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  <1 2345>
Author
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Was Jesus a Buddhist?
    Posted: 15-Apr-2012 at 10:25
Originally posted by Nick1986

Hanging was also a death sentence, yet a few lucky people survived. Someone with a high tolerance of pain and friends in high places (like Jesus' rich uncle Joe) might have been able to cheat the executioner. No doubt Jesus would be horribly maimed (hence Thomas' ability to put his finger in the wounds) but through meditation and intervention by skilled surgeons (the men in white the women encountered in teh tomb) he would eventually heal and gain the strength to rejoin his disciples.


Nick, who were these few? I only know of two people claimed to have survived crucifixtion;
1. Jesus (if resurrection is classed as survival)
2. one mentioned in the Jewish historian Josephus's autobiography. After the taking of Jerusalem in September 70 AD, Josephus a Jew but also a general in the Roman army, and a friend of the emperor Titus, rescues his family, the holy books, 50 friends and 190 women and children. Later..
Part.75"....And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/autobiog.htm

There is no indication of how long the three men had been suffering before Titus ordered them realesed into the care of Josephus, nor how long it took for the one survivor to recover. However, the fact that all the care a rich jew and the friend of an emperor could give only meant one out of three survived, and yet Jesus is meant to have had only a few women with pots of oils to tend to him in a cave, suggests it highly unlikely Jesus did physically survive.

Edited by Sidney - 15-Apr-2012 at 10:26
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: 15-Apr-2012 at 15:26
Another question I thought about - that if Jesus survived, he would be so broken, than he couldn't have come to his disciples and seem all well, on the opposite, a several days after his ordeal he would be unable even to walk, let alone to convince everyone that he was really resurrected, not just a broken man. So, under this working hypothesis, the disciples would be in on the scam; which would be so also under the working hypotesis that he body was stolen from the tomb by at least one of the disciples, but at least this would require 1 scamming disciple, not several of them/.

This http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf is an article that researches the death of Jesus from medical POV, I think it's quite interesting, and in summary says that if he wasn't pierced in the chest he might have survived - but as to the time his recovery would take, it would be far longer that 3 days.
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: 15-Apr-2012 at 20:02
I found those referrences in early Christian writings:
1. The "Apocalipse of Peter, from Hag Hammadi", 2nd century:
"...The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."..." http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html

Who is this "substitute" Jesus is talking about?
2. "The Acts of John" - it wasn't Gnostic, but it was forbidden as a heretic work by Augustine in 787 CE, nevertheless is was found in many monastic libraries, and now is recovered from quotes t it here and there. The parts found in Greek books were authentic, the ones found in Latin ones were edited, "...Though the Acts of John was condemned by orthodoxy as heretical, it found a perpetual place in many monastic libraries, and a large fragment survives in Greek manuscripts of widely varying date. The surviving Latin fragments, by contrast, appear to have been edited with an eye to purging all "unorthodox" content. ..." http://www.gnosis.org/library/actjohn.htm

"...Thou hearest that I suffered, yet did I not suffer; that I suffered not, yet did I suffer; that I was pierced, yet I was not smitten; hanged, and I was not hanged; that blood flowed from me, and it flowed not; and, in a word, what they say of me, that befell me not, but what they say not, that did I suffer. Now what those things are I signify unto thee, for I know that thou wilt understand. Perceive thou therefore in me the praising (al. slaying al. rest) of the (or a) Word (Logos), the piercing of the Word, the blood of the Word, the wound of the Word, the hanging up of the Word, the suffering of the Word, the nailing (fixing) of the Word, the death of the Word. And so speak I, separating off the manhood. Perceive thou therefore in the first place of the Word; then shalt thou perceive the Lord, and in the third place the man, and what he hath suffered..."

This bears several possible interpretations, and one of them is that Christ wasn't crucified at all.

3. The Second Treatise of the Great Seth - / a Gnostic one, and a heavily Gnostic, I'd say/, that can be seen in more than one way - including that Christ died in appearance only; /even though my interpretation is that the whole POV of the work presents the whole physical world as an "appearance", therefore in a long run all human suffering, etc is only an appearance/:
"... I visited a bodily dwelling. I cast out the one who was in it first, and I went in. And the whole multitude of the archons became troubled. And all the matter of the archons, as well as all the begotten powers of the earth, were shaken when it saw the likeness of the Image, since it was mixed. And I am the one who was in it, not resembling him who was in it first. For he was an earthly man, but I, I am from above the heavens. I did not refuse them even to become a Christ, but I did not reveal myself to them in the love which was coming forth from me. I revealed that I am a stranger to the regions below....

...And I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me and I did not become fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to succumb to fear, and I <suffered> according to their sight and thought, in order that they may never find any word to speak about them. For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. For their Ennoias did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance. ..."
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/2seth.html

Anyway, its seems that the idea that Christ didn't really die is a very old one, dating from like 2 century AD.



Edited by Don Quixote - 15-Apr-2012 at 20:05
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: 16-Apr-2012 at 02:01
Originally posted by Don Quixote

So, if we accept this as a working hypothesis, is will explain why Jesus's body "vanished", and the words of the angel/angels/men-in-white not to look for a living one among the dead. It may actually make sense, and sounds no mere conspiratorial than his disciples sneaking his body out of the tomb in the dead of night. There are some apocryphal works, like the letters of Pilate to Herod and to the Roman emperor, that claim that Jesus was around and preaching, and Pilot's wife and he himself went to see him and talked with him - this would explain who this could possibly happen.

This reminds of of Herodotus' story about the Getae/Thracian god Zalmoxis - Herodotus says that Zalmoxis feigned his death, and dug himself a home in the ground, where he spend 3 years /3 again/, and everyone thought he was dead, so when he returned back everyone believed he was resurrected, so they deified him. Zalmoxis was an aspect of Orpheus, and since the Orphic cult was about resurrection - here it is. So, if the Swoon hypothesis is true, it wouldn't be the first case of feigned death, nor the "biggest cover-up in history" as Michael Baigent claimed, because it wouldn't be anything original to start with. I may really get and read his book - I have it but I haven't read it yet.
 
I do not.... as there again...... for the ninth or tenth time.... is no substantive or credibility evidence to support it.....there is only revisionism of the evidence available. And it's being rendered, most likely in a secular effort, led by socialist and liberal atheists to discredit christianity as they attempt to discredit every form of religion. Other then the political-ideological-scientific ones they create to replace the traditional.
 
Got to come with something better...or I recommend this go into the alternate history sub which is to say the fantasy sub.Wink
 
This is alternate revisionist history nothing more.


Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 16-Apr-2012 at 02:01
"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
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 11:38
Originally posted by Don Quixote


I found those referrences in early Christian writings:1. The "Apocalipse of Peter, from Hag Hammadi", 2nd century:"...The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is
      the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his
      fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in
      his likeness. But look at him and me."..." http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.htmlWho is this "substitute" Jesus is talking about? 2. "The Acts of John" - it wasn't Gnostic, but it was forbidden as a heretic work by Augustine in 787 CE, nevertheless is was found in many monastic libraries, and now is recovered from quotes t it here and there. The parts found in Greek books were authentic, the ones found in Latin ones were edited, "...Though the Acts of John was condemned by orthodoxy as heretical, it found
          a perpetual place in many monastic libraries, and a large fragment
          survives in Greek manuscripts of widely varying date. The surviving Latin
          fragments, by contrast, appear to have been edited with an eye to purging
          all "unorthodox" content. ..." http://www.gnosis.org/library/actjohn.htm "...<a>Thou hearest that I suffered, yet did I not suffer; that I
          suffered not, yet did I suffer; that I was pierced, yet I was not
          smitten; hanged, and I was not hanged; that blood flowed from me, and it
          flowed not; and, in a word, what they say of me, that befell me not, but
          what they say not, that did I suffer. Now what those things are I
          signify unto thee, for I know that thou wilt understand. Perceive thou
          therefore in me the praising (al. slaying al. rest) of the (or a) Word
          (Logos), the piercing of the Word, the blood of the Word, the wound of
          the Word, the hanging up of the Word, the suffering of the Word, the
          nailing (fixing) of the Word, the death of the Word. And so speak I,
          separating off the manhood. Perceive thou therefore in the first place
          of the Word; then shalt thou perceive the Lord, and in the third place
          the man, and what he hath suffered..."
This bears several possible interpretations, and one of them is that Christ wasn't crucified at all. 3. The Second Treatise of the Great Seth - / a Gnostic one, and a heavily Gnostic, I'd say/, that can be seen in more than one way - including that Christ died in appearance only; /even though my interpretation is that the whole POV of the work presents the whole physical world as an "appearance", therefore in a long run all human suffering, etc is only an appearance/:"... I visited a bodily dwelling. I cast out the one who was in it first, and I went in. And
      the whole multitude of the archons became troubled. And all the matter of the archons, as
      well as all the begotten powers of the earth, were shaken when it saw the likeness of the
      Image, since it was mixed. And I am the one who was in it, not resembling him who was in
      it first. For he was an earthly man, but I, I am from above the heavens. I did not refuse
      them even to become a Christ, but I did not reveal myself to them in the love which was
      coming forth from me. I revealed that I am a stranger to the regions below.......And I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame by
      them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me and I did not become
      fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to succumb to
      fear, and I <suffered> according to their sight and thought, in order that they may
      never find any word to speak about them. For my death, which they think happened,
      (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their
      death. For their Ennoias did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these
      things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their
      father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it
      was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they
      placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the
      archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at
      their ignorance. ..."
</a>http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/2seth.htmlAnyway, its seems that the idea that Christ didn't really die is a very old one, dating from like 2 century AD.




These quotes, IMO, are a matter of theology. They are presenting different ideas of the Christ as being seperate from Jesus. Jesus, the mortal flesh, suffered and died on the cross, but the Christ, the pre-existent and divine entity that descended upon Jesus at some point in his life, left him before the crucifiction. They are not saying that Jesus survived, or was substituted. Jesus died, but the Christ survived.
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: 16-Apr-2012 at 14:20
True, it's a matter of theology, and I mentioned this in the case of the last source. However, from where did the monophysitic views /that were later declared heretic/ came, they didn't come out of the void - it's quite possible that the said gospels were the source of those views. Since being declared heretic of not is a matter of theology and political power, no view can be seen like this if one tries to keep an objective POV on the matter. It's very possible that some people who read the above writings saw them in a physical way - like there was for real a substitute for Jesus.

Anyway, when talking about Jesus, all we can say is what people though about him, not was really was /especially for agnostics like me/, because the second attempt mixes faith with real history for many people, and makes a mess of the whole thing. That's why I see two ways to see it - what the reality was, and what people think the reality was - and both ways I try to keep apart, notifying when I talk about one or the other.


Edited by Don Quixote - 16-Apr-2012 at 19:00
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: 16-Apr-2012 at 14:36
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis


 
I do not.... as there again...... for the ninth or tenth time.... is no substantive or credibility evidence to support it.....there is only revisionism of the evidence available. And it's being rendered, most likely in a secular effort, led by socialist and liberal atheists to discredit christianity as they attempt to discredit every form of religion. Other then the political-ideological-scientific ones they create to replace the traditional.
 
Got to come with something better...or I recommend this go into the alternate history sub which is to say the fantasy sub.Wink
 
This is alternate revisionist history nothing more.

I'm not trying to convince you in anything, CV, I just like to explore all possible POV and all possible happenings, that's why I call it "under the working hypothesis" - in other words "in this or that possible case". I cannot move it to the alternative sub, because it's not an alternative history, since the monopysitic views that Jesus had only a divine body, hence couldn't have died on the cross existed since 3-4 century AD. The Monophysits were declared heretics, and physically exterminated by their brother Christians in the name of the doctrine that teaches love and forgiveness, that's why and how this view was subdued; not that it didn't exist. The Swoon hypothesis has been around since 18th century, so this is around from far longer that secularism and leftism.

So, the both views predate any modern efforts to discredit Christianity, as you put it, in other wordls, they are not modern to start with. Second, for atheists who don't velieve in resurrection, some other explanation is to be found where did the body of a dead person gone - unless you require everyone to accept on faith that he was resurrected, /which is not the way to go/, there will be always other ways to explain where did the body vanish. And third, Jesus and his resurrection is not history, but theology, nor are the NT gospels that are only collections of legends and lore, any evidence. To an atheist or an agnostic this is fantasy to start with, since people don't come from the dead. Which will mean that by your recommendation all threads about Jesus have to be called "fantasy", which is not the way to go either.

So, if we are to discuss those subjects at all, all possible avenues must be considered, no matter what one faith or lack of it calls for.
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: 16-Apr-2012 at 18:21
Anyway, the Swoon hypothesis solves the problems of what happened to the body of Jesus; otherwise this problem have to be solved in another way, since resurrection is  impossible. So, either the body was stolen in order to promote the Christian idea of resurrection, or Jesus didn't die there and then. I don't see any other possible scenarios. Actually I never researched the said theory because I assumed no one can survive a crussifiction, so I assumed the body was removed by at least one person who wanted to promote Christianity; but the arguments posted here by Nick made me think that it's possible Jesus to had survived, no matter how slim the chances were, so I'll consider it as a possibility and research it's plausibility.

However, my stance here gets off OP, because it has nothing to do with Jesus possibly being a Buddhist /which I don't accept, because there are too many differences between what he thought and the Buddhist POV on the world, IMHO/, so if the threadmaster /Nick/ thinks it will highjack the thread I can move this question from here and make another thread especially on it.


Edited by Don Quixote - 16-Apr-2012 at 19:01
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: 16-Apr-2012 at 20:19
If Jesus really did die, perhaps one of his younger brothers assumed his identity and continued to preach? The disciples may have stolen Christ's body and buried it secretly
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: 16-Apr-2012 at 20:24
Credibile evidence forthcoming I presume.... or is this another exercise in which I have already addressed a response again worth repeating:
 
''is no substantive or credibility evidence to support it.....there is only revisionism of the evidence available. And it's being rendered, most likely in a secular effort, led by socialist and liberal atheists to discredit christianity as they attempt to discredit every form of religion. Other then the political-ideological-scientific ones they create to replace the traditional.
Got to come with something better...or I recommend this go into the alternate history sub which is to say the fantasy sub.Wink
This is alternate revisionist history nothing more.''
"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
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: 16-Apr-2012 at 20:55
Well, some things are obvious and as such don't require evidence. What is the evidence that water is wet?
So, if there was a death, there would be a corpse, where did the corps go? Resurrection is impossible, therefore is not an explanation, plus where is the evidence for it? Someone saw a angel and some other saw the resurrected one - no court would except such evidence if a trial about this was held now.

So, the question of the corpse still stands - this is not alternartive history, nor a fantasy, this is a question about the corpse of a dead person. Now, if one is to place here the hypothesis of the resurrection - then this really have to go in the fantasy sub, because people don't come back from the dead, as is well attested by people dying every day by hundreds.
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: 16-Apr-2012 at 23:10
Originally posted by Don Quixote

Well, some things are obvious and as such don't require evidence. What is the evidence that water is wet?
So, if there was a death, there would be a corpse, where did the corps go? Resurrection is impossible, therefore is not an explanation, plus where is the evidence for it? Someone saw a angel and some other saw the resurrected one - no court would except such evidence if a trial about this was held now.

So, the question of the corpse still stands - this is not alternative history, nor a fantasy, this is a question about the corpse of a dead person. Now, if one is to place here the hypothesis of the resurrection - then this really have to go in the fantasy sub, because people don't come back from the dead, as is well attested by people dying every day by hundreds.
 
Your lead in betrays you unwillingness to ascribe to the method but adhere to the idea of speculative conjecture as a reasonable or sole substitute.
 
Both the methods require in the promulgation of a hypothesis, working or final, a means where by it can be tested and repeated in a controlled environment and or based on primary and secondary evidences established, recognized and practiced and verified as the norm through accepted procedural methods.
 
This is not being done. Consequently the best it can be claimed is.... it is as an alternate revisionist attempt to recreate-reinterpret evidence or prompt creation of evidence to support a favorable reaction by and for the originator and that individual's own agenda. Who, coincidentally, will not provide the evidence on his or her own ..... but requires that burden to be provided for him/her by others. This is not a hypothesis at that point in any measurable definition as associated with the accepted methodologies....it then only can be described as fantasy at best....lazy methodological practice at worst.
"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
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: 16-Apr-2012 at 23:30
OK, let me see you do it, applying the method. So far you are only avoiding to give me an answer, weaving out sophisticated accusation/labels instead.

I didn't promote anything, I'm not proving the Swoon hypothesis, I'm testing to see how viable it is. This got me to the question about Jesus's body - since I don't believe in resurrection, this body had to went somewhere. Since you labeling my position, I asked a question, which doesn't require me to prove anything. The question was - what happened to Jesus's body? Now, you could answer my question, which you didn't do, instead of this you continue to label my position. If you want to go this way, be my guest; I don't care what you are going to call me.

I don't exactly understand what are you calling fantasy - that Jesus may have not died, that his body may have been stolen, or what? Because both those statements are common-sensically sound - what is not common-sensically sound is the idea that Jesus was resurrected, hence he got his body with himself - that's why faith is required to accept something that goes against all reality, because otherwise it cannot be supported. So, if something is fantasy in my world is not that Jesus's body was stolen /what I deem most probable/, or that he may have survived /which I think very improbable, but maybe not impossible/, but that he took his body with him, in his resurrection, because it's not possible.


Edited by Don Quixote - 16-Apr-2012 at 23:37
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: 16-Apr-2012 at 23:58
Originally posted by Don Quixote

OK, let me see you do it, applying the method. So far you are only avoiding to give me an answer, weaving out sophisticated accusation/labels instead.

I didn't promote anything, I'm not proving the Swoon hypothesis, I'm testing to see how viable it is. This got me to the question about Jesus's body - since I don't believe in resurrection, this body had to went somewhere. Since you labeling my position, I asked a question, which doesn't require me to prove anything. The question was - what happened to Jesus's body? Now, you could answer my question, which you didn't do, instead of this you continue to label my position. If you want to go this way, be my guest; I don't care what you are going to call me.

I don't exactly understand what are you calling fantasy - that Jesus may have not died, that his body may have been stolen, or what? Because both those statements are commonsensical sound - what is not commonsensical sound is the idea that Jesus was resurrected, hence he got his body with himself - that's why faith is required to accept something that goes against all reality, because otherwise it cannot be supported. So, if something is fantasy in my world is not that Jesus's body was stolen /what I deem most probable/, or that he may have survived /which I think very improbable, but maybe not impossible/, but that he took his body with him, in his resurrection, because it's not possible.
 
I am not required too for:
 
A. It's not my hypothesis and as noted; I don't even give it that benefit be identified as one.
 
and
 
B. I'm not required to defend it with the presence of evidence or demonstrate how to prove it methodologically, for it's originator when he/she fails to do so; especially when you carry back to A and remember the evidentiary requirements and use of the method-responsibilities lay with the originator.
 
 
 
 
The only thing I might do is using the method disprove the fantasy.
 
 
Which I'm neither interested in doing because in actuality it's glaring deficiencies need no further elucidation to those who understand the method and ascribe to it rather then revisionist reinterpretation without proofs disregarding the method. And who recognize the prima evidences, which granted, might be reinterpreted; still requires proofs. Not solely speculation. And certainly they require it if one is attempting to garner acceptence of the re-interpretation.
 
 
Or.... because my larger point was about the failure of the use of the method which I have done.
 
And finally your mixing your apples with your pears as this latest comment was based on Nick's latest reference to Jesus's brothers assuming his identity etc...and not necessarily your subsequent posts in reaction.
 
But it was a nice attempt.LOL
"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
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-Apr-2012 at 00:09
Sure you are not required to answer my question, no matter what the possible reasons for a refusal to do so are. You are not required to label my position either, no matter what the reasons for me having such are.

Sorry if I butted in, I thought your post was about the whole post Nick wrote, which included the stealing of the body of Jesus, not only about the brother; and since I introduced this part /the stealing/ I felt partially responsible for his response that brought yours; so I responded.


Edited by Don Quixote - 17-Apr-2012 at 00:13
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-Apr-2012 at 00:21
Originally posted by Don Quixote

Sure you are not required to answer my question, no matter what the possible reasons for a refusal to do so are. You are not required to label my position either, no matter what the reasons for me having such are.

Sorry if I butted in, I thought your post was about the whole post Nick wrote, which included the stealing of the body of Jesus, not only about the brother; and since I introduced this part /the stealing/ I felt partially responsible for his response that brought yours; so I responded.
 
That's not an accurate representation..tho understandable. I'm not labeling anything that is not in common parlance withing the academic community or the blog one. What I am doing, is pointing out that, and again using the language of the community, I was trained in...that supposition and speculations without evidences to support a hypothesis are then not a hypotheses. But merely speculation and supposition and will never received credible recognition or acceptance....they will merely receive rejection.
 
This is first year university history stuff DQ. And we are or should be way beyond that point.
 
Star
"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
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-Apr-2012 at 00:39
Nah, I didn't study history in university, I did Education and Geography, and in Bulgaria you go directly in narrow specialization.

This aside, when it comes to Jesus, there isn't really evidence for anything - there is Christian lore/gospels and Christian doctrine that had been asserted for centuries to the point that people see as evidence something that they wouldn't accept in any other case in their lives. Why do I have to accept a impossible theory that he was resurrected, instead of the very probable guess that his body was stolen?

How is the resurrection evidenced or proved? It's not, people just like the story, that's why they buy it - wishful thinking. Of course there wouldn't be evidence of the body was stolen - it any like that survives, if would destroy Christianity, and there are like 38,000 denominations with vested interest in that; even of there was evidence of that, it wouldn't be allowed to exist.

Besides, I'm not trying to prove that the body was stolen - I noted that for a person who doesn't accept resurrection, there are only 2 options to guess what happened - that it was stolen, or that Jesus didn't die there and then. Is there evidence for that it was stolen - no. Is there evidence that Jesus didn't die - no. Is there evidence that Jesus died - beyond lore and religion built on them/which is no evidence, but rumors/ - no.

So, since the 3 scenarios are un-evidenced, why should I accept the most impossible scenario, that is not evidenced either, but only accepted by people on faith? I don't have to.
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Apr-2012 at 14:05
Going back to the OP

Originally posted by Nick1986

During the 19th century a Russian journalist visited a Buddhist monastery in Ladakh and read a manuscript describing the life of a monk who lived centuries ago called Issa. As a young man, it is believed Jesus encountered Therevada monks in Judea and went back east with them, studying in India until he reached the age of 30. After either faking his death at the crucifixion or having someone else die in his place, he apparently went to Kashmir with his mother, married and had children. He called himself Yuz Asaf and died aged 125. His tomb in Srinigar has become a tourist attraction and is currently housed in a purpose-built building


This is actually two strand mixed into one;

1. Nicolas Notovitch, a Russian journalist, travelled through Tibet in 1887. He heard stories about ancient manuscripts that contained accounts of the prophet Issa, identified by the Tibetan monks as Jesus. He eventually gets to Himis, where the Buddhist Lama reads to him, from various texts, verses that tell the story of this Issa. Notovitch has them translated verbally, then writes them down, and on returning home rearranges them into a coherent narrative, which he publishes as "The Life of Saint Issa: Best of the Sons of Men" in French in 1894. http://www.scribd.com/doc/76374838/4/THE-LIFE-OF-SAINT-ISSAis a 1914 reprint in English (pp98-146)
In this story, Issa (Jesus) is a manisfestation of the Holy Spirit, born to teach, and deliver the Hebrews from the power of the Romans. When Issa is 13 his parents are inundated with offers of marriage because he is so clever, but Issa runs away to the East inorder to pursue his studies. He goes to the Jainists, but rejects their religion. He then goes to the Hindu Brahmans, who over the course of six years teach him how to cure through prayer, to explain scripture and to drive out demons. But they get angry at him for teaching and mixing with the lower castes, and resolve to kill him, and Issa moves on to the lands of the Buddhists. He is with them another six years, studying the language and sacred texts, before he is sent out to spread the word of Buddha. He then returns to Palestine, travelling through pagan lands and Persia, preaching against idolatry and human sacrifice, and calling people to abstain from theft, dishonesty and debauchery. Arriving in Palestine he starts to preach, and the people flock about him and accept his every word. But the governor, Pilate, fears an insurrection and orders Issa arrested. Pilate demands that he be tried by a Jewish court, but the Jewish judges and priests declare him innocent, so Pilate judges him under Roman law, but cannot find anyone to witness against Issa. Eventually Pilate overides his pretence at any justice and has Issa crucified. Issa dies and is buried by his family, but because the Jews hang around his tomb praying and lamenting him, Pilate is scared and has his body stolen so that it would not be worshipped. This then leads to the belief that Issa had been ressurected and gone to Heaven. The accounts of Jesus in Palestine returned to India via Indian merchants about three or four years after the crucifixtion.
Contemporaries viewed Notovitch as a hoax or having been duped by the Buddhist Lama, and another traveller claimed that he visited Himis but could find no one who remembered the Russian, nor knew anything about a prophet called Issa. However subsequent travellers to Tibet have found evidence that there are stories about a prophet Issa, who is identified by the Tibetans with Jesus, and claimed as an exponent of Buddhist teachings. None of this proves how old the stories are, nor that they are anything more than Buddhist propoganda.

2. The teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, religious leader and founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in 1889. He claimed that he was the Second Coming of Jesus, though not Jesus himself. In order to substantiate that claim he needed to show that Jesus hadn't died on the cross and been taken into Heaven (as in that case the first Jesus would be returning), but claimed that he had travelled to Kashmir and was buried there, under the name of Yuz Asaf.
There are stories about a great teacher and healer called Yuz Asaf in the Kashmiri area, and his tomb is on show. But when the stories about him date from is unknown, and the period that he lived in is uncertain. His name has been variously translated as 'leader of the purified' (because he healed a group of lepers), a Christian saint called Josaphat, a Buddhist title, or (by the Ahmaddi) as 'son of Joseph.

Putting the two stories together, despite the fact they contradict each other (one says Issa was a Buddhist and died on the cross in Palestine - the other that Yuz Asaf was a forerunner of Islam and died of old age in Kashmir), has been done by revisionist historians.

Edited by Sidney - 17-Apr-2012 at 19:11
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-Apr-2012 at 19:04
Originally posted by Sidney

Going back to the OP

exactly what the thread needed, thank you, Sid. Great primary source tooSmile to assist those like me who haven't encountered them before, cudos for that.
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: 03-Oct-2012 at 09:42
Something just sprang into my mind: both Jesus and Buddha accepted outcasts in countries with a caste-system: priests and nobles at the top and peasants, slaves and untouchables at the bottom
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>

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 0.078 seconds.