those died in his name. There are no records that Im aware of where opponents, of which there were many(among his own Jewish religious group), that claimed he didnt exist. Which would have silenced the new faith pretty quickly. So personally I would believe he was a real person. What he believed or what he said is totally up for grabs or an article of faith. From the texts one could extrapolate he was of a type of apocalyptic preacher common at the time(many Jewish sects about at the time.Essenes etc) . Clearly he stood out. And stood out even more with Paul on board. So I would put Paul and him in joint 1st.
Now quite a number of historians who will express doubt about Jesus' existence, will quite happily accept Mohammad as an historical figure. Seems sensible? Not quite. The first mention of Mohammad in any document is 200 years after his reported death. The earliest Islamic coins dont mention him and the earliest datable extant Islamic building(dome of the rock) and texts dont mention him either. Which seems a bit strange given his central importance to the faith. No mention of him** in the Greek/Byzantine texts of the time either. Again strange as he was supposed to have been an important military leader as well as a prophet who according to the Mulsim texts engaged with the Greeks. Objectively the jury is very much out on the accuracy of the historical Mohammad. Even his name The Praised one seems a bit of an add on.
*while many many cultures are part of the the melting pot of today, the overwhelming one is a European slant. Various nations in Asia have had an incredible impact on world history, science, philosophy and culture, but if a martian landed tomorrow, they'd figure the outward signs of culture and technology would be european. The Americas and the Antipodes are "european", Asia's culture is heavily influenced by European culture, as is Africas.
** or Mecca which was supposed to be according to Muslim sources a major trading port. Its nowhere near the main trade routes, nor do any trade maps of the time, of which there are many, mention it.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
Interesting question...........As well as being accused of eurocentricity we can fall into the trap of historicentricity() There are names of great influence we can never know...............
Great post Wibbs, the whole thing but particuarly this point here. We don't know the name of the individual Sumerians, Chinese or Greeks that developed writting or organised written language for example but if we did could there be any doubt in anyones mind that thier impact, thier contribution to mankind, and the trickle down effect antiskep was talking about drawfs anything that came since.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
The dominant figure is totally subjective, there are a million different criteria by which it could be judged. You can think Jesus was if you want but a billion muslims, 700 million (I think) Hindus and 14 million Jews would likely disagree
Given that Christianity outweighs in terms of numbers then this is not a criterion to be citing 0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Given that Christianity outweighs in terms of numbers then this is not a criterion to be citing
If facts were determined to be true or false based on the number of people who believe in them what you say might be true. Luckily they're not0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59102
I would argue thats a very simplistic view. Christianity and defo religions as a whole were in favour of education. If nothing else education in the faith. From our viewpoint today where broad education and understanding of the universe is (and should be) separate from faith, that is not how many cultures would have viewed it. Indeed the majority of cultures wouldnt. One was part of the other. The natural world was either explained through the prism of faith or made to fit it.- the spread of education. Nonsense. Christianity and religion as a whole are inherently anti-education. The fact Christian people/organisations set up schools is as relevant as the fact that the Hippocratic oath originally was pledged to Greek gods. It wasn't invented for that purpose nor has it being retained for that purpose.
Where I would agree with you is with Christianity and it's world viewpoint. It held back what we would see as science for a very long time. Most centers of learning were isolated places where contemplation was the order of the day and the natural world was viewed as a metaphor for god's presence, not a thing to be explored for its own sake. The only text outside that allowed was Aristotles. Though like I mentioned earlier this countries early christian record was pretty good even on that score. Which is amazing, given we were an entirely oral culture that within a lifetime became one of the most literate in Europe. And literate in non religious texts too.
Well it depends on what you would describe as slavery. Certainly if you're bringing in the Japanese model. Slavery as a subject in of itself is worth a thread in humanities.- abolition of slavery. JC wasn't against slavery and countless numbers of your fellow christians have happily used the bible as evidence to support said institution. I had this conversation before with PDN when he was thoroughly beaten. Christianity had nothing to do with the abolition of slavery. The Japanese did it hundreds of years before anyone else and not a Christian in sight.
I would agree that Jesus said little about slaves and even less against the practice. Ditto for his early followers. And if Christians are to believed as far as his divinity he defo should have. But he did not. He did preach all men were equal etc, but didnt get into details, especially regarding slaves. A bit of an oversight when slavery was all around him. One could argue that was the time he lived in and didnt see it as an issue for that time, but that is an excuse. Much like Muslims who excuse Mohammad for marrying and taking to bed a child bride. IMHO If a prophet was a true one, the message he or she carries would be applicable for all times.
Some of his followers did make inroads though. Again(and Im sounding like a major patriot here. Must be the time of year
) Ireland stood out. The pre Christian Irish were well known slavers. Big into raiding parties. One of which brought a Romano Celt to these islands in bonds. Good oul Patricius. When he came back, within a generation, slavery with his natural bias against the practice*, pretty much died out in this country. Long before anywhere in Europe and indeed the world that we know of. a 1000+ years before the Japanese. That is oft forgotten and its something we should be proud of.
Which for me goes to show that good men will be good men and while they may sometimes need the backup of faith to move others, dont need the backup of faith to be good men. When Christians refer to great people who fought against slavery as other Christians, I look to the millions of their faith that didnt and instead look at those who regardless of faith did.
*Indeed he excommunicated a slaver named coroticus for the very crime of slavery. A notion that would have raised eyebrows in other Christian territories.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
It is like saying who is the most dominant figure in history who was a 1st century Jew claiming to be a Messiah who was born in Bethlehem ... what do you guys think?
David: If you had to name a role model, someone who's influenced you... Who would it be?
Dawn: What, like, a historical person?
David: No. Someone who's sort of... general life. Just someone who's really influenced you.
Dawn: There's my mum. She's strong, calm in the face of adversity. Oh, God. I remember when she had a hysterectomy --
David: Iiiiif it wasn't your mother. It doesn't even have to be a woman. It could be a...
Dawn: Man? Okay. Well. I suppose if it was a man, it'd be my father.
David: Not your father. Let's take your parents as read. I'm thinking of someone in the sort of work-related arena...0 -
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Given that Christianity outweighs in terms of numbers then this is not a criterion to be citing
Thats a stupid thing to say.
There is about 1.7 to 2 billion christians on the planet in approx 40,000 sects and cults.
About 1 to 2 billion are atheist.
There are another 3 billion with other beliefs, so you do not outweigh.
You are at best 25% to 30% of planet population.
Such a waste of a beautiful planet.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement