Was Jesus a Buddhist?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: East Asia
Forum Discription: The Far East: China, Korea, Japan and other nearby civilizations
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30417
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 08:12
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Was Jesus a Buddhist?
Posted By: Nick1986
Subject: Was Jesus a Buddhist?
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2011 at 20:13
|
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 ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Replies:
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2011 at 21:34
|
No. As the available evidence-sources; other then theory.. legend... myth and or conjecture... that is associated with the Christ or the Buddha, imo, doesn't support it. And certainly insofar as religious and biblical archaeology and theological historians in the mainstream research... it does not. Which includes the bios by the scholar of the Buddhacarita... Aśvaghoṣa or the next most famous the Lalitavistara Sūtra. Or the following which were all compiled from the 2Ce-4thCe. Well after the death of the Christ. One would presume that the association of a Hebrew holy man from the west who had traveled east to study the tenets would have been worth of inclusion. If for no other reason then the novelty or as an example of proof that the teachings had attracted many and diverse intellectualists from far away. Now that does not say however that there are not some remarkable similarities between the two... even given the difference in time and distance. There were...... and each remains the giant in the theology/ies, doctrines and denominations that have been formulated. You might find this of interest. http://jimvb.home.mindspring.com/ser1998Oct11.htm - http://jimvb.home.mindspring.com/ser1998Oct11.htm
------------- "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' |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2011 at 23:44
------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: Baal Melqart
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2011 at 04:28
I don't think you can jump the gun and say that Jesus' teachings are Buddhist per se even given the similarities. I would think that Jesus preached a message which really focused on forgivance and peace, not to say that similar teachings were not common amongst the Jews (albeit with less focus on those specific values). ------------- Timidi mater non flet |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2011 at 07:12
| self sacrifice element is common inside both of them. |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2011 at 11:29
True, but all the cultural references in the gospels are enitirely local Hebrew with some Greco Roman overtures from the occupying Romans. Likewise, the theology of Jeus is entirely revelatory Abrahamic.
In short, with the possible exception of the singular John 10:16 reference "I have other sheep in other pastures" there is nothing either culturally or theologicaly in the gospels or in he following material (Letters, Acts of the Apostles) to suggest that Jesus ever left the local area, much less travelled to India.
Well said.
|
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2011 at 12:32
|
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. |
Posted By: unclefred
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2011 at 16:17
| I heard Siddhartha was a Jew. |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2011 at 20:00
|
A lot of Jesus' teachings are similar to Buddhism: turning the other cheek is ahimsa, bodhisattvas and saints are both depicted with radient halos, Christians worship Mary as a mother-goddess, and both Christian and Buddhist monks practise meditation, vows of chastity and poverty. It would seem that Christ gained enlightenment while on the cross and sought to share his discoveries with the disciples, none of whom understood and instead worshipped Jesus as a demigod ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2011 at 22:56
One could easily say the same about Christianity and Jainism or Hinduism and Sufi Islam. The theology of Jesus was totally revelatory Abrahamic. Buddhism is a dharma based, not Abrahamic religion. In the end, the similarities between Christianity and Buddhism are note worthy, but they are only skin deep.
|
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2011 at 22:56
|
Was Jesus exposed to Buddhist thought in his lifetime? Given that Buddhists could be found as close as what is today Iran, I think it quite possible. But being aware of Buddhist principles, and even the active study of Buddhism, does not one a Buddhist make. And strictly speaking, gods and goddesses do not exist in Buddhism. Likewise, self-sacrifice to the point of ending one's life is alien to core Buddhist beliefs. The many warrior monks of Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese history were not, strictly speaking, good Buddhists. Rather they were respected monks whose worldly concerns turned them from the path of enlightenment. The goal of Buddhism is not to become a good Buddhist, but rather to be a Buddha. Not too different from Christian theology which emphasizes that the road is rocky, and not all can continue upon it. And the goal of every Christian is not to be a 'good' Christian, but rather to emulate Christ in thought, word, and deed, thereby becoming 'Christ-like'. ------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2011 at 15:53
|
No. The Christian teachings (no matter who is their author) is the opposite of Budhism in that
Budhism teaches that people must get rid of their personalities (character) and that in Nirvana people will be absorbed in the Absolute. That means, the dissapearing of the person. Buddhism is antipersonalist or depersonalizing. Christianity is fundamentally personal, teaches about God - Person and humans as persons that can live only in the community of other persons. -------------  |
Posted By: Karalem
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2011 at 16:57
|
The big difference between eastern and western religions is that in the former there is no God as such. There is a God above Jesus while Buddha is the messenger of the people. He is not the messenger of God. When Christianity was transferred to India it was absorbed to accommodate eastern perspective and branched into Buddhism and Hinduism. |
Posted By: Baal Melqart
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2011 at 21:25
Well, the depictions of saints by those who practiced christianity has in my opinion no relevance when speaking of similarities between both religions because we know that Jesus himself never told anyone to make such drawings or depictions. About the way in which Jesus is worshipped I would agree that there is quite a striking similarity between Jesus and Buddha and let me even add Zoroaster to the list. Obviously, all Christians would reject the idea that out of excessive adoration, they ended up worshipping Jesus as a demi-god. But then that belongs to its own separate topic... Budha for example is sometimes worshipped as a god although he only proclaimed himself to be a teacher (if you see buddha kill him!), the same goes zith Zarathustra who claimed to be a philosopher rather than a messenger.
Both Buddhism and Hinduism predate Christianity by at least 5 centuries. ------------- Timidi mater non flet |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2011 at 23:00
|
I don't think so...there are too many differences between what Jesus thought and Buddism. The roots of his teachings are undoubtedly in Judaism, morality and all, God, etc. There is no one god in Buddhism, and then the main idea of Buddhism is breaking the cycle of being born again and again; hence Buddhism is cyclic, while Christianity is an eschatological; this is such a major difference that I cannot possibly see one coming from the other. Besides, Jesus didn't preach giving up the earthly life in order to gain salvation, he preached morality; the monastic ideal that can be connected with Buddhism didn't come from Jesus, but was developed later. Jesus was a moral teacher, not philosopher like Buddha, nor he was the only one who claimed to be the Messiah, so he was not an isolated case so improbable that the roots of his ideas have to be searched for a continent away. This is even not taking in account the timeline difference that Centrix talked about; taking this in mind the chance of such possibility seems next to zero. Which doesn't mean that some other Jew called Issa didn't make it to India - after all people move around all the time and Issa is not a unique name in Judea to say that there was only one person could possibly bear such a name. But if such person existed he wasn't the Jew Jesus we know from the gospels; and the Jesus's teachings are a very logical continuation of the mainstream Judaism, not Buddhist ideas. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2011 at 23:21
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2011 at 23:28
To my knowledge Indian Christianity (both ancient and modern practices) has remained almost entirely Abrahamic.
|
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2011 at 23:38
Those similarities though are only on the surface and most of then didn't start with Jesus. The halos are an iconographic trait that started in byzantium, centuries after Jesus; Jesus never talked about meditation, but about prayer, and the ideas of both are very different - meditation is a way to enlighten yourself through concentration, while prayer is a conversation with god-the-creator. The vow of chastity wasn't an idea of Jesus, it developed like a century ofter he was gone. Jesus didn't preach poverty, but selling your stuff to give it to the poor - not that one has to be poor to start with, then if would be useless because one cannot seel his possessions and help the poor if he is poor to start with. On the cross Jesus didn't gain an enlightment, but talked to god-his-father and sacrificed himself like a lamb to gain salvation for others - this is a very Jewish idea /the sacrifice of the lamb. What did Jesus himself teach - follow the laws, the 10 commandments, don't get divorced, whatever is in one's mind is as good as done, all moral laws. He never taught anything like enlightment, or nirvana, etc; this was not his line. What happened after death according him was hell or acceptance by god, he being his son - this has nothing in common with what Buddha stood for /detachment, self-enlightment, nirvana as freedom from births/. The very idea is self-enlightening yourself would be seen as utmost pride in Christianity /and would be condemned/, where the faith in god and following him is the key to salvation by the same god; the very core idea is that god saves, not person saves himself. Jesus talked about god taking care of his children, like birds and flowers - this is not self-reliance /self-enlightment, like in Buddhism/, but reliance on god and his rules. So, I don't see how possibly one could have been developed from the other; this is my opinion, of course, I don't want to press it on anyone. ------------- |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2011 at 19:34
|
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 ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Karalem
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 13:08
which means it stayed more conservative than European Christianity. |
Posted By: Karalem
Date 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. |
Posted By: Karalem
Date 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? |
Posted By: Baal Melqart
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 14:50
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 |
Posted By: Karalem
Date 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. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date 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! |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date 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! |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 19:47
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 19:54
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 - 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2011 at 20:36
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.  ------------- "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' |
Posted By: Karalem
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2011 at 15:54
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? |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2011 at 20:09
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! |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date 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' |
Posted By: Baal Melqart
Date 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 |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2011 at 18:22
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.
|
Posted By: Baal Melqart
Date 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 |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2011 at 20:10
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2011 at 20:12
|
Refuted easily as a number of witnesses were there to include ST. John. CC. http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/witnesses-crucifixion.html - http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/witnesses-crucifixion.html Gospel of JohnThe 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".  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' |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2011 at 20:22
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' |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2011 at 20:58
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.)
|
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2011 at 03:17
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament - 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great - Cyrus the Great by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophon - Xenophon in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_%28Xenophon%29 - Anabasis . In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple - Second Temple era Judaism 'paradise' came to be associated with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden - Garden of Eden and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_to_Come - prophesies of restoration of Eden ...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise - 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 reputation  for doing such things .------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2011 at 04:19
|
Here, the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one, not Nirvana.Sorry DQ.... it questionably might merely be semantics on my part but the above... imo... infers a uniqueness established by yourself when ya state... the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one......it then follows logically that an assignment of superiority is thus also to be inferred if not directly..as you so state.... but ntl presents itself obliquely. As Christianity first and foremost.... remains essentially a Hebrew offshoot with later significant divisions and separations and even additons of other cultures to include the paganistic. No arguement there. And while I note it has been influenced by others thru the Hebrew development. I will continue to reject a significant or at this point even a moderate nexus of the Egyptian. As I remain not satisfied that a serious nexus between the Hebrew exists with the Egyptian given my understanding of the sources which would define the developement of Hebrew doctrine. We agree but disagree. But as usual, a fine discourse which I continue to appreciate.  ------------- "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' |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2011 at 04:46
I found this to be particularly interesting when talking about connections between Egyptian and later beliefs.
------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2011 at 05:20
|
Good stuff Alani and I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. It still does not however give me enough.... even with the purported (author's conjecture-analysis and opinion) similarities vs. dissimilarities to change my opinion at this time... if for no other reason then that stated in the conclusion: ''But, rather than being a case of direct borrowing, they demythologize the Egyptian concepts and form a polemic against the Egyptian gods.'' This remains an indicator, to me, that the Egyptian influence while certainly there for the taking was rejected as the Hebrews continued to develop their doctrine as prescribed by their founding patriarchs. On this the author and I can agree....even though I challenge the contention that he makes as to a dominant superiority over other theologies in the region. That there will be periods of/in the then and now... that apostasies were to occur is immaterial... imo...to the development as a whole that was to eventually impact Christianity. Thanks again.
------------- "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' |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2011 at 05:36
|
Here you have all those ancient Egyptian myths translated in original so just compare them with Bible: http://www.egyptianmyths.net/ - http://www.egyptianmyths.net/ |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2011 at 07:00
------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2011 at 16:00
No, I didn't infer uniqueness - in fact the idea for Paradise is a Mesopotamian one, with Eden, and most probably passed in Egypt from there together with the Dying God /Dumuzi/ who became Osiris in Egypt. I may as well say that the Egyptian Paradise is a copy of the Mesopotamian .just the Egyptians put it backwards - you get it after you die, and it you fit the bill - Mesopotamian didn't have this nuance/ - just an old idea that traveled back and forth in time. Semantics can be very slippery surface in inter-cultural communication an bring major misunderstandings, so if the word "copy" bothers you I can use "borrowing' or "reused idea" . I didn't mean any of the logical followings you mentioned as coming from the word "copy" - I used it in the meaning of "culturally borrowed idea".Yes, Christianity is a logical continuation of Judaism - I said this several times, and Judaism is a offshoot of Mesopotamian mythology. As for which nexus exist - I'm not interested in nexuses only in inherited influences, random and equal. I don't even use the word "nexus" because it implies superiority of the influence. When it comes to Christianity as a religious philosophy, the Greek element there is far stronger than the Hebrew one - as the Greko-Alexandrian philosophical schools like Agustin, Tertullian etc built a religious edifice out of 4 gospels that say what Jesus supposedly said; so, there is a big difference between Christianity as it's nut and the philosophy of it which I IMHO is more Greek that Jewish. This is not a nexus either - this is the fact that the message of 4 obscure gospels written in Greek to start with were taken by professional philosophers versed in Greek ways and moled according to those ways - there is more Plato in Augustine that anything else. ------------- |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2011 at 06:41
First opposition party in my country after socialism fail did the same Karalem!But heavens are so far away from here!Except for those that have passed away from here (dead indeed!)without posts on Facebook,Heavens department.  |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2011 at 07:15
I remember in the past reading quite a bit about how Greek Philosophy has influenced Christianity, and have found something on it here:
------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2012 at 21:07
|
Though highly unlikely, it is possible Christ survived being crucified. Indian fakirs can enter trances to appear dead (aided by intoxicants), sometimes for days. Jesus' family may have bribed the Romans to take him down then brought him to the tomb where he was revived by his most trusted disciple: not Peter or St Mark, but Mary Magdalene
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2012 at 22:23
|
Revisionism...secularisation attacks to destroy Christianity...Dan brown fantasy...did not work then... don't work now. No data... no evidence.... merely speculation based on revisionist interpretation. BUT....the reason why I admire my English moderator associate, fellow member of AE and friend.... is that he requires...desires... and deliberately chooses to make YOU think. even m e....And for that, as far as I am concerned... he remains and continues to gain high marks.  ------------- "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' |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2012 at 00:10
|
Well, the Romans developed the art of killing humans through crucifiction to a fine art, I doubt very much that anyone would survive it. Besides Jesus was pierced in the side, which punctures his lung, no one would survive such an injury in those times, he would die from infection even if surviving everything else. I don't think being crucified is survivable anyway; and he already had 40 lashes, which would bleed and infect him a great deal; so, if by some miracle he survived the wounds, and wasn't pierced in the side, he would die from infections anyway - he had too many injuries to cure without the help of antibiotics. The only way that is plausible, IMHO, if is one adopt the Monophysite theory that he had only one nature, a divine one, so then he couldn't have died in the first place - but this is theological, not historical POV. ------------- |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2012 at 09:37
|
C.V., Were some concrete irrefutable evidence to be uncovered that the historical 'Jesus' traveled as far as the India of his time to study Buddhism, it wouldn't alter the fact that his followers founded a new religion, and that Jesus himself was a practicing Jew. Ergo, Christianity would go on as it is. The problem with any subject that touches upon religion or religious figures is that posters are expected to respond using reason to debate or touch upon subjects based upon faith. ------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: Leroy
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2012 at 14:21
| Yes, Jesus was a Buddhist and the Cult of the Virgin Mary was based on that of Isis and other mother goddesses because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc - correlation equals causation – obviously. Really, why attempt to judge a thing on its own merits when we can base it on parallel origins? Historical accuracy and logical thinking be buggered. |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2012 at 20:22
The Romans used salt water to clean wounds: a very simple antibiotic. They also had primitive anaesthetics, most notably wine mixed with myrrh ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2012 at 23:55
The cult of Mary being another aspect of mother goddesses is not based on correlation or causation, I wrote about this - it's based on human cultural-psychological archetypes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype , there is a big difference between one and the other. For the archetypes one can use Jung as a source. You may not accept this theory, this is your choice, but please don't simplify and change what I said and turn it in something else. I explained the difference between cultural borrowing and cultural-psychological archetype before addressing you, so it cannot be said I didn't make this distinction; so to bring my argument to a straw-men is not a valid argumentative technique. We are here to discuss with arguments, not to flare flame wars. So, there is nothing in common between Jesus being Buddhist and the archetyping Mary on Mother-Goddess cult, don't put them in one bag. Let's keep on the OP here - if you have arguments against Jesus being a Buddhist, we are welcome to share them. Sarcasm is not a fruitful method of discussing anything and don't contribute to the positive atmosphere in any given conversation - just a suggestion. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2012 at 00:10
On wounds and injuries of the type one has after being flayed with 40 lashes, his back torn apart in 40 places and the kidnes tenderized, and the hands and feet pierced with big thick nails - they weren't using some small thin things we use now, these were nails that took hand of your palm away. Look at the size of this nail, it will tear apart every bone it went into, and then the bone would split up to it's length /a far smaller nail tears a big plank apart if nailed at once, I had played a carpenter couple of times, let alone such thick thing in live tissue/:  http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-a-stone-box-a-rare-trace-of-crucifixion/ - http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-a-stone-box-a-rare-trace-of-crucifixion/ The crucifiction thing was designed to kill, not just to injure or punish - it was a death sentence, nothing less, no one could survive it; if they could, it wouldn't be a death sentence. ------------- |
Posted By: Leroy
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2012 at 11:40
|
Don Quixote, my response was not for you but for the people in this thread and many others that point to parallels and imply a causal relation, thereby committing a logical fallacy. (So I think your accusation of me simplifying and changing your words is unfair.) To avoid the fallacy of false cause and irrelevant conclusion (genetic fallacy) we have to ask ourselves these three questions: Is the parallel dependent or independent? Is it consequent or antecedent? Is it accepted by its counterpart as positive, neutral or negative?
I do not accept any theory of a collective unconscious, or collective dreams deriving from a collective unconscious, because, besides having no scientific basis, it is, more importantly, not needed as a theory of diffusion from a common source. Archeology and anthropology sufficiently explain human similarities. |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2012 at 12:58
|
Well, this is your choice to accept it or not; I do accept it exactly because I find it scientifically based, and locks up with anthropological info from other sources,plus religious psychology/mythopoetic perseption of sources like Joseph Campbell and Mircha Eliade; moreover it makes a case for we coming to the world with the idea of divinity already imprinted in our brains, so this a a possible case for creation; but this is another story. I can make a thread on it one day, because the question of archetypes, whether psychological or cultural, or both, is a very wide topic and requires much attention and sourcing. I'm not attempting to convince you or anyone else in what I think, all I want is to be known that what I think is not because of simple case of causality; because I value you as a discussion partner and don't want gross misunderstandings from either side to obscure an interesting conversation. I suppose a direct communication with using a name would help to avoid such confusions in he future .------------- |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2012 at 21:07
|
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. Alternatively, someone else impersonating Christ (Judas, perhaps) might have been crucified in his place, while the real Jesus went into hiding
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2012 at 21:39
|
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 apocriphal works, like the letters of Pilate to Herod and to the Roman emperor, that claim that Jesus was around and preaching, and Pilat'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 Orpheic 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2012 at 10:25
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 - 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. |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date 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 - 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2012 at 20:02
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 02:01
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. 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' |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 11:38
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. |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 14:36
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date 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! |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date 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.  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' |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 23:10
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' |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 23:58
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. ------------- "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' |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2012 at 00:21
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.  ------------- "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' |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2012 at 14:05
Going back to the OP
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-ISSA - http://www.scribd.com/doc/76374838/4/THE-LIFE-OF-SAINT-ISSA is 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. |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2012 at 19:04
exactly what the thread needed, thank you, Sid. Great primary source too to assist those like me who haven't encountered them before, cudos for that.------------- |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date 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! |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2012 at 16:53
|
"Jesus was buddhist....this I know. Because on AE they tell me so. Little ones to him still belong; because they need to be weak and not strong." Yes Jesus loves me! Yes Jesus loves me! Yes Jesus Loves me! I was wrong all these years;  But now with Jesus as a buddhist all is clear. You to can change and sing this new song; Cause with Jesus as a buddhist none are wrong. Yes Jesus loves me! Yes Jesus loves me! Yes Jesus Loves me! Ole Saint Pete and Saint Paul didn't know what they was talking about; Oh no not at all. Yes Jesus loves me! Yes Jesus loves me! Yes Jesus Loves me! Mother Mary was just a freak she never done none of that stuff; of what they speak. Yes Jesus loves me! Yes Jesus loves me! Yes Jesus Loves me! I sure was wrong all these years;  But now with Jesus as a buddhist all is clear. You to can change and sing this new song; Cause with Jesus as a buddhist none are wrong. Yes Jesus loves me! Yes Jesus loves me! Yes Jesus Loves me! Jesus was buddhist....this I know. Because on AE they tell me so. Little ones to him still belong; because they need to be weak and not strong. Yes Jesus loves me! Yes Jesus loves me! Yes Jesus Loves me!'' sung to the traditional ''Jesus Loves Me" music.  ------------- "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' |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2012 at 21:47
|
All right CV, I'll sign up for your congregation, that is, if you don't mind a real practicing Buddhist. The very idea of Jesus being a Buddhist is an oxymoron. Now, there is such a thing as a Zen Christian, and even a few Christians who are Zen practitioners. But had the historical Jesus even adopted Buddhist meditation practices, for which there is no evidence, he would still have been a practicing Jew whose followers founded what became Christianity, ps. My onw personal Koan for Christians is this: Were you suddenly to discover irrefutable evidence that the historical Jesus was a mere man, would you still be a Christian? (in the sense of following the teachings of Christianity) It appears to me that if they answer yes, they would be true Christians, as opposed to the kind of people who get into religion simply as an insurance policy against possible damnation. ------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2012 at 23:37
------------- "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' |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2012 at 07:55
Gandhi seemed to approve of Jesus' teachings. He once famously said "I like Christ, but not Christians, because Christians are so unlike Christ" ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2012 at 12:19
|
Yup well the ole G man had his share of bigotry and other alleged probs...so his views on Christianity vice christians might be considered suspect. And no Jesus was not a Hindu. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/28/mahatma-gandhi-bisexual-_n_841410.html - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/28/mahatma-gandhi-bisexual-_n_841410.html
------------- "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' |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2012 at 18:02
No. The simple answer is that Christianity under Emperor Constantine was a mish-mash of many previous religions including paganism, in order to allow Constantine to placate and pacify as many of his subjects as possible under his new church. This leads to lots of references that appear to be similar individuals and occurrences throughout written history, such as The Biblical Flood of Noah, which was directly plagiarized from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. Don't forget, too, that new gods and new religions have to meet pre-existing standards, so they must be gods or sons of gods, born of virgins, capable of performing miracles, healing the sick and raising the dead, and capable of resurrection. They also have to be somehow responsible for The Creation of Everything. Otherwise they aren't in the running. ------------- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2012 at 08:22
Some things are relevant for both Jesus and Buddha. Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary, Buddha's mother was impregnated by a white elephant. Jesus died on the cross, Buddha nearly starved to death under a tree. Both defeated mighty demons. On the other hand Buddha never claimed to have created the world and rarely mentioned the gods ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: heyamigos
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2012 at 06:05
| I feel that Jesus would have certainly agree that Buddhism was from God. he himself was a man of peace and wanted to get away from some harsh doctrines/dogma of the Old Testament and Judeo aspects |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 19-May-2014 at 00:44
| Krishna is a shepherd not Buddha!He was a stereotype used for Jesus in peaceful form. |