I have often wondered about this. My thought was that a Jesus type profit was due. Someone born at a point in human history where just enough information could be recorded and passed down to be viable but not enough to make it disprovable.
My vote would be Stanislav Petrov’s decision that the early detection systems were wrong. Everything else mentioned seems like things that were going to happen at that time.
Yes history would have happened whether or not the Jesus story happened. But we are talking about what actually happened and what significantly caused it. So you are saying that the crusades would have happened without Jesus? That we would have had the Spanish Inquisition? I guess we will never know because it didn’t happen that way. And if it did then we would be talking about a different most significant person or story. The name doesn’t matter, its how events were shaped in real history that matters an in the real world Jesus was a history shaper.
Maybe not a single crisp event, but an achievement:
The Haber-Bosch process for fixing nitrogen. Greatness from a man who introduced gas warfare to the world in WWI.
From Slate:
“Synthetic nitrogen was born 100 years ago; it’s why half of us are alive.”
“Another mind-blowing way to think about it: On average, half of the nitrogen in your body was synthetically fixed”
My vote would be for the date that someone thought to begin recording history. Before then, you either made time to sit and watch it with the family as it happened or you missed it. Finally recording history gave us the freedom to live our lives as we determined and come back to watch history at our convenience, commercial free.
Yes. I think this should be required.
Jesus’s birth is not part of recorded history.
How about the spread of the Christian sect of Judaism? Would that bridge the gap here? I think people in the thread arguing for Oakminster’s candidate (birth of Christ) are really arguing that the spread of Christianity has had more significant impact than any other historical event. So the ‘event’ could be that early sect gaining a foothold and spreading among the goyim.
Sure it is.
Lots of these proposals are not “events”. The invention of writing wasn’t an event, it was a long drawn-out process that spanned thousands of years and was done independently in multiple places.
Stanislav Petrov saving the world from itself.
Yes, I would say that some of Peter’s (or others’) actions would be more relevant to this thread, and it’s an important distinction.
Cite, DrDeth. Not only is his birth not part of recorded history, nothing he ever did is part of recorded history.
Arguable, since people did in fact write down what they’d heard of his birth, life and death.
But can we agree that “the birth, life and death of Jesus” is shorthand for the actions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and a bunch of others who beyond a shadow of a doubt did set in motion a movement that changed the world?
That fact alone that people are still talking about this supposed non-person 2000 years later is proof of his or his movements significance. Not trying to shove religion or Christianity on anybody, just stating the obviois.
a religious figure might be the most significant; but which one, both Jesuds and Muhammad had significant influence on major religions.
some things were significant like the plow. though it was bound to happen.
nuclear weapons are significant and might also have been invented eventally. but it was invented during a war and used it a war. if it was invented outside of war it is possible then it might not have been used.
these most questions make my brain hurt.
No, it isn’t really arguable that what was written about him is not contained in the historical record. Most scholars agree that a person probably existed, but that’s about it.
Has Jesus been a big thing in the part of the world where the bulk of humanity has long lived?
This is just ridiculous. Of course, there are written records about Jesus, including his birth and subsequent life. It’s called the New Testament.
Now if you want to claim those records are fabricated, go ahead. But don’t claim they don’t exist.
I didn’t say they don’t exist. I said they aren’t part of what historians consider the historical record. In other words, it isn’t recorded history, it’s part of the mythological narrative.
The only person being ridiculous is you.
God creating the Heavens and the Earth (as recorded in Genesis) was probably more significant anyway.
Christopher Columbus’ birth is not part of recorded history. Date and place unknown. But there is a fair degree of certainty that he was born – or at least, someone who called himself by a name that corresponds to it, and to whom certain accomplishments are attributed.