Freethought Nation

my main point was that there are overlapping ideas among religions which are merely universal themes. It doesn't mean that christianity "stole" anything from buddhism.

i don't see how you can get that interpretation from that passage. Besides, that interpretation doesn't square with Jesus' other statements where He wholeheartedly endorsed the law of moses:

Matthew 5:17-18, Matthew 7:12, Matthew 12:5, Matthew 22:40, Matthew 23:23, Luke 16:17, Luke 24:44

Jesus showed a profound knowledge of and respect for the law.

first, it's my understanding that there is not good evidence that apollonius traveled to india. Second, even if he did, there's still no evidence that first century jews had buddhist writings and were incorporating these wildly different ideas into their theology.

jews would rip their clothes at the idea of YHWH not existing or YHWH being impersonal. Jesus' life and ministry could not have been more disparate from buddhism than it was. It's hard to believe that this would not be blatantly obvious. Again, the third quest for the historical Jesus has done much to put this into proper perspective.

Dear Trae;

You wrote

"my main point was that there are overlapping ideas among religions which are merely universal themes. It doesn't mean that christianity "stole" anything from buddhism."

Yes, you must also admit that there is borrowing and rewording and according to the present academic standards for plagiarism the gospels are found to be lifted from Buddhist texts.



YOu wrote;

" i don't see how you can get that interpretation from that passage. Besides, that interpretation doesn't square with Jesus' other statements where He wholeheartedly endorsed the law of moses"

When asked about the most importand commandment Jesus does not pick one of the 10 commandments, here Moses' God does not agree with Jesus. Jesus picks which laws he likes just as the Buddha did with Brahma.

You wrote:

"jews would rip their clothes at the idea of YHWH not existing or YHWH being impersonal. Jesus' life and ministry could not have been more disparate from buddhism than it was. It's hard to believe that this would not be blatantly obvious. Again, the third quest for the historical Jesus has done much to put this into proper perspective."

-Jesus never uses the name YHWH, he does say that his father's name is bleessed. If we are to take this as a historical quote we should obviously expect a disciple to ask "what is his name?" Dr. Lindtner has shown how the followers of the Lotus sutra were urged to spread the Buddha's name and religion by allusive language (samdha-bhasya), In this sutra we read of a bodhisattva who was beaten for telling people that they have the Buddha nature in them, similar to why some were said to persecuted Jesus, we learn that the next Buddha Maitreya was called "seeker of fame" and the second soming Jesus figure also vainly seeks out glory, we read that Sariputra can be possessed by the Devil, same said of Simon Peter (both said to walk on water with the help of thier master), we read that, because it makes the heart grow fonder, the Buddha fakes his sickness and death (also seen in the gospels) we read that protectors of the chosen one should take up swords which explains why Jesus changes his mind about swords and tells his future followers that they should buy them, we read that some of the righteous Buddhists may be poisoned but that they will be unharmed (same in the goapels) many other parallels in this sutra and in other Buddhist sutras.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. First, there is no historical evidence whatsoever that first century jews had possession of Buddhist texts. Second, jewish theology is wildly different than Buddhism so if they were borrowing, they weren’t doing a good job of it. third, all belief systems have some areas that overlap with other belief systems because they address issues that are common to all people. That in no way means that first century jewish Christians were stealing from Buddhism. I’m sure that exercise could be carried out for any two religions.

as I said, your assertion doesn’t square with the rest of the accounts of Jesus’ life from the verses I cited. To adhere to this thinking is to be very, very selective about which passages are being used for substantiation.

jews so revered God that they did not speak His name commonly. Jesus not saying YHWH should not be a surprise.

my previous response should be sufficient to show that this is purely circumstantial and nothing more.

Jesus in no way suggested that people have God in them nor was He persecuted for that. He was persecuted because it was blasphemy for Him to make Himself equivalent with God.

the parousia is not about Jesus seeking glory. It’s about establishing God’s authority on earth

I don’t see how this is an example of Christians borrowing from Buddhism. This is just people being people; accusing others of various things. That kind of thing goes on constantly in every society.

perhaps you could elaborate on the passage in the gospels you are referring to

I’m not following you here. Jesus does not advocate violence which would be the opposite of the “protectors” taking up arms. also, are you suggesting that the disciples are protectors?

so far, I’m not seeing any parallels whatsoever. The examples you have listed so far are incidental. They don’t address the core beliefs that I have already referred to. jews were ardently monotheistic and YHWH is a personal creator, not an impersonal force with various modes. This lends itself to a completely different theological motivation even if some of the particulars of the praxes are superficially similar.

Dear Trae,

You keep writing about Christianity as if it is identical to Jewish theology, many Jews would disagree with you. You imply that Jesus was fond of all OT laws, as I have reminded you it is Jesus who says, in regards to what you call the law of his Father/God, "You have heard it said......., but I tell you do not (paraphrase)"

Most reformers borrow existing terminologies, if Jesus said Moses' God was wrong he would have had next to no followers. He does exactly what Buddha does with Brahma, that is slightly change the definition of Brahma and this is why the God of Jesus is different from the Jewish God.

You wrote;

" there is no historical evidence whatsoever that first century jews had possession of Buddhist texts"

Firstly, would you say that the NT authors were Jewish or Christian. According to you is there any difference?

-As I have pointed to before, the lives of Job, Solomon and Daniel have parallels in the Buddha legend. These parallels, like the Buddha/Jesus parallels, cannot be due to similar religious themes as Solomon orders a child to be cut in half while the Buddha orders him to be pulled apart in order to test the real mother. Job pulls his hair out and put on rags, same said of MahaVira and Buddha. The story of Susanna attached to Daniel only makes sense in the Buddhist original (see Professor Thundy's book, Buddha and Christ, Nativity scenes from the Indian tradition).

-Also, although the Jews denied it, their later fable 'The Monk and the Prince' is a rewording of the Christian tale of Barlaam and Josaphat which all agree was a Christian plagiarism of the Buddha legend.

I wrote; "we read that, because it makes the heart grow fonder, the Buddha fakes his sickness and death (also seen in the gospels)"

You replied "perhaps you could elaborate on the passage in the gospels you are referring to"

Jesus never says that he will be killed, he says that he will sleep in the belly of the earth for three days before "getting up", in other words he only appeared to die so that the lowly would pity him (same in Lotus sutra), also he says that if he would not appear to go the holy ghost could not come.

You wrote; "Jesus in no way suggested that people have God in them nor was He persecuted for that."-REALLY??
"I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you"- John 14:20. "even greater things you shall do", etc, etc...

the third quest for the historical Jesus has conclusively shown that the best way to understand Christology is within the first century jewish context. Trying to make Jesus out to be a wandering Mediterranean philosopher (second quest) or, worse, a Buddhist, runs counter to what we know from history. So, yes, Judaism and early christianity are so close they are almost synonymous. The first Christians were orthodox jews. They went to synagogue regularly. They disagreed with other orthodox jews on whether or not Jesus was the prophecied messiah. Later on, Christians did diverge socially from Judaism and at that point, jews would be correct in noting differences in praxis.

first, I cited several passages where Jesus ardently affirms the law. Second, your specific reference is a good illustration of matthew 5:17. Jesus isn’t contradicting the law as you are asserting. He is building on it. He asks followers to understand the motivation. Jews were being led into a very legalistic outworking of the law and were, consequently, practicing the minimum. Jesus is instructing on how to understand the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. He certainly didn’t do anything to contradict them.

to make this assertion is take completely take Jesus out of context. What Jesus is actually doing is correcting some of the views that had developed based on the politically and socially motivated actions of jewish leadership (Pharisees, saducees, herodians, etc). Jesus isn’t pointing to a new way. He’s righting the ship (e.g. overturning the money changing tables in the temple). The Father that Jesus refers to is in every way identical to the orthodox view of YHWH. At no time in the gospels is the issue YHWH. The issue is Jesus’ connection with YHWH. The question was always whether or not Jesus was the divinely authoritative messiah or was He merely a prophet or was He merely a revolutionary.

both. They were jews that believed Jesus was the prophecied messiah. A good illustration of this was the circumcision controversy. It’s clear that the first Christians were so jewish, they hadn’t even put much thought into gentiles becoming converted or, if they were, were they going to be held to jewish practices such as circumcision.

while these are curious, they don’t address what I have already mentioned; the core beliefs of the two religions. If Christians were borrowing, they weren’t doing a good job of it. the jews would be absolutely appalled at Buddhist notions which strikes at the heart of the alleged parallels. If Buddhist beliefs would have been (and still are) anathema to jews, then the alleged parallels break down because of the motivations of the individuals despite any similarities in the stories. Again, it requires a surreptitious selectivity to make the parallels seem genuine.

I’m not sure why you would say that. He predicted His death more than once. In mark 10:33, He uses the word thanatos. In the next verse, He uses the word apokteino. Both of these words literally mean death of the body, not sleep or slumber.

the historical evidence for Jesus’ death is strong. The romans were masters at torture and execution. Jesus was stabbed in the pericardium to verify His expiration. His knees weren’t even broken because His expiration was so sure.

in john 14:21-25, Jesus distinguishes between His followers and the world. Therefore, He wasn’t saying people have God in them in an unqualified way. since that’s the case, we have to figure out how the statement is being qualified. If Jesus believed that people have a divine nature, He wouldn’t have made the distinction in Matthew 19:17 that "There is only One who is good.” This stands in stark contrast to buddhist beliefs in becoming divine by enlightenment. Jesus is not only establishing that only God is divine, He is also claiming to be God. He then instructs the person to keep God’s commandments, not seek enlightenment through the eightfold path. Another example of how Jesus could not have been expressing Buddhist thoughts is His personification of God. Jesus prayed to the Father in the garden of gethsemane. He continually explained God in personal terms such as in matthew 6:26. No Buddhist would do such a thing yet, it was completely in character for an orthodox jew. Jesus’ actions here clearly show He doesn’t believe people are “in God” in a Buddhist sense. The prayer in matthew 6:9 exemplifies an attitude of worship which is a foreign concept to a Buddhist. This again underscores the distinction between the jewish belief in the creator/created and the Buddhist belief in the unity.

Dear trae,


When I wrote Jesus never mentions that he will be killed I remind you that the figure of Jesus is sure of his eternal life, he predicts another coming in which he sees himself in a future state, but he does appear to die which is explained in the Lotus sutra as an epediant and how much greater would this epediant be if Jesus was only a myth? Time and time again the figure of Jesus is using cryptic speech "render to Caesar" -the king's son exempt, but Jesus did pay taxes and one wonders if this man-wonder actually paid for the stake on which he was nailed on for a short while?

You wrote

" It’s clear that the first Christians were so jewish"

This is because the Buddhists were trying to convert the Jews.

You wrote :

"the jews would be absolutely appalled at Buddhist notions which strikes at the heart of the alleged parallels"

This is why a Buddhist who attempted to reform Judaism must have done so in the guise of an authentic "Jewish" teacher

You wrote:

"the historical evidence for Jesus’ death is strong." -The historical evidence for his life are weak

you wrote: "If Jesus believed that people have a divine nature, He wouldn’t have made the distinction in Matthew 19:17 that "There is only One who is good.”

-Read again, besides Jesus using the phrase "good man" and agathon alot, in the original Greek we have the unmistakable pun on Tathagata, as it should be read Jesus is saying "why call me Tathagata" or Tou-agathou.

You wrote ; " Jesus is not only establishing that only God is divine, He is also claiming to be God."

-You just wrote that even Jesus distinguishes himself from God (only One who is good, also found in Gnostic Thomas where it is explained better)


You wrote;

" He then instructs the person to keep God’s commandments, not seek enlightenment through the eightfold path"


Jesus preached both the eightfold path and the four noble truths, I cover this in my book and again it is better seen in the gnostic texts where, like the Buddha of Mahayana texts, Jesus is more forthcoming.

next you wrote: " Another example of how Jesus could not have been expressing Buddhist thoughts is His personification of God. Jesus prayed to the Father in the garden of gethsemane. He continually explained God in personal terms such as in matthew 6:26. No Buddhist would do such a thing"

-The Buddhists personified the Buddha and did exactly the same thing.


You wrote " The prayer in matthew 6:9 exemplifies an attitude of worship which is a foreign concept to a Buddhist"


-Again in this we can find several Buddhist originals, but also in the Greek we have more of Jesus allegorically referencing Buddha as the word for hallowed is an anagram for Tathagata the message of "forgiveness" and confession were Buddhist and Sir William Jones had to reming Christian missionaries in Asia that they were preaching nothing new by quoting the Buddhist stance that a good man even in the moment of his destruction, to consist not only in forgiving, but even in a desire of benefiting his destroyer, as the sandal tree, in the instant of its overthrow, sheds perfume on the axe which fells it.

a second coming does nothing to disprove His actual death. They are not mutually exclusive.

as i said before, He actually does appear to die. The historical evidence is solid and i gave a very good reason why it is considered so.

not sure if i'm following you. Perhaps you could elaborate.

i think you're implying that Jesus engineered a feigned death to gain attention. Aside from the historical evidence to the contrary, what is the motivation? He stood to gain more by living. His movement was just getting started.

the first christians were nothing like buddhists. In my previous post, i outlined several profound differences between buddhist beliefs and christian beliefs. The first christians would have been absolutely horrified at pagan buddhist beliefs.

this is an interesting theory but it doesn't explain why Jesus' teachings were so radically different from buddhism. If Jesus was a buddhist, then He was the worst one ever. I gave three examples.

it should be clear from my conversation with aluva that the academic community has been in agreement for nearly 200 years that the evidence is actually quite good and this includes scholars who are under no obligation to christianity whatsoever. You might be right in the end but, as of now the evidence does not support your conclusion. I gave a detailed case on how the evidence for Jesus is better than pretty much every other person from antiquity. Caesar is a good example.

again, you're missing the point. Jesus is establishing a distinction between the divine and the non divine. This is not a buddhist concept. Jesus is advocating the exact opposite of what you claim.

not exactly. Jesus distinguishes Himself from the first person of the trinity. He is distinct in that sense but, still God. Also, He distinguishes us from God. This is clearly not a buddhist concept. The first christians, first century jews, even Jesus Himself, gave absolutely no indications that they believed a person could become the equivalent of divine by reaching enlightenment; one of the core beliefs of buddhism. They would have rioted at such a concept.

we'll have to agree to disagree because i've already shown several distinct, explicit examples of how not only is Jesus' teachings contradictory to buddhism but, they are in line with orthodox judaism which is also very much in contradiction to buddhism.

the gnostic gospels are not a good source. They are known to have errors. That's why they were rejected from the canon by pretty much everyone in antiquity. They are contrary to the eyewitness accounts.

gautama buddha is not worshipped anything like YHWH is worshipped. Buddha is an example for enlightenment. YHWH is the personal creator of everything and to be worshipped as the righteous giver of all things. Buddha merely exemplifies the qualities that jews claim God actually is. That is a monumental difference.

again, buddhism is a nontheist worldview. Judaism and christianity are theist worldviews. At their very core, they are fundamentally polar opposites. Your quote illustrates what i referred to earlier as a prima facie exemplar. There are overlapping praxes which could be true of any two religions, no matter how different they are. This means that things like the supposed anagram are merely coincidental. Furthermore, an anagram is a stretch anyway. It's too veiled to have any literal consequence.

Dear Trae,


You keep insisting that Buddha was not a personalized God rather, as you write "an impersonal force with various modes" . While it is true that the Siddhartha figure constantly downplays the importance of his personality, or human character, we see that he was quickly deified after his time. As one scholar writes "The Buddhistic religion and philosophy are the same as that of the Brahmins with the exception being that the Buddhist personify God" (Ludwig B. Larsen) But this is also evident well before the said of time of Jesus Buddhists were worshipping him as a person. For instance it was said that Upagupta made a deal with the devil so that he would show Upagupta Buddha as a person, many other examples.

Overall you are very confused as you jump back and forth on Jesus being God and not-God. For example when I wrote " besides Jesus using the phrase "good man" and agathon allot, in the original Greek we have the unmistakable pun on Tathagata, as it should be read Jesus is saying "why call me Tathagata" or Tou-agathou."" you wrote “again, you're missing the point. Jesus is establishing a distinction between the divine and the non divine. This is not a buddhist concept. Jesus is advocating the exact opposite of what you claim". Again you are missing the obvious fact that Jesus is downplaying his divinity just as the Buddha did, they both also at times, to the conceited (the Sakas and the elite Jews), they claim to be the highest God that has ever been.

in the "good" Samaritan it is the polytheistic person who God is pleased with and by this parable Jesus seems to suggest that God is acting through him. Again many Buddhist parallels such as the Buddhist saying that All good things that have ever been said have been said by the Buddha". Again the point is that it is the Buddha acting through, or the Buddha spirit and also that he is the logos.

you wrote: "again, buddhism is a nontheist worldview". Please tell me where you got this idea from.


you wrote: "This means that things like the supposed anagram are merely coincidental. Furthermore, an anagram is a stretch anyway. It's too veiled to have any literal consequence" -Did you know that the ancient Jews, Greeks and Indians used anagrams? Besides are you aware that Jesus is saying Hallowed is your name (father), You claim that he does not say this name because the Jews did not makes no sense also keeping in mind that Jesus tell God that he has revealed his (God's) name to men (John 17:6 and John 17:26)



I wrote " He {Jesus} does appear to die"

You commented "as i said before, He actually does appear to die. The historical evidence is solid and i gave a very good reason why it is considered so"

I was obviously referring to the gospel storyline

Buddhism as a whole rejects the notion of god so larsen’s quote is really not indicative of the worldview with the exception of a few schools of Mahayana. Even in the few exceptions, the concept of god bears little resemblance to YHWH.

it may seem that way if you’re unfamiliar with the hypostatic union. Jesus had two natures; His divine nature as the second person of the trinity and His human form as Jesus who ministered, died and was resurrected.

you still haven’t addressed the point I continue to bring up to you. if Jesus was a Buddhist, then His version of Buddhism is unrecognizable from the former. I have already pointed out several profound differences between His life and the concepts of Buddhism yet, you continue to not address them and bring up these incidental, coincidental similarities. To be as blunt as possible – Jesus preached theism, Buddhism is nontheistic.

the polytheism of the Samaritan had nothing to do with the parable. One message was Jesus reminding the jews that God loves all people, not just the jews. The outworking of this message is that the gospel is to be shared with the gentiles, not just the jews. Another message was that all people should show compassion.

this would be implicitly true of every parable but I’m not sure how you’re making the connection of this point to the specific story.

I’m not following how you are getting this from the specific parable or any of Jesus’ sayings for that matter.

I’m not following this statement. Perhaps you could elaborate.

of all the things about Buddhism I have read, I have never read anything to the contrary (the aforementioned Mahayana traditions notwithstanding). Nothing in the four truths or the eightfold path have anything to do with theism or a personal creator. There is no concept of worship in buddism. This is exemplified in Gautama Buddha saying that belief in God is unhealthy because it leads to bhakti and slavery to samsara. It also establishes an insurmountable distinction between the individual and the divine which Buddhism vehemently rejects. Every person is capable of reaching enlightenment and thus participating in the unity. This is in contradistinction to Jesus’ teachings who never suggested that an individual could participate on the level of God because of the creator/created dichotomy. the differences between the two (theist vs nontheist) could not be more plain. As an experiment, google “god in Buddhism” and see what returns you get. I would be interested in your response.

that they did serves as no kind of proof that Jesus was a Buddhist. Aside from the subjectivity of the anagram, Jesus’ teachings were nothing like Buddhist concepts.

it would make no sense if you’re not familiar with the jewish tradition that YHWH and Jehovah are not words that jews said commonly because the name was held in such reverence. A similar tradition which underscores that one is the wearing of the kippah, especially when reading God’s word, which represents the division between the divine and the non divine, the created and creator, the clean and unclean. Furthermore, in the prayer you cite, Jesus did not use the words YHWH or Jehovah. He used the equivalent of pater which is more of a description than a name

while men did know God’s name and while Jesus was divinity incarnate, this doesn’t mean that jews were running around saying YHWH or Jehovah.

this line of reasoning comes from what is called the second quest for the historical Jesus. it is outdated scholarship and has been superceded by the third quest for the historical Jesus. the historical methods of the second quest scholars (especially the jesus seminar) are a source of hilarity in the academic community. a good example is how crossan selectively chooses certain ancient documents and then invents "layers" by artificially reordering the historical "priority" of certain documents, effectively cooking the evidence. thus, his manufactured "cross gospel". aside from that, he is still working with the outdated notion of a q document which is now fading into historical obscurity. these scholars received media attention because of the shock value of their opposition to certain orthodox groups like fundamentalists and catholics but, their revisionist views never really gained a foothold in academia because of the spurious nature of their enterprise. unfortunately for impressionable people, dan brown has more recently popularized this failed notion in his davinci code book/movie. it does make for good fictional conspiracy storytelling though.

even agnostic bart ehrman (the alleged world's leading authority on the historicity of the NT) doesn't totally align with the jesus seminar on this subject. his main points have been about not having the originals and supposed problems with the copying process as opposed to the alleged late dates of the manuscripts.

needless to say, the historical experts are pretty much in agreement that the earliest writings of the NT date back to the late first century but show clear signs of traditions that are even earlier than that.

trae, you keep harping on about the third quest when it's not nearly as significant as you'd like to believe and it has already been addressed in the book, Who Was Jesus?:



trae, your view of the third quest is much like your very selective views from your thread where you have a blatant disregard for the facts and evidence in order to support your Christian apologist rhetoric and revisionism needed to shore up your faith at all costs. You were demonstrated to be wrong on most of your points yet, you insist on claiming you provided burden of proof even though you did not. All you are doing here at this forum is confirming that you are a biased, delusional Christian who will go on to assert things about a HJ despite the fact that you've been shown to be utterly wrong. It's impossible to have a legitimate debate with someone who is going to insist on being that dishonest. I simply got tired of your BS as it became clear that responding to your posts is an utter waste of time. You need to stay in your own thread. You will not be permitted to troll up other threads.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

What I find funny about this is that the Q Source Theory is very much alive, hell there is a drawn graph showing how the whole "4-Source Theory" works in my Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd Augmented Edition. Recently there has been a 3rd source apart from the Q and L source which has recently been identified as a source for John's and Mark's Gospel (which may have even borrowed from the L source). To say that the Q Source is falling into obscurity is ignoring the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, and The Gospel of Peter, both have been identified as the source labeled for Q, and then there is the Gospel of the Hebrews, which may be the Source referred to as L or another Q source. The Q source wasn't even embraced during the second quest, it was actually embraced somewhere between the end of the second and the beginning of the third quest for the historical Jesus.

I find it interesting that you are viewing Dan Brown's Novel as an historical book, as if he even tried to pass it off as history. Only people who don't even bother to look at the spine or even watch the film would realize that the Da Vinci Code is FICTION!

As far as your bashing John Dominic Cross; I find it interesting that your basically he is a laughing stock because he doesn't side with all the scholars that disagree with him. Wasn't it Alfred Wegener who proposed plate tectonics and was ridiculed even until his death? Wasn't it Ignaz Semmelweis who proposed the idea of Germ Theory and was essentially driven into a mental institution and declared insane? Wasn't it... well I don't think I need to flood the thread with examples about how the consensus argument is completely and utterly bunk.

However what I find interesting is that you didn't even bother to watch the video series I put up. This shows your blatant bias on so many areas.

Please don't feed the trolls. trae has no intention of honest debate here. His only interest is to shore up his faith at all costs.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Dear Trae,

When I wrote that Jesus said that he told people his father's name You wrote: " while men did know God’s name and while Jesus was divinity incarnate, this doesn’t mean that jews were running around saying YHWH or Jehovah" Why have the so called eyewitnesses left this out?

I was aware of the hypostatic union and here, we have Christianity adopt another technical Greek term used by the philosophers (like Kategetes, Arabic speaking Jesus??) which Dr. Lindtner has pointed to as showing the Hellenistic element to Christianity and has further reminded us of the double nature of the Buddha and of him being both man and Brahm (God), both his father and his son, he bleeds yet he is unharmed, etc.. Also it has been convincingly shown that the Buddhists of 300 b.c. had a simultaneously human and superhuman Buddha. Buddha is also the three in one God, that is to say the Buddhists believed that he had three bodies. Paradoxically he exists now before the creation of the world (before Adam, I am) He also had an only son which he appears to forsake and the use of the idea behind an ‘only son’ appears in several Mahayana sutras. He vows to save all except the Devil (and none of them is lost but the Son of Perdition, Devil = Mara which also means perpetual death). He makes his appearance like that of his audience; he appears to be wounded or sickly in order to invoke compassion and sympathy.

You wrote: " you still haven’t addressed the point I continue to bring up to you. if Jesus was a Buddhist, then His version of Buddhism is unrecognizable from the former"
From the earliest of Buddhism it was taught that love was the most important meditation, that the greatest attribute to a person was their ability to be both selfless and compassionate without being mindless or vain. The Buddhist would not hesitate to tell fables and there are many instances in the Jatakas of them constructing their heroes around the religious expectations of any particular locality.

Have you at least considered that, if Jesus was a Buddhist construct, he would have to appear to be authenticated by the God of Moses in order to, at the same time, reform the barbaric laws of Moses’ God? Also, I should also remind you that after the Buddhist king Ashoka claimed that he had abolished animal sacrifices and converted the Greek kings, in both China and with the Mediterranean religions animal sacrifices “died down” and in exactly in these places Buddhist fables began to spread.



“In the morning hour of reawakening reason, when men tried to explain religious traditions without questioning the infallibility of their truth, it must have sorely puzzled many an honest inquirer to reconcile certain dogmas of the Church with the daily evidence of his senses; for instance, the innate purity and candor of young children with the doctrine of natural depravity, or the mental and moral degeneration of the most orthodox communities with the dogma of regeneration by faith.
But wherever indoctrination had not yet utterly deadened the instinct of truth, the most perplexing of all tenets must have been the THEORY which considers the two books of the Christian Bible as consistent and mutually confirmatory parts of a harmonious revelation. Unreasoning faith may have repeated the conventional formulas of that dogma, but only willful blindness could ever defend it upon the internal evidence of the facts”
“When the study of the Oriental classics, that had shed a flood of light upon the etymology of the West-Aryan languages, began to elucidate the mysteries of Biblical exegesis. Dark words were traced to their origin, occult passages assumed a meaning, perplexing contradictions became suggestive analogies. Buddhism not only explained the doctrines of the New Testament, but harmonized them by revealing the root-dogma which forms the connecting link of their logical correlation.” - Felix Leopold Oswald

as i said, the most notable thing the jesus seminar has done is their sensationalism in the mainstream media, not anything in the academic realm. On the other hand, scholars of the third quest are actually the more significant of the two among the historical experts. Scholars know this but, people outside of academia whose only outlet is popular media probably don't. It's interesting that i brought up specifically what is wrong with crossan's work but, you didn't address any of it.

this is, of course, an irrelevant point for this context. What third quest scholars are in agreement on is that the machinations of the jesus seminar are suspect. Contriving a case that the gospels are second century inventions is pretty much laughable from a historical standpoint.

i once again pose my question to you: if this is the case, if this is an accurate statement, then why do jesus seminar fellows continue to write books, lecture and debate on the existence of Jesus? Btw, if there is a failure or a reason for failure of the second quest it isn't for that reason. William lane craig points out the eclipse of mythology when he says "today, however, scarcely any scholar thinks of myth as an important interpretive category for the gospels. The jewish reclamation of Jesus has helped to make unnecessary any understanding of the gospels' portrait as significantly shaped by mythology."

the discussion surrounding the particulars of the evidence for caesar vs Jesus is still open. When you feel up to it, just respond in that thread. Furthermore, you make the mistaken assertion that christian scholars do not know of the "mythicist" position even though they have dealt with these positions. For example, habermas, william lane craig and n. t. wright recount positions that did not maintain a historical Jesus and implied mythological roots for the stories of Jesus such as david f. strauss, rudolph bultmann, g. a. wells, et al. Incidentally, habermas points out that even michael martin shows how g. a. wells' case lacks scholarship.

what i've posted aren't my beliefs. It's the current state of christology. Anyone is perfectly free to read the latest books, peer reviewed material or attend the debates/lectures to find out for themselves.

i never claimed that. I quoted the jesus seminar as putting the burden of proof on anyone thinks the ancient manuscripts are historically accurate thus proving to you that they did not approach the texts with an a priori assumption of Jesus' existence despite your claim that they did.

while the testimonium flavianum shows signs of christian interpolation, there is still valuable historical information to be gained from the account and historical experts have attested to the veracity of those parts of the account. There isn't a scholarly consensus that the accounts from tacitus and suetonius are edited because they don't say anything particularly sensational or controversial. In fact, there is historicity to be gained from them just like in josephus' tf. Aside from these accounts are thallus, pliny the younger, trajan, hadrian, lucian and tertullian. In each case, the accounts yields historical information. i also find it interesting that you tarnish suetonius...

first, it's not my quest. Second, if the position you are advocating is that Jesus didn't exist and/or the accounts of Him are of mythical origins, then this is not a new quest. Those kinds of beliefs have been around since the life of Jesus movement ended with schweitzer. Needless to say, one should question why such ideas have never gained a foothold among the most knowledgeable scholars despite an approximate 200 year life span.

no matter how many times you repeat the accusation, it's still not my contention. It's the contention of pretty much any scholar who has studied christology. it can readily be verified by reading the requisite geschichte. Besides, they're not referring to a movement that is as crystallized as the jesus seminar. They're referring to the reaction to the life of Jesus movement associated with the scholars of the first quest period. second quest scholars started from the assumption that any knowledge of Jesus had to be rooted in real history as opposed to the idea that history was a hindrance to the theological or mythological basis for study of Jesus.

here is a bit of special pleading. It's ok to accuse someone who supports the historical Jesus as being theologically biased but, here is a comment that exhibits a blatant rejection of the supernatural. Why is the one bias any greater than the other? Well, because it fits your dogmatic agenda. moreover, the comment is completely out of context. we're not discussing the probability of miracles. we're discussing the historical Jesus. the "hilarity" isn't about the miraculous. it's about the pathetic historiography of the jesus seminar that exemplifies the intellectual gymnastics required to arrive at the conclusion that the NT is a late invention.

this is nothing more than a provocative, sensational quote because the current evidence does not support it. Even historical experts who are under no obligation to christianity do not agree with this.