The thread is not about people we are fairly certain were born. I have not once disputed that Jesus was likely born. Read for comprehension.
I see what you’re saying, and you have a point. It is a matter of specificity. Had Lincoln lost the presidential election, the slaves still would have been freed, it might have still taken a war between the states, but they would have occurred at a slightly different time in history, but not more than a few years. If Washington had been kllled in battle in the Revolutionary War, the American states would still have agitated against the tired British until the king capitulated.
If Jesus had been crucified ten years earlier or later, how would things have played out differently? There is a hypothesis that if there had been no Jesus, Europe would now be Zoroastrian, but how differently would that have carried Europe through the Industrial Revolution, which certainly would have occurred? At every point along the way, Christianity was adjusted to suit the interests of the powers that were.
The actual point is that history is what it was. Not some hypothetical what if history. In the real world Jesus was an influential force that helped shape things that actually happened because the Catholic Church did exist and did both some incredibly nastey and some fantastically beautiful deeds in his name that still continues to influence billions of people even this very day today.
You are saying Lincoln was insignificant because someone else would have freed the salves. You could say that about anybody. You are basically saying no one is significant which flies in the face of how real people think. Many people hold both Jesus and Lincoln to be very significant even if you choose to blow humanity off.
But then I keep forgetting that thus isn’t great debates. So to each his own. Peace.
Wow, the I’m rubber and you’re glue argument. You don’t see that being used a lot nowadays.
How about you go check on what historians have to say on the subject before you dig yourself in any deeper.
My first thought was the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. It is well-defined and recorded in a way that the birth of Jesus or even Muhammad is not; the way the revolt that led to it happened and played out was not obviously inevitable to me; and its influence on Judaism, Christianity, and the wider course of history was absolutely massive.
For a more recent event, maybe the founding of the Manchu Qing Dynasty. The unique circumstances of their rule determined to a large extent their dealings with foreign powers and the way contemporary China turned out. This is more of a half thought out idea, though.
I didn’t wanna bias the debate.
I’d say the Mongol conquest of the Song dynasty.
There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that if this didn’t happen, an industrial revolution would have kicked off in the 13th century.
Wait, was it supposed to be the most significant event we’ll ever have in history, or only in history to date? Because after 2030 we…
…oh, wait, I’ve said too much. Gotta go!
I don’t think you actually understand the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” argument, because I haven’t used it at all. Maybe you could, you know, try to actually back up your point of view and show me which historians consider the New Testament account of Jesus to be part of the historical record.
I’ll wait here. Go.
If you want to pick nits and be sure everyone is adhering to the strictest of definitions, fine. But at least have the decency to show that “historical record” and “recorded history” are identical and have the same strict definitions. Because otherwise, it is you that has brought the term into the conversation and are now trying to force everyone else into adhering to it. The OP said recorded history. Is the Bible not part of recorded history? I honestly don’t know.
The aspects of Jesus that most historians agree actually happened are:
He existed
He lived mostly in Galilee
He was baptized
He was crucified by the Romans.
There are a couple other things that are debated (did he have diciples, were they later persecuted), but that’s about it. We know nothing about the circumstances of his birth. My argument is that his birth isn’t nearly as important as an event as the actions following his death. Those can’t really be considered a single event.
I’ll second the development of writing. Once that happened, we had a way to pass knowledge on to subsequent generations without the fear that the memories of the preceding generations would be garbled.
I’ll also add the development of calendars and timekeeping, thereby allowing for more efficient crop management and therefore increased food supplies.
So your argument with people claiming Jesus’ birth, which everyone agrees happened, was the most influential event is what, exactly? It seems to me you moved from saying it isn’t part of recorded history to saying it isn’t part of the historical record, using the most stringent definition of historical record. But clearly it was recorded, maybe only in mythological records, but it was recorded and everyone agrees it happened. You might feel the events are more important, which again, were recorded but not necessarily in the historical record. But others feel his birth is important because of what followed.
Pretty much all of them.
Maybe it would help if you would explain what you think historical record means.
Not at all. I’m saying that events proceed as they will, and influential historical figures are those who were in a position to regulate the timing. Or every once in a while to throw a wrench into the gears, which eventually gets chewed up and things level out again. The gears are greater than the wrench.
Hitler came and went within the lifetimes of some of us, but Europe and the World are not really markedly different today than they would have been had Hitler never existed.
Read about Zoroastrianism, and consider the philosophy in light of how the world would have evolved differently if Christianity had never arisen to replace it as a prevailing source of faith and ethics.
There is no record of his birth. No one “recorded” it. Someone who wasn’t there and who knew of no first-hand accounts made up a story many years after his death.
If they think what followed after his birth was important, not the nativity, then why not list those events in response to the OP’s question? If I think the moon landing was the most important event in recorded history, I’m not going to answer the OP’s question with “JFK’s birth.”
Nonsense. No historian regards the New Testament as any kind of accurate history of the life of Jesus.
Sure, then say that and tell us you’ll come back after a bit and post your own ideas.
What is the statute of limitations on recording an event? As far as I can tell, Jesus’ birth was recorded by at least 4 people (okay, not really, as there seems to be some copying going on), but it was recorded. Here I’m using the term recorded to mean that someone wrote down it happened. It may have been years after the fact, and the actual circumstances of where it happened were completely fabricated, but they recorded a birth of a guy named Jesus. It occurred and it was recorded. His life, in totality, has been very influential in history. Other than the supposed resurrection, there probably isn’t a single event in his life that can be pointed to and claimed to be history altering. What best represents this idea? His birth. So people pick his birth. Just like the moon landings. There were 6 of those, and while actually touching down on the moon was a huge milestone, there were A LOT of events that lead up to that. Taken in totality, they add up to an historic event. But the split second Eagle touched the lunar surface isn’t when things magically went from “meh” to “history altering.” If you want to claim Jesus’ birth isn’t the pivotal event, then point out the exact moment the moon landings crossed over to most significant.
I don’t quite understand your point. You seem to be saying “Yes, someone totally fabricated the time, place, characters and events, but it still counts as a record of his birth”. No, it doesn’t.
But if you think the life of Jesus is the single most important even in history, that’s fine. This hijack has gone on long enough and we’re probably just talking past each other at this point. I understand what you’re saying.
Why am I taking this bait?
That’s not even good biblical reading. Only two of the gospels record Jesus’ birth, and the stories are vastly different.
The whole thing is moot though! Even the people that want to see Jesus’ birth as historical agree that the big deal is the influence of Christianity. So the *event *could be Paul deciding to proselytize to non-Jews, and being very successful at establishing this sect. I think most people agree Paul was historical.