AHC- which religious figure had the biggest impact? And what happens without them?

[Daztur]

With this sort of thing the farther back the POD the bigger the divergence therefore Zoroaster due to his affect on the development of Abrahamic religions among other things. Removing him butterflies a whole lot of Judaism and certainly Jesus as well.

I'm also finding description of the influence of the Buddha as merely local rather bizarre considering the vast extent of his influence.

 

[Beedok]

Even if Jesus was unique that doesn't change that Buddha was too and has had a direct influence on as many or more people.

 

[Jbenuniv]

It depends on whether or not Zoroastrianism had as big an influence on early Judaism as some scholars believe. If it did, then removing Zoroaster removes - or radically alters - all the related religions. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, all become unrecognizable or nonexistent.

 

[SunDeep]

Kind of surprised by how large a lead Jesus has built up over the other candidates in the poll. I thought it'd be closer than this...

 

[Beedok]

Kind of surprised by how large a lead Jesus has built up over the other candidates in the poll. I thought it'd be closer than this...

It's a western dominated forum. I'm sure if we held a poll like this in India Muhammed and Buddha would probably be vying for the lead.

 

[Space Oddity]

Because Messianic claimants back then were like political candidates today. You get behind one and support him, but if he fails, you move on to a different candidate. You don't stick with a loser. And execution is the ultimate form of failure, which is why I don't see any other followers doing what Jesus' disciples did.

Ever hear of Sabbati Zevi? 17th century Jewish Messiah claimant who converted to Islam, which I think we can agree, as Messianic failures go, hits a new level.

Has followers to this day.

Don't make blanket statements about people's faith in men. They will believe what they believe. If circumstances should challenge their beliefs, many will cease to believe, yes. But others will simply adjust their beliefs.

It's a western dominated forum. I'm sure if we held a poll like this in India Muhammed and Buddha would probably be vying for the lead.

Nah. It'd be Mohammed and 'Other', I suspect.

 

[American Emperor]

Ever hear of Sabbati Zevi? 17th century Jewish Messiah claimant who converted to Islam, which I think we can agree, as Messianic failures go, hits a new level.

Has followers to this day.

Don't make blanket statements about people's faith in men. They will believe what they believe. If circumstances should challenge their beliefs, many will cease to believe, yes. But others will simply adjust their beliefs.

I didn't say it was impossible. I merely had strong doubts. And the very fact that it took sixteen more centuries for this other unique Messianic claimant to pop up almost bolsters my point that another preacher wouldn't have taken Jesus' place in ancient Israel. People such as them are very rare indeed.

 

[SunDeep]

Nah. It'd be Mohammed and 'Other', I suspect.

Don't think so. Buddha was Indian, after all- and Hinduism doesn't really have any historically verified central figures. Except perhaps for Adi Shankara, and without the influence of Buddhism, there's not really much he can do (if he's even born after 1000 years' worth of butterflies)...

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Muhammad. The Caliphate's appearance and influence can't be understated IMO, to the point where I'd much rather use the date of its establishment (632) as the date to signal the start of the Middle Ages rather than the Fall of Western Rome.

 

[St. Just]

I'm between Jesus and Buddha. Buddha is huge in Asia- but his actual philosophy is diluted, especially in the Mahayana countries where they sort of just stapled "Buddhism" on top of local gods and the prior influences of Confucius and Lao Tzu. Buddhism in its pure form is much less popular.

Christianity, unlike Buddhism, overturned the entire religious landscape of the West, managed to become mostly united, had a hugely influential Church infrastructure, and obviously led to its very-influential cousin, Islam. I'd go with Jesus, with Buddha as a close second.

 

[Beedok]

I'm between Jesus and Buddha. Buddha is huge in Asia- but his actual philosophy is diluted, especially in the Mahayana countries where they sort of just stapled "Buddhism" on top of local gods and the prior influences of Confucius and Lao Tzu. Buddhism in its pure form is much less popular.

Christianity, unlike Buddhism, overturned the entire religious landscape of the West, managed to become mostly united, had a hugely influential Church infrastructure, and obviously led to its very-influential cousin, Islam. I'd go with Jesus, with Buddha as a close second.

I would guess that early Christians would be as confused by modern Christianity as early Buddhists would be confused by modern Buddhism.

Nah. It'd be Mohammed and 'Other', I suspect.

Buddha's considered fairly key in Hinduism, and from a simply political history standpoint.

 

[Space Oddity]

I didn't say it was impossible. I merely had strong doubts. And the very fact that it took sixteen more centuries for this other unique Messianic claimant to pop up almost bolsters my point that another preacher wouldn't have taken Jesus place in ancient Israel. People such as them are very rare indeed.

I said he was a Messianic claimant. Judaism has been producing Messianic claimants at a steady clip since the first fall of the kingdom of Judah, some of whom, yes, continue to have followers and champions to this day. I mentioned Sabbati as the grandest example of your maxim of people just abandoning failed Messiahs not exactly being true.

Don't think so. Buddha was Indian, after all- and Hinduism doesn't really have any historically verified central figures. Except perhaps for Adi Shankara, and without the influence of Buddhism, there's not really much he can do (if he's even born after 1000 years' worth of butterflies)...

Yes, Buddha was an Indian, but as I understand it, many of them don't think as much of him as the rest of the world does.

 

[Just a Rube]

Muhammad. The Caliphate's appearance and influence can't be understated IMO, to the point where I'd much rather use the date of its establishment (632) as the date to signal the start of the Middle Ages rather than the Fall of Western Rome.

Muhammad was certainly influential, but he was also massively influenced by Christianity (in the same way that Christianity was influenced by Judaism). So I'm subsuming his influence as part of the impact of Jesus. Certainly one can hypothesize that some other messianic claimant might have been as successful as Jesus, but historically none did.

Given that over half the world's population self-identifies as Christian or Muslim (with Christians having a significant edge), it's pretty clear that the Abrahamic religions are the most influential. Historical figures are more complicated, but considering the massive impact that Christian and Islamic expansion had on the world, it certainly seems relevant.

It's also worth noting that Jesus is hardly unique among these figures in coming out of a milieu where there were numerous similar competing religious figures. We just have better documentation (although not great) of the environment of Jesus versus that of e.g. Zoroaster (where we can't even be sure which century he lived in). Buddhism, for instance, was one of a number of sects that emerged around that time in reaction to the perceived failings of Hinduism (Jainism is probably the next most prominent of these movements). If the argument can be made that "someone else could replace Jesus", then the same is true for Buddha.

 

[Beedok]

Yes, Buddha was an Indian, but as I understand it, many of them don't think as much of him as the rest of the world does.

He's considered by many to be one of the avatars of Vishnu.

 

[Dirk]

ABRAHAM, is there any question about this? Without him both Jesus and Muhammed are butterflied both physically and philosophically. Buddha is butterflied physically, but another like him might easily arise on the Indian subcontinent.

 

[Beedok]

Buddhism, for instance, was one of a number of sects that emerged around that time in reaction to the perceived failings of Hinduism (Jainism is probably the next most prominent of these movements). If the argument can be made that "someone else could replace Jesus", then the same is true for Buddha.

True, but lack of spread for Jainism vs. Buddhism is in many ways due to the non-universalising nature of Jainism. So India seems to have produced a lot religious ideas at the time, due in part to a much larger population base than Israel, and most of them faltered or didn't want to grow.

Didn't Christianity not decide to try converting non-Jews until after Christ's death? Buddhism was universalising from the start.

 

[Space Oddity]

He's considered by many to be one of the avatars of Vishnu.

Yes. Who lures unrighteous people to damnation by getting them to abandon the proper faith.

Doesn't sound so complimentary now, does it?

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Have to go with Abraham as Jews, Christians and Muslims all follow the same God, the God of Abraham.

 

[Just a Rube]

Didn't Christianity not decide to try converting non-Jews until after Christ's death? Buddhism was universalising from the start.

Depends which source you use (Mark has Jesus preaching to e.g. the Syro-phoenician woman, while Luke explicitly associates outreach to non-Jews with Peter's dream in Acts). Which is a problem with all of these figures; most of our earliest sources about them come from their followers, who generally have their own axes to grind (e.g. we have tons of stuff from Paul arguing for the importance of missions to the Gentiles, but nothing from his Christian opponents).

 

[St. Just]

So Buddha is Vishnu trolling his own followers into damnation?