Debbie Jellinsky
User
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 2,024
...
Marina Salty
Ex QOTB
It was her death anniversary yesterday
Tisch
DO IT FOR HER
Isn't she having a party in the sky?It was her death anniversary yesterday
ButterTart
Like Mussolini or Kennedy
disneyteletubby
𝄞 🎶🪽🔮🦪🌌♡
- Pronouns
- she/her ♀
☺
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Messages
- 5,862
Well I wasn't around for any of the 20th century, but quite sure this would be iconic 
♡
♡
disneyteletubby
𝄞 🎶🪽🔮🦪🌌♡
- Pronouns
- she/her ♀☺
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Messages
- 5,862
(1977) Might not seem relevant here, but a Bob Marley song links to the next one ♡🕊
disneyteletubby
𝄞 🎶🪽🔮🦪🌌♡
- Pronouns
- she/her ♀☺
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Messages
- 5,862
One of the bravest and most iconic, Sinéad O'Connor ♡
Inner Smile
Honest and real
It's quite incredible that we saw a millennium, the chances are slim
Inner Smile
Honest and real
But it won't happen again for 975 years
jyxz
User
974
Agneeta
User
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2025
- Messages
- 7,140
I mean it's incredible that our grandparents lived through WW2. That was at least an actual event with consequences. The changing of the millennium just marked the passing of time based on an arbitrary decision by a 6th century monk to place a date on the birth of a fictional character.
K.C.
Users
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2012
- Messages
- 25,371
Wild historical and mathematical takes here. The number we give the year is arbitrary, but its duration is not. WWII isn't any less arbitrary to the cosmos. Also, are you referring to Jesus mythicism? Because that's a fringe movement that WILL get you eye rolls in most scholarly communities, religious or secular. The historicity of Jesus is supported under standard historical methodology.
Penelope
Бангаранга
Jesus definitely existed - the Roman historians wrote about him!
ZenGiraffe
Panini S.p.a.
And he was one of those nutters screaming about the impending apocalypse!
Tisch
DO IT FOR HER
He walked around calling himself the Messiah and pretending to do miracles I think he'd be fine with it!Yeah Jesus definitely existed, but I bet the poor bloke didn't expect to be plagiarised for centuries by white people so that they could take money from poor people and build pretty buildings for their leaders to secretly fiddle children!
Anyway this thread is for the 20th Century not the 1st! (Unless anyone wants to open one
)
Suomi
User
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2004
- Messages
- 54,305
Jesus is good and obviously has some great later season moments, but Mary Magdalene Philipsson is my pick for the top.
She’s often ignored because she wasn’t there for infamous Last Supper scene
but her other storylines more than make up for it. She has a fabulous scene where she finds out Jesus is BACK and debates whether to throw together a disco and buffet, plus many believe that she is the reason Tescos sells so many Cadbury’s Easter Eggs in April, which I think is brilliant because I love Mini Eggs.
Mary’s great grandaughter would go on to come 4th in Eurovision 1999 for Croatia with a song she wrote about her nan called Marija Magdalene (translation: Mary Magdalene)
She’s often ignored because she wasn’t there for infamous Last Supper scene
but her other storylines more than make up for it. She has a fabulous scene where she finds out Jesus is BACK and debates whether to throw together a disco and buffet, plus many believe that she is the reason Tescos sells so many Cadbury’s Easter Eggs in April, which I think is brilliant because I love Mini Eggs.
Mary’s great grandaughter would go on to come 4th in Eurovision 1999 for Croatia with a song she wrote about her nan called Marija Magdalene (translation: Mary Magdalene)
K.C.
Users
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2012
- Messages
- 25,371
Paul's undisputed letters - Paul of Tarsus and his identity/background are basically uncontested. His words and meanings in these letters would have to be warped so far to support Jesus mythicism that YOU'D end up with the heavier burden of proof.
Tacitus (Roman historian) - historically reliable; has no reason to lie or fabricate info, esp cuz he hated Christians; and actually writes in a very dismissive/hostile way about Jesus.
Josephus (Jewish historian) - Even WITH later Christian 'edits' to his work, his notes about Jesus are universally regarded as authentic by religious and secular historians.
Those last two are important because if Jesus was a myth then you'd need to show proof of why/how two independent non-Christian (arguably ANTI-Christian) scholars would both write about him, place him in the same time, and place him under the same Roman prefect.
Also, really importantly, movements based on fictional/mythical characters are EXTREMELY rare (if not nonexistent), even more so in antiquity. And when they are there, they're never portrayed in real contemporary places, attached to real historical events, or related to real historical people. They're always...mythic in origin - from "once upon a time" etc etc. Inventing charismatic/religious leaders was NOT commonplace.
There's more evidence/arguments but that's a quick rundown. "Jesus mythicism" is actually too credible of a term. It really should be called "Jesus skepticism" because the evidence needed to debunk/discredit the mentions/recordings of Jesus just isn't there.
Last edited:
K.C.
Users
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2012
- Messages
- 25,371
After Jesus' death. But that doesn't carry the weight you THINK it does - trivial at best. In fact, no historian treats this as a problem because posthumous sources of people's lives are the bread and butter of history. Nearly ALL sources written about ALL ancient people are posthumous. Just a simple Google search tells us that our sources on people like Pythagoras and Alexander the Great are 300+ years after their death. Jesus actually had MUCH CLOSER sources.
Also, later writing can actually be a strength because in the case of Tacitus he had no reason to adopt Christian 'propaganda' (unless you have some groundbreaking evidence that he did), because he was writing from an administrative perspective using authoritative Roman sources that had accumulated a very respectable account of the early Christian movement. Same with Josephus - he didn't rely on Christian sources but instead had access to credible Jewish archives (I believe he came from an affluent Jewish family).
Last edited:
Agneeta
User
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2025
- Messages
- 7,140
I literally have a History Masters, I'm aware of how historical sources work.
He probably did exist (despite an aching lack of decent evidence, St Paul - biased, Tacitus was only reporting Christian belief, Josephus is highly debated), but most of the stories about Jesus are adapted to suit theology, rather than historical proof. He was one of many rebellious preachers at the time, whose ideas suited the historical era. He wasn't special, just lucky.
Either way it doesn't change the fact the years are arbitary, formed by a best historical guess based on theological argument. If anything he got the date wrong.
It certainly doesn't change the fact the turning of the millennium (which was only memorable for the fact we found out that the queen doesn't know how to link arms to Auld Lang Syne and the planes didn't crash) was less significant than WW2 which involved almost half the world at war with each other, remains the most destructive conflict of all time and saw rapid technological, medical and social change, to name but a few. The millennium was literally just drunk people dancing to Re-rewind and the Hamster fucking Dance.
K.C.
Users
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2012
- Messages
- 25,371
Good. Then you know that posthumous sources are the norm for ancient people.
In what way? He had EVERY reason to stay quiet, and had everything to lose by writing about Jesus or anything that diverged from the established Jewish tradition. Suggesting that he threw away his culture, affluence, education and security to become a broke traveling tent-maker to preach about a totally fictional character is by FAR the more outrageous claim and will require evidence.
Incorrect. He was reporting as a Roman historian from an administrative perspective using authoritative Roman sources (not Jewish ones and certainly not Christian ones)...because that was literally his job as a public official. If you're suggesting that he had motives to favor a Christian narrative that propped up a mythic Jesus, then you're gonna need extraordinary evidence because he explicitly expressed hate for Christianity.
This is correct. Many people stood up and claimed to be the "Messiah" or prophets etc. The Jewish leadership were understandably suspicious of him.
Yeah I think for the most part, theologically and orally, his ideas were transparently grounded in traditional Jewish ideas. He spoke the same way all other 1st Century Jewish 'holy men' spoke. But he also broke with Jewish tradition in many parts too - and not just in his claims to divinity. And he CERTAINLY challenged Roman ideology.
Even as a kid I've never understood the appeal of "new years". Like yay, another day in this craphole. It has no real significance no matter WHAT calendar we use. I was just pointing out that if we're going to talk about the "arbitrary" meanings humans attach to date and time, that otherwise have no cosmic significance, then WWII and every other human affair would also qualify. The physical universe attaches the same meaning to WWII as it does for "new years" - none at all.
