Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Was Jesus a Buddhist?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Karalem View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 94
  Quote Karalem Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Was Jesus a Buddhist?
    Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 13:22
The good question would be whether Jesus was real. I believe he was, but one has to take notice that pagan gods also mirror to an extend the symbol. Even the names like Zeus, or Celtic god Esus are different pronunciations of the same. it comes down to Deus, which means God. But why would the peasant father and his virgin wife call their child God. It is more likely that the original name of Jesus was something else and that he worked himself up in his life to be granted that name, perhaps even after his death.
Back to Top
Karalem View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 94
  Quote Karalem Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 14:04
then again the name could have been popular in Judea and Gallilea, just like today it still is in Spain.
though i bet his name was something else, a known historical figure whose biography was cut loose from that of Jesus. Why was a common prediger hoisted while many others similar to him left no trace. Cross was also a common death. Was he a common preacher?
Back to Top
Baal Melqart View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
  Quote Baal Melqart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 14:50
Originally posted by Karalem

then again the name could have been popular in Judea and Gallilea, just like today it still is in Spain.
though i bet his name was something else, a known historical figure whose biography was cut loose from that of Jesus. Why was a common prediger hoisted while many others similar to him left no trace. Cross was also a common death. Was he a common preacher?


The problem here is that Jesus was not his actual name because the language spoken in Judea at that time was Aramaic and not English. His name in Aramaic is either Yeshua or Yehoshua (might correspond more tot he English Joshua rather than Jesus). And yes, that name was quite common back in those days.
Timidi mater non flet
Back to Top
Karalem View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 94
  Quote Karalem Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 15:21
I take it Jeshua has different etymology to Jesus, which would lead to more than one flukey coincidences, and is down a moot lane since Aramaic is gone. if they are reflexes of the same word, then no problem, it changes nothing.
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 16:29
" My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" are words that give us who&why did create(stress) screenplay's end like this!It was written during Roman Empire as proclamation for enslaved people:Accept your position and destiny mortal beings cause He,the son of God,do not complain and accept his destiny!I know you will say this was reedited after J.C. death but the purpose of simple propaganda pamphlet was it.Very similar was concept of Sidarta&Buda!Rich Prince had born to rule&enjoy abdicated and rejected material world and its pleasures and accepted spiritual world and poverty!Main purpose of both characters
was creation for stereotypes of ordinary social behavior and obedient citizens!No matter what have happened just do the same as they did cause they were chosen and accepted with free will sufferings why do not you!?!Reward will be delivered after in other world&resurrection&life!
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 19:17
Joshua or Jesus was once a very common name in the Middle East. Christ shared his name with the bandit Barabbas, a quack from Crete, and an Old Testament prophet
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 19:47
Originally posted by Nick1986

How do we know Jesus' interpretation of Nirvana wasn't twisted to become the modern conception of Paradise by disciples like Paul who didn't understand his message? Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of gods (indeed, you can be reincarnated as a lesser-god or angel). Jesus' last words: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? could have stemmed from the realisation that God was unable to intervene in the human world

Paradise is a far older idea that Jesus - actually started with the Egyptians - so according to the "Book of the Dead" whoever pass the trial fo the gods, the ceremony of measuring his heart that would show if this person followed the Law of Heaven this person goes in the forever happy land that is always green and live there forever with the gods. Here, the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one, not Nirvana.
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 19:54
Originally posted by Karalem

The good question would be whether Jesus was real. I believe he was, but one has to take notice that pagan gods also mirror to an extend the symbol. Even the names like Zeus, or Celtic god Esus are different pronunciations of the same. it comes down to Deus, which means God. But why would the peasant father and his virgin wife call their child God. It is more likely that the original name of Jesus was something else and that he worked himself up in his life to be granted that name, perhaps even after his death.

I beleive Jesus was real person, a morality teacher, who ended up crucified - but was divinized as part of what he really though about himself - which is not a news, the ressurrection had been around since the Babylonian Dumuzi, and had been rehashed and served in a Judaic context - there is nothing new to that. In the same way pagan god and holidays turned into Christian saints and Easter, Christmas, etc. So, what Jesus came up with wasn't new nor original - just an ordinary person was turned into a Dying God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_god  because people are attracted to simple and hopeful answers to the basic question of the rapaciousness and ephemerality of life. people create gods, not vice versa - this is my opinion anyway.
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 20:36
Originally posted by Don Quixote

Originally posted by Nick1986

How do we know Jesus' interpretation of Nirvana wasn't twisted to become the modern conception of Paradise by disciples like Paul who didn't understand his message? Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of gods (indeed, you can be reincarnated as a lesser-god or angel). Jesus' last words: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? could have stemmed from the realisation that God was unable to intervene in the human world

Paradise is a far older idea that Jesus - actually started with the Egyptians - so according to the "Book of the Dead" whoever pass the trial fo the gods, the ceremony of measuring his heart that would show if this person followed the Law of Heaven this person goes in the forever happy land that is always green and live there forever with the gods. Here, the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one, not Nirvana.
 
I challenge lightly that it is a Egyptian copy....I otoh obviously see a nexus with the Hebrew. Now show me the Egyptian nexus with the Hebrew before their residence in Egypt...and then how... that... after influencing the Hebrew... if at all.... the Egyptian then ties to the Christain version.
 
I suspect as much Babylonian and other interests as much if not more then Egyptian directly.
 
Wink
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Karalem View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 94
  Quote Karalem Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2011 at 15:54
Originally posted by Don Quixote


I beleive Jesus was real person, a morality teacher, who ended up crucified - but was divinized as part of what he really though about himself - which is not a news, the ressurrection had been around since the Babylonian Dumuzi, and had been rehashed and served in a Judaic context - there is nothing new to that. In the same way pagan god and holidays turned into Christian saints and Easter, Christmas, etc. So, what Jesus came up with wasn't new nor original - just an ordinary person was turned into a Dying God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_god  because people are attracted to simple and hopeful answers to the basic question of the rapaciousness and ephemerality of life. people create gods, not vice versa - this is my opinion anyway.


He might have been a preacher, but to become martyr he needed more than just walking the streets and shouting slogans. He preached in Judea, but was a Galilean. He was crucified for preaching, but Judea around that time went through a series of rebellions against Rome. Why did he preach against rabbinic Judaism?
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2011 at 20:09
Originally posted by Don Quixote


Originally posted by medenaywe

Yes J.C. and Buda are similar in two principles:1.follow me2.and all have a reason!It is very peculiar way of being alpha unit avoiding your personal sexuality or even deny it!Male virgin was declared for the first time in New Testament.
I have to disagree with that - first, Jesus didn't preach avoidance or denying of sexuality, this was Paul's idea, and whoever proclaimed his a male virgin did that on his own responsibility. The gospels were written by others, so if they proclaimed him a virgin this has nothing to do with Jesus himself. t one Jesus may as well have been married, we have no way to prove it one way or another. All we know is that he never preached any kind of monasticism, or denying of married life.As for the sacrificial element - Buddha never said he would self-sacrificed himself, nor he said that anyone should  sacrifice themselves, he talked about separation from worldly passion that doesn't exclude married life; just psychological detachment from it. The whole stress on the sacrificial element in Christianity came after Christ, with the Patristic philosphers, aka "Alexandrian School" - in fact they pretty much built Christianity up on a mixed base of Greek philosophy, splash of Judaism and the gospels, that were written in Greek and heavily influenced by Greek worldviews. Jesus himsels was talking about his self-sacrifice, not that everyone should do so; "Sell all you have and follow me" was a call for followers, teachers on morality, not call to detach yourself from the world.Buddhism's message is mostly about detachment and killing if all passion; while Christianity is built on passion; Jesus was passion himself - passion for morality, it oozes out through his /supposedly/ words in the gospels. So I don't see much similarities between both ways of thought.

Perhaps Jesus was aware the crucifixion wouldn't kill him: rather than dying he entered a trance to appear dead (aided by the drugged wine provided by the Romans) and, through his suffering, entered a higher state where he could gain enlightenment (similar to Buddha starving himself under a tree)
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2011 at 20:15
No source evidence to support that and certainly not by a later key witness St. John.
 
The reports of the great storm, and the rising of the dead, and his last words as a human being; at his death...refute it.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Baal Melqart View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
  Quote Baal Melqart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2011 at 15:51

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
                               Luke
22:36

This is said after the Romans were pursuing Jesus and the disciples. Ordering his disciples to buy swords is a clear indication that the Christ was ready to fight to death rather than accept crucifixion.

I frankly don't believe that he was crucified because there in no evidence in the bible itself that jesus was put on the cross because we are told that his disciples forsook him and fled moments before his alleged crucifixion. This makes it so that there is no eye witness to his crucifixion meaning that the resurrection also may not have been... I welcome your different opinions of course.

But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled
                                   Mathew 26:56


@Karalem

Jesus opposed the rabbinic priests because of the changes they had made to the entire religion. They had subplanted the torah as the highest religious authority and replaced it with the Babylonian Talmud, which even supercedes the Jerusalem Talmud! The Babylonian Talmud mainly contained rabbinic discussions and religious edicts placed there by the sinhedrin and I can understand why Jesus was so outraged by this act. Nothing fascinating about it really.

Timidi mater non flet
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2011 at 18:22
Originally posted by Baal Melqart


This makes it so that there is no eye witness to his crucifixion meaning that the resurrection also may not have been... I welcome your different opinions of course.

But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled
                                   Mathew 26:56
The roman soldiers were eyewitnesses and also participants in the actual death.  In addition, the Bible gives a detailed and description of the final parts of the execution process:
 
-breaking the legs of the other two men to ensure that they would die before the sabbath due to lung collapse since they could not be directly killed on the sabbath 
 
-stabbing Jesus with a lance to be sure that he was already dead).
 
The description is culturally consistant with both Roman and Jewish practices.  I think if one can accept the Bible as credible regarding the events just prior to and during the crucifiction, I think it logically follows that the Biblical description of the death of Jesus on the cross is credible as well.


Edited by Cryptic - 19-Oct-2011 at 18:27
Back to Top
Baal Melqart View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
  Quote Baal Melqart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2011 at 19:08
That's exactly what I doubted... If none of the disciples were present during these events that are so well documented in the bible, then who wrote them down, this of course considering that the disciples were the main authors of these biblical chapters.
Timidi mater non flet
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2011 at 20:10
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Originally posted by Don Quixote

Originally posted by Nick1986

How do we know Jesus' interpretation of Nirvana wasn't twisted to become the modern conception of Paradise by disciples like Paul who didn't understand his message? Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of gods (indeed, you can be reincarnated as a lesser-god or angel). Jesus' last words: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? could have stemmed from the realisation that God was unable to intervene in the human world

Paradise is a far older idea that Jesus - actually started with the Egyptians - so according to the "Book of the Dead" whoever pass the trial fo the gods, the ceremony of measuring his heart that would show if this person followed the Law of Heaven this person goes in the forever happy land that is always green and live there forever with the gods. Here, the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one, not Nirvana.
 
I challenge lightly that it is a Egyptian copy....I otoh obviously see a nexus with the Hebrew. Now show me the Egyptian nexus with the Hebrew before their residence in Egypt...and then how... that... after influencing the Hebrew... if at all.... the Egyptian then ties to the Christain version.
 
I suspect as much Babylonian and other interests as much if not more then Egyptian directly.
 
Wink

The Egyptian Book of the Dead was written supposedly in 1550 BC, or before that; the supposed Exodus for the Hebrews from Egypt was in 1312 BC; so the Hebrews were in Egypt exaxlty in the right time to be influenced by the Egyptian idea of Paradise no matter if Moses himself was an Egyptian or not.
Christianity appeared in the crosspoint of Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greek influences - there is nothing out of ordinary it combined borrowed ideas of all those cultures, as in reality it did, IMHO. The Paradise, the Dying God, resurrection - all those are ideas that predate Christianity with millenia, there is nothing new in them. Noah and the Fllod came directly from Mesopotamian mythology, the "Epic of Gilgamesh"; the Hebrews themselves came from Ur of the Chaldeans, were Mesopotamians, in other words, of course they would rehash whatever they could use from the Mesopotamian mythology, this is how religions develop; if one is to use relatively scientific methodology when discussion religion, that is, and don't opt for uniqueness of the Judaism of Christianity, reality of divinities, etc.
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2011 at 20:12
Refuted easily as a number of witnesses were there to include ST. John.

Gospel of John

The account in this gospel differs considerably from the other three. It says that several women and one disciple stood "near the cross", and that Jesus spoke to them from the cross. The women are identified as Jesus' mother Mary, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clophas (or Cleophas), and Mary Magdalene. The disciple is identified only as "the disciple whom Jesus loved".


Witnesses-Cross

The unnamed disciple mentioned in John is often called the "Beloved Disciple". He has traditionally been identified as John the son of Zebedee, one of the original twelve disciples, and the author of the gospel. But many scholars have questioned this identification, and the matter is still very much in dispute. But whoever he was, this gospel says that he and several women, including Jesus' mother, were near the cross, close enough to talk to Jesus and hear his words.

The other three gospels never mention a "disciple whom Jesus loved". They also say nothing about any disciple or any women being near the cross, or talking with Jesus while he was on the cross. Their accounts of the words that Jesus spoke from the cross are also completely different from the words attributed to him in John's gospel.

All of this suggests that the author of John had a source of information that wasn't available to the other gospel writers. This source is usually assumed to be the un-named Beloved Disciple himself, and a statement at John 21:24 seems to confirm this. Thus, this un-named disciple was probably the eyewitness for John's account of the crucifixion.

But who was the source of information for the other accounts? Most scholars think that Matthew and Luke got nearly all of their information about the crucifixion from Mark, though they sometimes made minor alterations. Thus, Mark's account is generally regarded as the original. And according to church tradition, Mark got most of his information about what happened directly from Peter.

But since Peter almost certainly didn't witness the crucifixion himself, who did he get his information from? Apparently not from the Beloved Disciple, since the accounts are so different. Instead, some people have suggested Simon of Cyrene, the man who was forced to carry the cross, although the gospels don't say whether he stayed to watch the crucifixion. Another possibility is that Peter talked to one or more of the women who watched from a distance. Matthew and Mark name several of them, in both cases specifying Mary Magdalene first.

If Mark got his information from Peter, and Peter got it from someone else, that would make Mark's account third-hand. But it actually reads like a first-hand account. In fact many scholars believe that Mark also had another source of information, a lost gospel known as the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative which was written fairly soon after the crucifixion by an unknown person who had a good knowledge of what happened. Evidence for Mark's possible use of such a lost document can be discerned in certain subtle details of his account.

Thus, the gospel stories of the crucifixion appear to be based on two primary sources of information: (1) The memories of the un-named Beloved Disciple, and (2) a now-lost early passion narrative used directly by Mark and second-hand by Matthew and Luke. Some additional details may have been provided by other sources such as Peter.

Although these conclusions are plausible, some people think that they leave some important questions unanswered. For example, why is John apparently the only gospel that mentions the presence of Jesus' mother Mary? If she was there, shouldn't such an important piece of information be in all of the accounts?

Some people also ask why John doesn't mention the followers who watched from a distance, and the other gospels don't mention the followers who were near the cross. One possible explanation is that all of the accounts actually refer to the same group, which gradually moved closer to the cross. Or possibly two separate groups were present, but each gospel writer only had information about one of them.

A more serious problem relates to what Jesus said while on the cross. What he says in John's account is completely different from what he says in the other accounts. It has been argued that different witnesses to an event often give different descriptions of it later. Certainly that could account for minor inconsistencies. But in this case the accounts are totally different.

Questions have also been raised about the story of the spear thrust. According to John 19:34, a Roman soldier pierced Jesus' side with a spear to make sure that he was dead. Yet the other gospels say nothing about this.

The various disparities have led some scholars to question the accuracy of certain parts of one or more of the accounts. But most Christians believe that all the accounts are basically correct, and that the discrepancies are simply the result of variations in what different witnesses saw or remembered.


Note: If we try to list all the specific individuals mentioned in the various accounts, we get the following result:


1. Mary Magdalene (mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and John)

2. Mary the mother of James and Joses (mentioned by Matthew and Mark)

3. The mother of Zebedee's sons (mentioned by Matthew)

4. Salome (mentioned by Mark) -- Many scholars think that this is the same person as (3), the mother of Zebedee's sons

5. Mary the mother of Jesus (mentioned by John)

6. Mary the wife of Clophas (who was probably Joseph's brother) (mentioned by John)

7. An un-named sister of Jesus' mother (mentioned by John) -- Many scholars think that this is the same person as (6), i.e., the wife of Clophas

8. The un-named Beloved Disciple (mentioned by John)


Much of the debate about the identities of these people centers on the Beloved Disciple. But there has also been a lot of discussion about the second person on the list, Mary the mother of James and Joses. Sometimes called "the other Mary", she appears in the story again (in some accounts) as one of the women who accompany Mary Magdalene to the tomb on Easter morning.

Several different identifications have been proposed for this "other Mary". Some people think that she was a previous wife of Joseph and the mother of his other children. Others say that she was the same person as the sixth individual on the list, i.e., the wife of Clophas and possibly a sister (or half-sister) of Jesus' mother.

But some scholars argue for another, and very intriguing, possibility. They contend that this "other Mary" was actually the mother of Jesus! If this is correct, a major disparity would be eliminated, because Mark and Matthew would then agree with John that Jesus' mother was present at the scene.

There are two main pieces of evidence to support the theory that this Other Mary was the mother of Jesus: First, her name is Mary. And second, her sons James and Joses could be two of the four brothers of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6:3.

But there is also a basic problem with this theory: For if this Other Mary really was the mother of Jesus, why don't Matthew and Mark say so? Instead, both authors seem to treat her as a minor character, and Matthew 28:1 even refers to her as "the other Mary".

In fact the whole matter of this woman's identity is very puzzling. But if it could be resolved, the possible conclusions could be very important.



 
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2011 at 20:22
Originally posted by Don Quixote

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Originally posted by Don Quixote

Originally posted by Nick1986

How do we know Jesus' interpretation of Nirvana wasn't twisted to become the modern conception of Paradise by disciples like Paul who didn't understand his message? Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of gods (indeed, you can be reincarnated as a lesser-god or angel). Jesus' last words: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? could have stemmed from the realisation that God was unable to intervene in the human world

Paradise is a far older idea that Jesus - actually started with the Egyptians - so according to the "Book of the Dead" whoever pass the trial of the gods, the ceremony of measuring his heart that would show if this person followed the Law of Heaven this person goes in the forever happy land that is always green and live there forever with the gods. Here, the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one, not Nirvana.
 
I challenge lightly that it is a Egyptian copy....I otoh obviously see a nexus with the Hebrew. Now show me the Egyptian nexus with the Hebrew before their residence in Egypt...and then how... that... after influencing the Hebrew... if at all.... the Egyptian then ties to the Christian version.
 
I suspect as much Babylonian and other interests as much if not more then Egyptian directly.
 
Wink

The Egyptian Book of the Dead was written supposedly in 1550 BC, or before that; the supposed Exodus for the Hebrews from Egypt was in 1312 BC; so the Hebrews were in Egypt exactly in the right time to be influenced by the Egyptian idea of Paradise no matter if Moses himself was an Egyptian or not.
Christianity appeared in the crosspoint of Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greek influences - there is nothing out of ordinary it combined borrowed ideas of all those cultures, as in reality it did, IMHO. The Paradise, the Dying God, resurrection - all those are ideas that predate Christianity with millenia, there is nothing new in them. Noah and the Flood came directly from Mesopotamian mythology, the "Epic of Gilgamesh"; the Hebrews themselves came from Ur of the Chaldeans, were Mesopotamians, in other words, of course they would rehash whatever they could use from the Mesopotamian mythology, this is how religions develop; if one is to use relatively scientific methodology when discussion religion, that is, and don't opt for uniqueness of the Judaism of Christianity, reality of divinities, etc.
 
 
This presumes an  'superior influence' as I noted before. What evidence in the sources indicates it occurred.
 
The fact that Moses was raised and a Prince of Egypt does not presuppose his belief in the Egyptian pantheon. No evidence exists to support this afaik. Both Israel and Joseph were there prior to Moses yet neither is their evidence... even though Joseph is a  major servant  and friend of Pharaoh and had wives there... that he or his father believed in this version..and this was... what 400 years before Moses if memory serves correct.
 
I absolutely concur that the Christianity has been influenced viz the culturalization effect of many on the parent Hebrews theological development. What I contest is the superiority of the Egyptian in the aforementioned development on the parent hence delivered to the child. 
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2011 at 20:58
Originally posted by Baal Melqart

That's exactly what I doubted... If none of the disciples were present during these events that are so well documented in the bible, then who wrote them down, this of course considering that the disciples were the main authors of these biblical chapters.
 
The writer of Luke admits that he is not an eyewitness, but rather was an investigator who was working for "Theophilius" (probably a wealthy patron)
 
As for the other 3 gospels, the actual disciples probably did not write them either (though they were complied shortly after their deaths).  All the gospels are a collelction of accounts.  The source of these accounts were the original disciples, secondary disciples etc.
 
The accounts, however, are very accurate.  For example, the writers knew that the Romans were heavily outnumbered and feared a revolt.  As a result, the Romans are reluctant to execute Jesus for fear of starting a revolt amongst his followers and they also avoid giving needless offense to the Jews (the Romans respect Jewish sabbath etc.)  
 


Edited by Cryptic - 20-Oct-2011 at 10:16
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2011 at 03:17
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Originally posted by Don Quixote

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Originally posted by Don Quixote

[QUOTE=Nick1986]
 I challenge lightly that it is a Egyptian copy....I otoh obviously see a nexus with the Hebrew. Now show me the Egyptian nexus with the Hebrew before their residence in Egypt...and then how... that... after influencing the Hebrew... if at all.... the Egyptian then ties to the Christian version.
 
I suspect as much Babylonian and other interests as much if not more then Egyptian directly.
 
Wink

The Egyptian Book of the Dead was written supposedly in 1550 BC, or before that; the supposed Exodus for the Hebrews from Egypt was in 1312 BC; so the Hebrews were in Egypt exactly in the right time to be influenced by the Egyptian idea of Paradise no matter if Moses himself was an Egyptian or not.
Christianity appeared in the crosspoint of Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greek influences - there is nothing out of ordinary it combined borrowed ideas of all those cultures, as in reality it did, IMHO. The Paradise, the Dying God, resurrection - all those are ideas that predate Christianity with millenia, there is nothing new in them. Noah and the Flood came directly from Mesopotamian mythology, the "Epic of Gilgamesh"; the Hebrews themselves came from Ur of the Chaldeans, were Mesopotamians, in other words, of course they would rehash whatever they could use from the Mesopotamian mythology, this is how religions develop; if one is to use relatively scientific methodology when discussion religion, that is, and don't opt for uniqueness of the Judaism of Christianity, reality of divinities, etc.
 
 
This presumes an  'superior influence' as I noted before. What evidence in the sources indicates it occurred.
 
The fact that Moses was raised and a Prince of Egypt does not presuppose his belief in the Egyptian pantheon. No evidence exists to support this afaik. Both Israel and Joseph were there prior to Moses yet neither is their evidence... even though Joseph is a  major servant  and friend of Pharaoh and had wives there... that he or his father believed in this version..and this was... what 400 years before Moses if memory serves correct.
 
I absolutely concur that the Christianity has been influenced viz the culturalization effect of many on the parent Hebrews theological development. What I contest is the superiority of the Egyptian in the aforementioned development on the parent hence delivered to the child. 

There is no superior influence and no influence can be superior or inferior - influences just happen naturally, as people trade, mix, marry and share info. For me to suppose that people would live together and never share influences is simply unrealistic. Judaism is a natural continuation of the Mesopotamian mythology, and Christianity of Judaism with influences from all directions.

If Moses was an Egyptian it's most natural he to have been excepting if not the Egyptian pantheon at least the key concepts like resurrection /Osiris/ and Paradise /green land, "park" etc,

"...In the Old Testament, the word 'Pardes' (a transliteration of the Persian word) occurs in Song 4:13, Eccl.2:5, and Neh. 2:8 meaning 'park', the original Persian meaning of the word, similar to the description of the parks of Cyrus the Great by Xenophon in Anabasis. In Second Temple era Judaism 'paradise' came to be associated with the Garden of Eden and prophesies of restoration of Eden...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise /

one of those concepts became a part of Judaism, /Paradise/ the other didn't /resurrection/, it became part of Christianity - whatever this mean of doesn't mean. What, he /Moses/ would be living  in a culture and never excepting anything from it? I doubt that.

Now, I never inferred that possible Egyptian influence was, or is "superior"  - in fact I had been fighting against notions like that here and in a different forum. People just learn and borrow things from each other, some thing they except, some they don't, /it's pretty random/ - nothing more, nothing less. You point me to a person who clams that any Egyptian influence was like a parent to a child - and I'm gonna fight this notion down, I have a bad reputationDead for doing such thingsEmbarrassed.


Edited by Don Quixote - 20-Oct-2011 at 03:43
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.108 seconds.