Rehashed Jesus

[redhen]

To be honest, though, it doesn't much matter in the overall scheme of thing except to literalist Christians. For the life of me I can't see why liberal Christians can't admit that this is not settled. Liberal Buddhists have no similar problem with the literal Buddha. We know the details of his life, if he really existed, are mostly myth, and that's an end to it. You can still be a Buddhist if you accept the teaching.

There are Buddhists who believe that the Buddha didn't exist? Really?

Buddhist sects always highlight the lineage of their spiritual leaders (Patriarchs) all the way back to the Buddha. It's very important for them to show their authenticity.

[Davros of Skaro]

So where are all the devotees and followers of Hercules today?

There are people that still worship today not Hercules, but his divine father Zeus.

So it must be true?

Edited May 12, 2014 by davros of skaro

[Mr Walker]

So where are all the devotees and followers of Hercules today?

I'd be a bigger follower if his last movie hadn't been so shockingly bad.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Hi Doug,

My mobile phone has a glitch and won't let me copy-paste into a quote from you, so forgive me for not quoting your post to you. I will address the primary points of interest. First, you asked me to tell you how long it's been since I last read the chapter on Josephus - I'd say that answer is about 5 years ago now.

Second, you provided an article from Richard Carrier about Thallus. Below is an article advocating for Thallus.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/thallus-on-the-darkness-at-noon

The author by his comments is quite fundamentalist, it seems. However, he puts that aside to argue "majority consensus". I know you don't like the phrase, but it's the case of things.

Finally, I 100% agree that Thallus was not a witness to Jesus. I never claimed he was. What this does do, though, is attest to the earliness of the oral tradition of the darkness coinciding with the crucifixion.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'll be online for a few days, so if I don't get back to you, I'm not ignoring your response

[redhen]

There are people that still worship today not Hercules, but his divine father Zeus.

So it must be true?

Those examples are all neo-paganist, re-constructionist movements. They are pathetic attempts at trying to invent a religion out of whole cloth.

And since people are still trying to compare Jesus with Horus and present other strained analogies, I'll offer this 7 min video again.

[media=]

[/media]

I am not a Christian, but I do know something of historicity.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Those examples are all neo-paganist, re-constructionist movements. They are pathetic attempts at trying to invent a religion out of whole cloth.

As opposed to the religions that were invented out of?

[Frank Merton]

One does not need believe Gautama was a Buddha to be a Buddhist. Indeed, one does not need to "believe" much if anything. Buddhism is not creedal.

There are numerous schools, commonly divided into the Theravada using the old Pali canon and the Mahayana using a later Sanskrit canon (still very old). I say all this although most people already know it to point out there are tremendous differences of opinion within Buddhism, and one of these is the nature and role of a Buddha.

Still all Buddhists accept all other Buddhists as valid, as far as I know. I personally don't think the figure actually existed in history, although, as with Jesus, you get, "Most scholars say he probably existed." I think there was a cluster of "Buddha" legends that a monastic movement with a particular and well developed perception of existence came to claim as their founder, taking up the legends with it.

The important part is the perception of existence and the prescription for dealing with existence that Buddhism provides. It is not really about authority at all so there is no need to trace it back to some authoritative figure. Indeed most quotes of the Buddha are anti-authoritative, emphasizing the need and responsibility each person has to do what is best in their own eyes and to accept what is reasonable and to pass on what is not.

[redhen]

One does not need believe Gautama was a Buddha to be a Buddhist. Indeed, one does not need to "believe" much if anything. Buddhism is not creedal.

Hmm, I would have thought that taking refuge in the Three Jewels is a creed. It's the essential public statement that is required in order to call oneself a Buddhist.

I personally don't think the figure actually existed in history, although, as with Jesus, you get, "Most scholars say he probably existed." I think there was a cluster of "Buddha" legends that a monastic movement with a particular and well developed perception of existence came to claim as their founder, taking up the legends with it.

I don't want to de-rail this thread to debate the historicity of the Buddha, but thanks for that honest answer. Personally, I don't know any religious practitioner who denies the historical fact of their founder.

The important part is the perception of existence and the prescription for dealing with existence that Buddhism provides. It is not really about authority at all so there is no need to trace it back to some authoritative figure.

Are you saying the Buddhist tradition that you follow has no Patriarch that traces their lineage back to the Buddha?

[Doug1029]

So where are all the devotees and followers of Hercules today?

According to the stories, Hercules was a man, not a god. Except for some of the Caesars and a few other miscellaneous kings, one does not worship men.

Doug

[Frank Merton]

I would suggest you go back and read what you posted carefully. There is no need to confirm the Buddha, just that there exists "Buddha nature" in everyone.

[Doug1029]

Finally, I 100% agree that Thallus was not a witness to Jesus. I never claimed he was. What this does do, though, is attest to the earliness of the oral tradition of the darkness coinciding with the crucifixion.

Actually, one does not need ancient writers to confirm the "great darkness" of March 20, 33 AD. A calculator, a set of equations and a reference point will let you calculate the dates of eclipses going back well into the first millennium BC. Before that, the equations aren't accurate enough to actually name the day. Or you might just google "eclipse" and see what comes up.

And if the 109 BC date is correct, and there is no evidence to argue that it's not, then Thallus does not confirm the darkness surrounding the crucifixion. Because Eusebius quoted Thallus does not make Thallus true. Eusebius isn't known as "the Father of Lies" for nothing.

Doug

[redhen]

I would suggest you go back and read what you posted carefully. There is no need to confirm the Buddha, just that there exists "Buddha nature" in everyone.

Ok, I'll grant you that. This applies to the Mahayana tradition, in particular, Zen. I have a copy of the Zen Teachings of Boddhidharma and it's unsettling for many people the first time they read it.

"To find a Buddha, you have to see your nature." Whoever sees his nature is a Buddha. If you don’t see your nature, invoking Buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, and keeping precepts are all useless. Invoking Buddhas results in good karma, reciting sutras results in a good memory; keeping precepts results in a good rebirth, and making offerings results in future blessings-but no buddha"

Ok, back to Jesus now, sorry for the interruption.

[Davros of Skaro]

Those examples are all neo-paganist, re-constructionist movements. They are pathetic attempts at trying to invent a religion out of whole cloth.

And since people are still trying to compare Jesus with Horus and present other strained analogies, I'll offer this 7 min video again.

I am not a Christian, but I do know something of historicity.

Richard Dawkins made a speech.He mentioned that people no longer worship Zeus, or Thor.To Richard's surprise he received angry mail from worshippers of said deities.Call it what you will, but the fact is people still worship ancient pagan deities though a minority.

You missed my point entirely, and I am not giving credence to sheitgeist.

Do you not find it odd that the only evidence for Jesus is the New Testament?

[HushWhisper]

Richard Dawkins made a speech.He mentioned that people no longer worship Zeus, or Thor.To Richard's surprise he received angry mail from worshippers of said deities.Call it what you will, but the fact is people still worship ancient pagan deities though a minority.

You missed my point entirely, and I am not giving credence to sheitgeist.

Do you not find it odd that the only evidence for Jesus is the New Testament?

Not a true statement you make.

He fulfills all the prophecies concerning Him being the Messiah from the beginning of the book.

So 1 of 2 things must be true here.

You believe in Jesus based on the NT only (according to your own words) or your post as no meaning or purpose at all?

Which is it?

You a believer?

[HushWhisper]

*

Edited May 12, 2014 by HushWhisper

[HushWhisper]

*

Edited May 12, 2014 by HushWhisper

[Davros of Skaro]

Not a true statement you make.

He fulfills all the prophecies concerning Him being the Messiah from the beginning of the book.

So 1 of 2 things must be true here.

You believe in Jesus based on the NT only (according to your own words) or your post as no meaning or purpose at all?

Which is it?

You a believer?

The Gospel writers made the same translation mistakes of the Greek Old Testament the Septuagint.

Jesus rides into town on a Donkey, and a Colt at the same time in the Gospels.Why this awkward way to ride into town on two animals?It's a prophecy fulfillment using a bad translation.

JESUS RIDES TWO ANIMALS AT ONCE! - Matthew 21:7 — They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. [NOTE: A person can't sit on the backs of two animals. The author mistranslated Zechariah 9:9, which actually meant one animal.]

Ha! Busted.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/JesusExist.htm

Edited May 12, 2014 by davros of skaro

[Mr Walker]

I would suggest you go back and read what you posted carefully. There is no need to confirm the Buddha, just that there exists "Buddha nature" in everyone.

That is a fair point of view. I think the same thing about "Christ nature" but I am not sure how many Buddhists or Christians would agree. One could argue (and I would agree) that it is not the existence of god, or any historical religious figure which is important, but their teachings, and the belief or faith their followers have in those teachings.

Ps just as Buddha (or the nature of Buddha) is said to be found within people, so is the kingdom of god and the nature of christ.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Mr Walker

[Doug1029]

Jesus rides into town on a Donkey, and a Colt at the same time in the Gospels.Why this awkward way to ride into town on two animals?It's a prophecy fulfillment using a bad translation.

I can introduce you to a long line of cowboys who have not had any trouble staying on a horse the first time it was ridden. A ground-broke animal doesn't realize it can buck, so it doesn't. But after a few rides, the idea dawns on it and then the fun begins. That Jesus could ride a colt or donkey the first time it was ridden is no miracle, but he may well have needed every animal in town to complete the trip. In that case, two wouldn't be enough.

Doug

[Davros of Skaro]

I can introduce you to a long line of cowboys who have not had any trouble staying on a horse the first time it was ridden. A ground-broke animal doesn't realize it can buck, so it doesn't. But after a few rides, the idea dawns on it and then the fun begins. That Jesus could ride a colt or donkey the first time it was ridden is no miracle, but he may well have needed every animal in town to complete the trip. In that case, two wouldn't be enough.

Doug

I should have been more clear, and descriptive.

Mark, and Luke has Jesus on a Colt (young Horse).

John has Jesus on a young Donkey.

Matthew which is the 2nd Gospel written has Jesus on a Donkey, and a Colt at the same time (which is comical).

Zechariah 9:9 (Greek Septuagint translation)

lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zechariah 9:9 (original Hebrew)

lowly, and riding on a Donkey, even a colt the, foal of an Donkey.

The Hebrew version is being poetic.

The Greek translation has the mistake of switching out "even" for "and".

Matthew 21:7

7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

The author of Matthew used the Septuagint's mistaken translation to fulfill prophecy.

There're many examples to show that the Gospels are symbolic literary creations, but people that talk to Jesus, and feel him will not see it for what it is.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2309.htm

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah+9%3A9&version=KJV

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0879755725?pc_redir=1399808082&robot_redir=1

Edited May 13, 2014 by davros of skaro

[Frank Merton]

The main point I understand about the list of prophesies Jesus supposedly fulfilled is that if you look at them closely they are mainly highly contrived, mostly by Matthew, and he makes a number of mistakes as to what the actual prophesy was. Constructing a story to fit prophesies is not quite the same as actually fitting them.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I should have been more clear, and descriptive.

Mark, and Luke has Jesus on a Colt (young Horse).

John has Jesus on a young Donkey.

Matthew which is the 2nd Gospel written has Jesus on a Donkey, and a Colt at the same time (which is comical).

Zechariah 9:9 (Greek Septuagint translation)

lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zechariah 9:9 (original Hebrew)

lowly, and riding on a Donkey, even a colt the, foal of an Donkey.

The Hebrew version is being poetic.

The Greek translation has the mistake of switching out "even" for "and".

Matthew 21:7

7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

The author of Matthew used the Septuagint's mistaken translation to fulfill prophecy.

There're many examples to show that the Gospels are symbolic literary creations, but people that talk to Jesus, and feel him will not see it for what it is.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2309.htm

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah+9%3A9&version=KJV

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0879755725?pc_redir=1399808082&robot_redir=1

You are aware that your interpretation of the events in Matthew 21 are not the only possible ways of looking at these texts? Probably, but it serves your purpose better to simply ridicule a Jesus jumping from steed to steed in a processional march through town.

[Frank Merton]

You are aware that your interpretation of the events in Matthew 21 are not the only possible ways of looking at these texts? Probably, but it serves your purpose better to simply ridicule a Jesus jumping from steed to steed in a processional march through town.

That it takes "interpretation" to make a story make sense tells the objective viewer volumes.

[Mr Walker]

I should have been more clear, and descriptive.

Mark, and Luke has Jesus on a Colt (young Horse).

John has Jesus on a young Donkey.

Matthew which is the 2nd Gospel written has Jesus on a Donkey, and a Colt at the same time (which is comical).

Zechariah 9:9 (Greek Septuagint translation)

lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zechariah 9:9 (original Hebrew)

lowly, and riding on a Donkey, even a colt the, foal of an Donkey.

The Hebrew version is being poetic.

The Greek translation has the mistake of switching out "even" for "and".

Matthew 21:7

7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

The author of Matthew used the Septuagint's mistaken translation to fulfill prophecy.

There're many examples to show that the Gospels are symbolic literary creations, but people that talk to Jesus, and feel him will not see it for what it is.

http://www.mechon-ma...p/pt/pt2309.htm

http://www.biblegate...9:9&version=KJV

http://www.amazon.co...2&robot_redir=1

Err! did you ever consider that the young version of a donkey or a ass might also be called a foal, and even the word colt might be applied to a slightly older ass or donkey? Does either word, foal or colt, always pertain only to horses?

[Doug1029]

There're many examples to show that the Gospels are symbolic literary creations, but people that talk to Jesus, and feel him will not see it for what it is.

How about just garbled accounts? Don't concentrate on the exact words. Concentrate on the story behind the words. The different authors are telling the same story - the differences tell us something about the writers. Not only different writers, but also different translators - and different copyists.

Doug